I really, really wish people would stop making generalities like that
regarding amps versus antennas. Every situation is different, and many
don't even come close to supporting that statement. Here are two
1. Somebody has a 50 foot tree in the back yard of his suburban lot
with a couple of dipoles hung from it, oriented in different directions
and fed with 100 watts on 40m through 15m via a tuner. He's going to
hear most stuff just fine, and the $800 bucks he spends on a good used
amplifier is going to be far more cost effective for making contacts
than whatever he would have to spend to put up a tower, tribander, and a
shorty-40. Less visual impact on the neighborhood as well.
2. Somebody on a large acreage has a decent vertical antenna capable of
tuning both 160m and 80m with a switchable L-network. He can spend a
few hundred dollars for a used amp, lay out a few BOGs or build a
rotatable loop (pennant, K9AY, etc) for better receive, and end up with
a 10 db signal versus the maybe 5 db stronger signal he'd get from
spending the same amount of money on a 4-square or any reasonable
I'm not knocking the advantages of better antennas, and if you check my
web site you'll see that I just sunk a hefty chunk of money into mine
within the last 18 months, but I think the cost effectiveness versus an
amp is an exaggerated generality.
Its from Onion wrote:
> As we all have learned every dollar spent on a antenna equals 5 spent on
> a amp. cant hear 'em=cant work 'em but it QRM's people that can.
TowerTalk mailing list