In a message dated 98-07-21 03:16:36 EDT, dick.green@valley.net writes:
> Since the 10M anomaly was uncommon, and you were concerned about it, and the
> 20M and 15M VSWR were so different from both Hy-Gain's published specs and
> the converted TH-6, you should have assumed that the TH-7 was defective in
> some way and left it out of the report altogether. Since the anamoly was
not
> fully explained or addressed in the text, it is not unreasonable to expect
> that some readers will look at the bandwidths listed in the tables and
> assume that a stock TH-7 has poor VSWR bandwidth.
"in this instance." YMMV.
We didn't KNOW if it was defective and the analysis of the traps, etc.
was outside the scope of this test. We included another TH7 configuration so
that the reader could draw their own conclusions. How many TH7's do we have to
test to validate that it conforms to the factory figures? One? Two? Six? A
dozen? The test reflects what WE as typical hams found on our tower.
Cheers, Steve K7LXC
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|