Dumb question, I know: RE Bevarage antennas
 

ARRL Antenna Book says Beverage antennas are strictly for receiving.
Yet, I hear MANY hams report using one, presumably for transceiving.
What gives?

John
AB8O
(My Swiss Cheese knowledge of amateur radio is showing :)

Dumb question, I know: RE Bevarage antennas
 

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:30:00 -0400, jawod wrote:

ARRL Antenna Book says Beverage antennas are strictly for receiving.
Yet, I hear MANY hams report using one, presumably for transceiving.
What gives?

Hi John,

Sometimes the negatives, like loss, are offset by success in spite of
them. For instance, using just one antenna even though your 100W
translates into something far less and you can still be copied. This
simply proves you can work a contact with milliwatts. A friend of
mine held a long QSO from Seattle to Alaska on her dummy load, so a
Beverage would have been seen as a high gain alternative.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dumb question, I know: RE Bevarage antennas
 

jawod wrote:
ARRL Antenna Book says Beverage antennas are strictly for receiving.
Yet, I hear MANY hams report using one, presumably for transceiving.
What gives?

John
AB8O
(My Swiss Cheese knowledge of amateur radio is showing :)

Also, many transcievers have connections for a receiving-only antenna.
My old Kenwood TS-520S needed only a single wire change to give it this
capability. I tried a Beverage for receiving a couple of years ago.
Didn't notice much difference.

Paul, KD7HB

Dumb question, I know: RE Bevarage antennas
 

Beverage antennas are very inefficient. This is ok for an HF receiving
antenna, since lowering the efficiency reduces the signal and external
noise by the same amount. The antenna aids receiving by virtue of its
directivity -- signals from the favored direction are enhanced compared
to QRM and noise from other directions.

You can of course transmit with an inefficient antenna. Some commercial
antennas are quite inefficient, but usually have a desirable feature
such as small size or wide bandwidth in exchange. The price you pay is a
weaker signal at the other end of the circuit. Since people often run
much more power than necessary to communicate, the loss in a Beverage or
other low efficiency antenna for transmitting can frequently be
tolerated. It is, of course, a poor choice if you intend to maximize
your signal at the other end.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

jawod wrote:
ARRL Antenna Book says Beverage antennas are strictly for receiving.
Yet, I hear MANY hams report using one, presumably for transceiving.
What gives?

John
AB8O
(My Swiss Cheese knowledge of amateur radio is showing :)