At 10:19 AM 1/1/99 -0600, T A RUSSELL wrote:
>
>
>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:29:11 -0800 "Larry L. Ravlin"
><sheepdip@continet.com> writes:
>>
>>What this all boils down to (and by the way you are absolutely correct
>>in your figures) is "you are better off to sink you bucks into a GOOD
>>antenna than a amplifier.
>>this does not mean that I am against power, far from it, but there is
>>More to gain from a good antenna than there is from a good amp.
>>
>>Larry K0AEY
>
>Dollars per dB is a good way to look at optimizing station design
>for a fixed or limited budget. The tradeoffs can get quite complex
>and require ACCURATE and COMPLETE data. Don't forget the
>cost of a tower and rotor. BTW, Higher is NOT ALWAYS better.
>And, you can never have TOO MANY antennas!
...
I would argue, as well, thatit is fallacious (as K2UVG did) to count double
for antenna dB, on the theory that they help both transmit and receive --
my own belief is that below 6 meters, and maybe there as well,
environmental noise is the limiting factor, not system gain. Hence the
value of directive antennas on all bands, to improve the overall S/N ratio.
As Tom says, the tradeoffs are mighty complex, and every time you change
the baseline by making one improvement or another, they need to be redone.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@contesting.com
Loud is good.
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/ampfaq.html
Submissions: amps@contesting.com
Administrative requests: amps-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-amps@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|