Hal Rosser wrote:

What frequency? What length? What loss did you measure? Was it raining?

freq= 2m band
length = approx 200 ft (up and accross the yard to the top of a TALL TREE)
loss ---- what loss did you measure w/ rg58 (which would have been the
other affordable line)
ie: I did not "measure" it - but my signal reports from others were 'much
improved' over the same antenna on the roof.

The improvement clearly came from the extra antenna height. If you could
keep the extra feedline losses within reasonable limits, you were sure
to come out ahead on the deal.

Raining? - rain, shine, - didn't matter - the run was in free air... I ran
about 10 ft coax out of the house - then switched to twinlead - then back
again near the antenna..

Fair enough. If the only other affordable way to get the feedline to the
top of that tree would have been 200ft+ of RG-fifty8 (at least 15dB book
loss), then direct twin-lead route definitely was the better choice.

I understand the limitations of twin-lead and ladder-line, etc - and
the fact that rain and other objects may reduce its effectiveness, etc

You do have the whole picture, Hal, and I respect that.

My problem is with the hams who only know half the story - the claimed
advantages. Somehow, it's always the warnings and limitations that get
lost... must be "selective fading".


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek