Hi Stuart,
> Well, I do not disagree that capture area is all important to great
> antennas. But for the condo owner with antenna restrictions, he is
Capture area or effective aperture is not directly related to
physical size, even though that is a popular misconception used to
tout physically large antennas.
Capture area relates directly only to gain and frequency.
> never going to see the antenna farms that Tom and I love to build of
> horizontal Vee beams, rhombics, Double Extended Zepps, and giant
> loops.
What does that have to do with anything? You said a small loop like
the MFJ loop has 10% efficiency on ten meters. That is totally
untrue!!
> This Cone antenna is for the patio or balcony of the apartment/ condo
> or deed restricted zero lot line homes. It is better than a no
> antenna, a mobile whip or other attempts to radiate in such a volume.
> Nothing more nor less than maintaining reasonable antenna efficiency
> in the face of the obstacles of modern living.
It is technically incorrect to claim any antenna is universally
better than all other systems. This is the especially true since a
cone certainly is not an optimum design for any performance
parameter.
**ALL** small antenna are compromises in some way. Every antenna has
certain advantages, and gives up other things in return.
When we see any claim one antenna is better than all other antennas
and produces very wide bandwidth and very high efficiency in a small
package, it should set off alarm bells!!73, Tom W8JI
W8JI@contesting.com
|