On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:02:12 -0400, Art Clemons
wrote:

I almost could not believe that an article that starts out with using an
antenna tuner to deliver all possible power to mobile HF antennas got
published.

I also noted that the testing antenna was 360 feet away.

I'm waiting to read on here that I've mis-understood a great method of
measuring HF mobile antennas, but absent a troll or two, I don't expect
too.

As a Student of the Art of Amateur Radio with a special fondness for
antennas I found the article useful and interesting. At least as far
as it went!

Last year I purchased a radio especially to go mobile. I have yet to
find an acceptable mobile HF antenna to use on my Chrysler Minivan. I
am beginning to believe that there are no acceptable solutions to the
problem as I define it.

Further, I have concluded that ALL MOBILE HF installations are poor
compared to a dipole five feet off the ground, some are just worse
than others.

The article simply sheds some light on the practical issues one
encounters with popular alternatives.

I think an auto tuner with whatever whip length one can tolerate is
the best one can do with a Chrysler Minivan.

Modeling programs do not consider the radiation from the loading coils
but field measurements do.

Tuner losses can be estimated from the software in the Arrl Antenna
Books.

If you can write a better article for QST, please do so. But please
remember, most of us don't choose the ethical we drive because of its
ability to carry a less bad radio antenna!

John Ferrell W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to
plow around the stumps"