Mike Watts Wy6K said:
> Most things that sound too good to be true, are.
>
> I suggest that we all agree that the Razor antenna and
> it's claims are frauds. Then Yuri's next logical move
> is to prove us wrong. That way we get to the truth or
> he quits making claims without support.
>
> Just like any other scientific claims: publish the
> experiment and others will attempt to confirm it.
> Otherwise, go back to work on something else and quit
> bothering us.
>
> Mike
>
I don't agree with those who say the antennas designed in the 70's were not
very effective. Sure equally spaced elements that Bill Orr W6SAI pushed
were often a waste of elements and boom length but many had discovered the
secret of director spacing as the key to
optimum performance...including W2PV and W3GRF. I also don't agree that
the quad cannot stand up to yagis element by element
and do it on a shorter boom! My first quad was the W5HVV quad in 1966
(from QST). Rod (later N5HV) had great luck with quads.
My W5HVV quad with 4 elements on 15 and 10 plus 3 on 20 on a 20' boom helped
me work JA's on 15 SSB *when the low power JA's first
appeared) right over Roger Mace W6RW's big Multi op. The quad replaced my
old Gonset tri-bander (the first to use the concepts of the KLM 34 series)
that had been modified by W1PDF, W1ONK to be a real competitive beam. The
W5HVV quad was in different world from the Gonset. The problem is the quad
disappeared in a tornado that ripped it off at the mast about one year alter
(this is the real problem with quads!)
Wayne N6NB not only was one of the first to rip quads but he pushed the
Quagi design for weak signal VHF and pile up busting HF work. The razor
beam was a long boom version of the quagi utilizing quad elements surrounded
with yagi parasitic elements. No, the razor was not 30DBd better than a 5
el yagi optimum spaced yagi , but at the time it was leading edge design.
The proof was in the pudding...he wiped out the contests he entered with the
razor...of course VE3 has an advantage over Georgia or New York, but Yuri
beat the world including some rare Dxpeditions. I feel the razor beam
would still stand up today as a performer.
Now to computer modeling....A computer model requires exact measurements
giving you a case for what should be. But the model and the actual real
time application often don't agree. I will not depend on a computer model
to be my only guide! For example I designed and built a W2PV 3 el 12 meter
beam beam and it looked perfect on in the model. Putting it 6 feet away
from the KT34XA moved the beam from 24.930 to well over 25.6 Mhz and wiped
out the patterns on the 34XA's 10 and 15 plus the 3 el W2PV. I ran the
interaction model too and it did not show "real" world results.
I feel there is a place for real world testing. Look at the 1976 article by
W9LT in CQ where he placed elements in front of and behind the driven
element and results presented. Scientific Atlanta used to have a antenna
test facility where antennas were placed on a platform and measurements
taken several hundred feet away for gain, and front, side, and back
radiation. They had a Fortran model on their mainframe. but trusted their
test set up to fine tune or even prove their models wrong. The study that
Steve K7LXC and N0AX did on tri-banders is a good example of real
testing.....
73 Dave K4JRB
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/towertalk
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
|