Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote:
>> I don't see anything in there that is a reason for implicit mistrust of the
>> model. A helical is better than a high Q base loaded vertical. Helical
>> winding is worse than a lumped mid-loaded antenna. Doesn't seem
>> particularly strange to me. It's somewhere in between. The effective coil
>> height *IS* higher than with base loading, so you get a more favorable
>> current distribution. It's non-optimum in terms of wire length (and hence
>> loss) but there's no reason to assume it's going to be worse than ***all***
>> possible lumped loading coils in various locations.
>
> The point about HWV's is not "do they work?" but "are they worth the
> trouble to build?". If you can cover the entire antenna with windings,
> you can just a well, with a lot less work, cover the center 1% with
> windings and have a center loaded vertical. So we have shown that it
> is easier to make a center loaded vertical than a HWV. We agree that
> the center loaded vertical is at least as good and probably better.
> Can anyone present a "value proposition" to justify the HWV?
>
>
Not for self construction.
However, if one were in the antenna selling business, helical winding
could provide a discriminating (and potentially patentable) feature.
Company A could say: we're selling helically loaded verticals. Company
B could say, Our helical loading (unlike those lame ones from A) has a
non uniform winding pitch. Company C could say, Our helical winding is
made from silver ribbon, reducing the ohmic losses from those lame As
and Bs.
Jim
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|