Jack Painter wrote:
"Fractenna" wrote
Chip, how did we digress to comparing a "high B&W" to a "low dipole"?
When
the two are each at their optimal height (and why would we ever compare
anything else..) then the dipole has it all over a B&W. I use my (amost
1/2
wave height) dipole only for DX, without a tuner on it's two resonant
frequencies and with a tuner on two bands well above, with amazing
results.
5, 8, 11 and 15 mhz to Alaska, Equador, Venezuela and Canadian Maritimes,
if
that qualifies as "DX".
73
Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va
Hi Jack,
It seems relevant to me in two big contexts: (1) why do some folks do well
(relatively) with the BW antenna; (2) what does it replace?
My response clearly explains (1). In the case of (2), I can think of many
circumstances where it is preferable to put one dipole (BW) up high than a
slew
of dipoles up high. If you have neighbors, you know what I mean:-)
Don't know what DX is to me anymore; I have DXCC #1 Honor Roll and haven't
been
active on the low bands in several years. To someone else, DX is what you
haven't heard or worked yet:-) I say go for it.
Some folks don't live in a perfect world, Jack, and its good to know when
a
compromise is a true degradation.
A BW antenna, up high, is a good antenna for DX across many bands. It is
hardly
a dummy load.
Hope this helps on this question.
73,
Chip N1IR
Hi Chip,
Yes it does help to hear it works reasonably well when other circumstances
limit the options. I can't for instance squeeze more long dipoles up, but I
could try one of the T2 varieties someday. Since the dipole I now have works
across many bands well with a tuner, the B&W could never replace it, but it
might augment it someday.
Cheers and thanks,
Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va
As I have said many times here, The B&W antenna is for those that need
it not those who can/need/want to use other means of connecting with the
ether. It is definitely not the most efficient means of wireless
communications but it is definitely fool proof in operation.
Dave WD9BDZ
|