[TowerTalk] . Re: 2006 Top Ten Chutzpah Awards

[Keith Dutson]

>It is simply not true that a larger antenna transmits better than a smaller
one.

That's a pretty broad statement to make.  If so, how come all the big guns
use very big antennas?

73, Keith NM5G 

-----Original Message-----
From: towertalk-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Ogden
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:21 AM
To: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] . Re: 2006 Top Ten Chutzpah Awards

The BW price seems a little high, considering they are advertising in a ham
magazine. However, please think a little before claiming it is an almost
useless antenna. I believe it consumes up to half the input power in the
resistor. Half is 3 db.  On the classic scale, this is half an S unit
although it is probably closer to one S unit on most receivers.  There are
many instances of communication, ham and otherwise, where trading one S unit
for easy setup and wide frequency matching provides a reasonable tradeoff.
For receiving on the HF bands, efficiency is not required since the
inefficiency of the antenna reduces both signal and atmospheric noise
equally.

It is simply not true that a larger antenna transmits better than a smaller
one. Provided one can load the antenna without encountering excessive losses
there is little difference between a large and small antenna in terms of
transmitting efficiency. (Direction control is a different matter, of
course.) As an antenna becomes smaller (in terms of wavelength) it becomes
more of a challenge to match it to the transmission line and transmitter and
*this* factor can be a significant limitation.

I do not have either antenna and am not considering either one. I do like to
avoid, or at least identify, old wives tales.

Bill - W2WO

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk