Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip would give roughly the same results. On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote: On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote: Jimmie D wrote: ... Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. Jimmie Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly, with efficiencies in the single digits ... JS I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams accept it? I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of this inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info. The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing something new. Art Even a 6ft verticla can be made to perform reasonably well on 40m when used with a good ground system, the ground system thay were using is probably as close to ideal as you can get. The big difference is in using a short antenna with a poor to mediocre ground system, then they stick out like a sore thumb I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent they posted.What would be the point of doing a test like this if you didnt get qualatative data? Without the data the st might as weel have been, "hey good buddy you sound fine over here at theWinn Dixie, I cant see my S meter 'cause the lights out on it but yo sound like 30 over to me" Jimmie |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|