Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
FBMboomer wrote:
On 11/12/2014 1:50 PM, gareth wrote: It is a truism that short antennae are poor inefficient radiators, and no amount of infantile bluster by Americanoramuses will change that. The truth does not need the violence of abuse to force its way down people's throats. A perfect example is a G5RV on 75 meters. They suck. When someone joins our group rag chew on 75, and they have a poor signal, The first thing I ask is "Are you using a G5RV". We all have a chuckle when they answer yes and then ask how we knew. :-) Trying to prove with math that short antennae work as well as say a 1/2 wave dipole may give someone great sport. However, in the real world, short antennae suck big time. I have been an American for most of my life. Please do not paint us all with the same brush. Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about 100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths. Below that you are warming clouds. Height Gain @ Elevation lambda 0.1 3.89 90 0.15 5.55 90 0.2 5.95 90 0.25 5.81 62 0.3 5.80 48 0.35 6.00 40 0.4 6.38 35 0.45 6.86 31 0.5 7.41 28 0.55 7.76 25 0.6 7.87 23 0.65 7.76 21 -- Jim Pennino |