[TenTec] Bazooka antenna.. More than you wanted to know!

[GARY HUBER]

"...the stubs of the bazooka are rejecting that out of band noise."

Isn't that one of the "features" of the Double Bazooka? Isn't it supposed to 
provide out of (design) band noise rejection and as a result be quieter both 
on receive AND transmit?

At least that's what I believe I've observed over the years when using 
Double Bazookas (1 on 40M and 1 on 80M) during Field Day at a multi 
transmitter site.


Best regards,
Gary - AB9M
CSM(r) G.L.Huber
9679 Heron Bay Road
Bloomington, Illinois 61704
(309)662-0604
www.csm-gh.com
csm-gh at www.csm-gh.com
gary.huber at us.army.mil
ab9m at arrl.net
www.csm-gh.com/mytrike.htm
www.csm-gh.com/75thRepoDepo.htm





>From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj at storm.weather.net>
>Reply-To: geraldj at storm.weather.net,Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment 
><tentec at contesting.com>
>To: tentec at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TenTec] Bazooka antenna.. More than you wanted to know!
>Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:02:10 -0600
>
>On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 20:06 -1000, Ken Brown wrote:
> > Hi Jim,
> > >  Looking back at my notations The Double Bazooka noise floor was a 
>needle width less than the folded dipole on the OMNI VI Plus on 17M.
> > A lower S meter reading, when only noise is present, could be an
> > indication that the antenna actually somehow responds less to noise,
> > while working equally well (compared to the other antenna) on signals.
> > It could also be an indication that the antenna has more loss than the
> > one you are comparing it
>
>Or that the receiver is responding to noise at frequencies other than
>the band of interest (wide band FM heard in a 2 KHz bandwidth sounds
>like noise) and the stubs of the bazooka are rejecting that out of band
>noise.
>
> >  If the two antennas you are comparing have
> > essentially the same geometry, that is they span the same distance from
> > end point to end point, and have a feed point in the same location, then
> > there is a real good chance that the one with lower noise power at the
> > receiver also has lower signal power at the receiver, due to higher 
>losses.
> >
> > On the lower HF bands, there is usually enough atmospheric noise being
> > picked up by your antenna (unless it is really, really inefficient) to
> > overcome your receiver's noise floor (unless your receiver has a really
> > high noise floor or overall low gain). As long as atmospheric noise is
> > greater than your receiver's noise floor, you don't lose any receive
> > capability due to the losses of the antenna. It's the guy at the other
> > end that will have less signal from you due to your antenna loss, who
> > may not hear you above the atmospheric and other noise. He might not be
> > able to hear you tell him how good your SWR is.
>
> > >   Maybe because of my location which is not  NOT a IDEAL situation,
> > > the Double Bazooka worked better for me on 17M for what ever reason.
> > > I challenge any one to put one of these up and compare it side by side
> > > to another wire antenna and see what happens.
>
> > That is a problem in antenna comparisons. Two side by side antennas do
> > not act independently. They will interact. You would have to take one
> > down while you test the other. Even if the one not being tested was
> > laying below on the ground, it would likely have an effect on the
> > overall performance of the one in the air. Since you cannot keep band
> > conditions constant long enough to lower one antenna and raise the
> > other, the test effectively cannot be done, unless the noise sources and
> > signal sources are all non-skywave .
>
>For sure.
> >
> > DE N6KB
> >
>73, Jerry, K0CQ
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec