Thats about as professional as an Eham review which is at the crux of this
discussion.
Carl
KM1H
> Jim:
>
> Good points regarding my statement about "proven architecture" - I should
> have more properly stated "as proven thus far by those in the field."
>
> 73,
> Jack
>
>
> On 7/31/2012 4:13 PM, W0UCE wrote:
>> One aspect of the K2AV FCP is KISS. However, experimenting with change
>> of
>> components and proven architecture should anyone opt to do so will
>> produce
>> unfavorable results.
>
> Jack,
>
> "It seems to work good in the places it's been tried" but has never been
> compared in a disciplined manner to something of known performance is
> hardly "proven architecture." Guy has done some excellent engineering
> here, and published it. Now he's getting some serious peer review, with
> suggestions for possible variations on his work. That's how the "state
> of the art" progresses. From where I sit, it appears that the most
> important aspects of his design are the compact dimensions and the field
> cancellation in the dirt, not the transformer.
>
> As an example of this peer review process, Rudy Severns, N6LF, published
> some excellent and disciplined work several years ago on his
> measurements of slightly elevated radial systems for a 40M vertical.
> That work showed that, on 40M, four radials elevated only a foot or two
> were nearly equivalent to many long radials on the ground (he set up
> those and many other conditions and MEASURED the field strength).
>
> When I tried to scale his hypothesis to 160M (that is, multiply the
> radial heights by a factor of 4x) on an antenna I had built, I could not
> duplicate his result -- that is, the gain of the antenna was at least
> 3dB less than I had expected. I discussed this over dinner this spring
> with Tom Schiller, N6BT, who has also done a lot of work with radials
> and verticals for 160M. He observed that you can't simply scale the
> radial height by the difference in wavelength because "the earth is very
> different at 160M as compared to 40M, and the radials must be much
> higher." When I asked him "how high," he suggested 16 ft. This summer,
> with a lot of help from W6GJB, I got them up to at least 16 ft for most
> of their length, and preliminary testing suggests that I'm now getting
> the gain I had hoped. When I've got more performance data, I'll publish
> it.
>
> Peer review is a wonderful thing. It is an important part of the
> scientific method. I've learned a lot by publishing what I think I know
> and having folks fill in my weak spots.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5168 - Release Date: 07/31/12
>
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|