Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: [CQ-Contest] Tribander/Wire antennacatagory

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: [CQ-Contest] Tribander/Wire antennacatagory
From: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:41:51 -0400
At 09:02 AM 8/20/98 EDT, CQK8DO@aol.com wrote:
>
>Hi Pete...
>I have watched with amusement as Tom pushes his designs that claim that every
>interlaced element is adding to the forward gain, whether that element is
>resonant in that band or not... He is certainly an advertising genius...
>Further, his claimed gains in dB(t)  {dB per Tom} are nothing if not
amazing),
>even if they do stretch some laws of physics as well as the published
research
>of Drs. Yagi and Uda.... 

Denny, I think this is a bum rap.  Both my model of my C-3 and the one that
Tom uses produce gain figures at or above what he claims in his literature.
 I agree that the non-resonant elements do very little, and note that claim
is no longer being actively promoted as it was before.

>I will point out that gain is dependent upon boom length, not element
count  (
>I want you to repeat that ten times every night at bedtime)... Whereas, FB
>ratio and side rejection are amenable to some manipulation by adding elements
>and adjusting their reactance properly...

Of course, as is the distribution of performance across the band.

>
>Now, having said that - Am I saying that Force 12 antennas are bad antennas?
>... No... They are, in fact, good antennas that will give many hams lots of
>pleasure... His use of open sleeve driven elements is excellent... His use of
>rivets is outstanding...  His methods of manufacturing and ensuring that
>elements can only go together in the proper sequence is super...  His multi
>band antennas give a lot of bang for the buck... But, to make the statement
>that one, or more, multi band Force 12 antennas are the contest equal of a
>similar number of properly designed monobanders is reckless enthusiasm...

You misread my comment, Denny.  I wasn't suggesting that you can get
something for nothing.  Instead, I was questioning the idea that a TH-7 or
even a KT34XA could approximate a monobander, and at the same time pointing
out that the C31XR is a step beyond them, and begins to approximate *some*
monobanders in performance.  After all, it has a 31-foot boom, and uses it
pretty cleverly.  Is it the equivalent of a 31-foot boom monobander?  Of
course not.  Does it probably outperform some 2,3 and 4-element monobanders
on shorter booms-- I suspect yes.




73,  Pete Smith N4ZR
In wild, wonderful, fairly rare WEST Virginia

NSI# 1,000,048  NQRPI# 1,000,004

--
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


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>