Thread: Double Bazooka?
View Single Post
  #23   Report Post  
Old April 9th 05, 11:27 PM
Walter Maxwell
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 9 Apr 2005 16:58:47 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H"
wrote:


"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:55:11 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
but any increase in the 1.5:1 SWR bandwidth is due to loss as Walt
proved
decades ago.

If you want a really broad-banded Bazooka, use RG-174. :-)
Advantages: light weight for easy back-packing, no tuner
required, inexpensive coax, ... Hey, maybe I should keep
it secret until I market it for $100.

Egad, Cecil! It's evident I wasn't too bright years ago when I showed why
the
bazooka gets its meager increase in BW from resistive loss, not reactance
cancellation. My scamming genes hadn't developed to the point where I even
thought of marketing it instead of panning it. As you said, Cecil, with
the
higher loss available using RG-174 vs RG-17, think of how rich we could
have
become if we'd let the morons continue to believe what a great antenna it
is,
and sold em with 174.

Walt, W2DU


Face it Walt, you're just not a scam artist.
73
H.
Thanks, H, I needed that. I'm thankful for what my Mom and Dad did for me in heading me in the right direction.


Walt