Perhaps the cost/benefit ratio is not viable
because of the expense to keep the antenna cold ?

On spacecraft missions to the outer plantes,
the antenna were not supercooled but the
space environment was very cold !

Wefax_Dude wrote:
Perhaps the cost/benefit ratio is not viable
because of the expense to keep the antenna cold ?

It's certainly more economical to increase the
transmitter's power output than to supercool a
dipole.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article , Cecil Moore
wrote:

?

It's certainly more economical to increase the
transmitter's power output than to supercool a
dipole.

it think this statement is not totally correct, as if someone manages to
build an antenna that serves some pourpose that achieves it's built p
goal, then it's worth the expense for certain additionally...

who knows maybe sombody might invent somthing that is more efficient or
discover something like a benificial offshoot..

who knws what the cost will be one day to supercool a antenna, of which
dipole is one of many kinds

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:53:31 GMT, ml wrote:
who knows maybe sombody might invent somthing that is more efficient or
discover something like a benificial offshoot..

Who knows indeed? It may be the next penicillin for diesel knock.

who knws what the cost will be one day to supercool a antenna, of which
dipole is one of many kinds

Who knws undeed! It could pcost as much as the national debt of
Liechtenstein which isn't big enough to field a full sized 16 KHz
superhip antenna for communications to their solar powered submarine
fleet. But if the fate of whirled peas hinges upon their sacrifice,
cost be DAMNED!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC