About Us

May 21st 04, 10:02 PM

On 21 May 2004 10:02:45 -0700, (Rick, K6RJ) wrote:

I don't know the answer to the main issue of this thread. I just
don't know enough about antennas to speak as an expert. However, as a
point of fact, the R7 manual does state on page 1 under the section
titled "Location":

Hi Rick,

Thank you for the follow-up. You are correct, and yes the pdf is a
poor, unsearchable copy as evidenced by your observations offered.

As far as this thread goes, I've seen testimony that it works/doesn't
work with radials - both ways. Such is the value of testimonials
where you can find any answer to suit any occasion.

I've seen testimonial "proof" that an eh works better than a standard
quarterwave, wherein the data clearly proved it didn't. The
testimonials dismissed the data (their own) as irrelevant.
Testimonial is fine and is occasionally called for. Testimonial as
proof is worthless.

I've offered data to this point of a "prohibition" on using radials.
The difference between 120 quarterwave or halfwave radials compared to
one short "counterpoise" barely tipped the meter at 1dB on the
performance side of the ledger. As for matching, I averred that
tuning may be impacted (I cannot imagine how it could be otherwise).
THAT is within the provence of Amateur radio service as a minimum
technical skill. THIS is a technical forum where design and data is
offered for examination. The remaining correspondence is confined to
the slow lane or the shoulder when a rhetorical axle is broken.

Frankly, this "prohibition" of no radials is more a design mandate,
not a papal bull. The site offered where we can find the actual
components of the "black box" displayed and laid out schematic style
offers an equal opportunity to redesign to allow radials. This
apparently is not within the skill-set of many, or arguably even
desired; however, it is not impossible (nor particularly difficult).

To this last point. I would offer that most of the interesting
correspondence (that isn't simply entertainment quality) is composed
of rather academic interests. Some of it is impractical in the
extreme and as absurd as fractals. More of it barely offers a
difference that would twitch an S Meter, or a Power meter. This does
not mean it lacks merit in its discussion because, let's face it, a
forum is built and survives on the vigor of debate. Clearly no one is
going to (legitimately) re-invent the dipole, so topics become rather
obtuse.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
cushcraft 17b2 information	Manuel PÃ©rez Rey	Antenna	2	October 22nd 03 07:51 PM
Anybody using Cushcraft D3 or D4?	Robert Scott	Antenna	0	September 4th 03 05:21 PM
FS: Cushcraft MA5V Ham Radio Vertical antenna	David Hawkins	Antenna	0	August 31st 03 03:33 PM
Info on Cushcraft R3 triband vertical	Jim Coffey	Antenna	2	August 29th 03 11:29 PM
Cushcraft MA5B problem	Andy	Antenna	0	August 9th 03 10:50 AM

Menu

About Us