I think this all reminds me of the bumblebee axiom quoted here (or on
Cq-contest, can't remember), which said that -- and it is fact --
aerodynamic experts, calculating mass and wing surface area, have concluded
the mathematically, bees can't fly. The bees, not knowing any better, just
fly.
I think in the Bert/David scenario (and I'm not being critical either way),
the more important distinction is this: it depends on whether you think ham
radio is a technical hobby where you must calculate every step in every
process to 10 decimal points or whether you think ham radio is primarily an
experimentation hobby where you will try different things and see if they
work.
I would also suggest that which way you lean depends largely on what you
have at stake: if you're planning multiple 190-foot rotating towers with
multiple stacks of monobanders on each, you probably want to be as
reasonably assured as current modelling technology allows that it will work,
that the various antennas are at their optimum heights and that
structurally, it's not going to go all scrapyard on you.
If, on the other hand, you're only risking about $80 in materials from The
Wireman, you are probably more comfortable just putting it up and seeing how
it plays.
In the middle are the guys who want to plan an experiment, pose a
hypothesis, conduct the experiment, prove or disprove the hypothesis and
document the results, irrespective of the size of the investment. (Names
like Sevick, Cebik and Rauch come to mind.)
All are valid in my view and to each their own.
73, kelly
ve4xt
On 9/15/10 10:41 PM, "David Gilbert" <xdavid@cis-broadband.com> wrote:
>
> It depends upon whether you think amateur radio is fundamentally a
> technical hobby where science has merit, or whether you think ham radio
> is a fundamentally a social hobby where opinion and conjecture are good
> enough. I'm not saying which point of view you should take, and there
> are certainly lots of folks that justifiably lean either way, but it's
> probably worth pointing out that you're on the TowerTalk reflector ...
> not Facebook.
>
> 73,
> Dave AB7E
>
>
> On 9/15/2010 7:54 PM, Bert Almemo wrote:
>> Rick,
>>
>> You must have a bad hair day!! If I get great reports and I'm happy with my
>> antenna, are you telling me I shouldn't be?
>> Think about it...
>>
>> Bert, VE3OBU
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: towertalk-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:towertalk-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rick Stealey
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 1:25 PM
>> To: towertalk@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 80-m. Inverted Vee vs. Dipole Performance
>>
>>
>> I've noticed whenever someone is talking about his antenna, ANY antenna, he
>> always is pleased with it's performance. Maybe due to the fact that others
>> give him good signal reports. i.e. Over and over on this reflector you will
>> see someone say he has a certain antenna, up so high, and it is working
>> great for him.
>> It is only when the ham has TWO antennas available to him simultaneously
>> that he is able to say that first antenna that he THOUGHT was so good,
>> really wasn't.
>> Have you ever had someone say to you, "That antenna of yours is doing a
>> great job for you today." ??
>> Ask him how he knows?
>> Think about it........
>> Rick K2XT
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|