Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] Worse than MFJ/Cushcraft coils

To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Worse than MFJ/Cushcraft coils
From: john@kk9a.com
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 13:46:38 -0500
List-post: <mailto:towertalk@contesting.com>
Larger SWR bandwidth is certainly an effect of having inefficient loading coils. Whether or not that was the intent I don't know but I am sure a large number of hams believe that a low SWR equals a good antenna.

John KK9A


Gedas W8BYA w8bya wrote:

I wonder if the original designers did that to lower the Q and make the
antenna SWR BW greater with just a slight loss in gain/efficiency. I
know mine was usable over most of the band.

Gedas, W8BYA

Gallery at http://w8bya.com
Light travels faster than sound....
This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

On 9/15/2019 9:50 PM, john at kk9a.com wrote:
The Cushcraft 40m beam coil losses could be greatly improved by using large aluminum wire. https://www.qsl.net/ve6wz/CC_coil.html

John KK9A

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>