Author: Roger Parsons via TowerTalk <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:57:48 +0000 (UTC)
I had been expecting a discussion here on this recent QST article, but there has been very little. So I thought I would jump in. Answering my own question, I do not feel that the article does present
Hi Roger, I asked this same question in 2009 -- of the QST's "The Doctor Is In," but more oriented toward VHF. Here is the answer I received from Gene, W3ZZ (SK). 73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ -- Hi Joel and
Roger - Good thoughts. I was wondering the same about this article as well and expected a different scope of explanation, such as I've run many dipoles through and over trees and wanted to read thoug
One thought that came to mind living in a forest myself, and in California always under the threat of fires; and that is the potential for arcing from the antenna to a tree (depending on distance) po
Larry and Roger, I also read the QST piece with interest, and I agree with Roger and mostly with Gene -- it's a limited, but useful analysis, and I don't find any holes in it as far as it goes. BUT
Here is a better link to the document: https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/publications/2674.aspx I asked this same question in 2009 -- of the QST's "The Doctor Is In," but more oriented toward VHF. Here is
Thanks Chuck -- I thought I had saved a copy but could not find it. 73 -- Larry -- W1DYJ --Original Message-- From: Chuck Gooden Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 13:41 To: towertalk@contesting.com
It seems to me that there are two self evident cases where an object placed close to an antenna does not cause loss: (1) Where the object is perfectly conducting, it may change the radiation pattern,
I believe the article certainly is accurate with respect to trends. The NEC tree models track well with the infinite lossy cylinder closed form solution, which is a good double check. But the real wo
I think the problem with this article, along with many other antenna articles.is they have nobody to proof read and see if this is actually factual or not. I have seen many articles in QST that I rea
Bottom line is: Don't install antennas with trees in the way if you don't have to; otherwise you gotta do what you gotta do. Many times the choices are limited and that's what we work around. Paul, W
I believe that to be true of the editorial staff of QST. I too often find myself disgusted by technical errors in QST. But one of the authors of this piece, KE4PT, has a pretty serious EE education,
But the real world, at least the one around my QTH, doesn't have a single tree to consider but a forest of trees. One of my wire antennas is a full wave loop in a vertical plane fed from a lower corn
On 2/7/18 2:34 PM, Tom Osborne wrote: I think the problem with this article, along with many other antenna articles.is they have nobody to proof read and see if this is actually factual or not. I hav
Author: Patrick Greenlee <patrick_g@windstream.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:06:56 -0600
Proof reading is not the issue. Proof reading will find grammar errors, spelling errors and the like. Technical editing can be a real problem. I have written things that when "simplified" by well i
Sometimes in the publishing business, you run into editors who dont know they dont know. One of the hardest tasks with translating technical subjects into English is making it not only easy to unders