-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Mike" == Mike Coslo writes:

[... David mentioned B&W antennas ...]

Doc David, The bottom line is that it's a terrible 'amateur' antenna
Doc for the price. 'Doc

Jack Out of curiosity, what other antenna provides a better
Jack cost-benefit ratio while maintaining the same constraints with
Jack respect to power, size, and construction?

Mike Hmmm, How about an Isotron? 8^) Man, there is a small antenna!

They're too spooky for me. I don't understand how they work.

Mike If you take the bands that the B&W performs adequately on, the
Mike size ratio between it an a halfwave dipole isn't quite so
Mike good. I suppose the FD that is most comparable to my antenna is
Mike the BWD 90. It's 90 feet, as we might figure. My dipole is 96
Mike feet.

I guess it depends on what you consider "adequate". If your 96-ft
dipole provides comparable SWR matches across all the bands the B&W
antennas allegedly provide, that'd be pretty impressive. Like the
other poster, I noticed that there were no gain figures in the B&W
literature, and that does make me suspicious.

Mike My dipole cost less than 30 dollars to make. If you count the
Mike tuner, I still spent less money.

Sure, so did I. And my antenna was messed up the following spring,
due to stretched wire, water leaking into critical bits, and more. If
you spent less than thirty dollars and used copperweld or stainless
steel, then I'd like to know what trucks that wire falls off so I can
chase them around town.

Mike - Mike KB3EIA -

Jack.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAqZIWGPFSfAB/ezgRAvFkAJ9zTZ4ZD9qTOoceEi5ICQwBhk6C1ACgiKev
Zr1I+ORR6RZutXp2ypQiKvI=
=ybp2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----