I respect K6LL a lot, but when he says Steve and Wade "apparently" had a
misconfigured antenna, I wonder how he arrived at that conclusion. Both
Wade and Steve are honorable people, and if this information is correct I
would have expected them long since to have acknowledged it and told people
not to rely on their KT-34XA review.
73, Pete N4ZR
At 02:07 PM 10/9/2007, Peter Voelpel wrote:
>At least that explains something, small capacity changes, especially at a
>current node effectively retune antennas.
>
>Wonder why one has to to buy a book to get aware of that.
>
>73
>Peter
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dave Hachadorian
>
>Regarding KT-34XA anomalies:
>
>Toward the end of KLM's production run of XA's, they mistakenly shipped some
>antennas where the 16" length capacitor tubes had a wall thickness of .058"
>instead of the correct .049". This error totally degraded the performance
>of the antenna. Steve and Ward's Antenna Comparison Report apparently used
>one of these bad antennas in their testing, so the results are totally
>non-representative of either a correctly functioning KLM or
>M2 unit.
>
>Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>Yuma, AZ
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|