On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:55:11 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
but any increase in the 1.5:1 SWR bandwidth is due to loss as Walt proved
decades ago.

If you want a really broad-banded Bazooka, use RG-174. :-)
Advantages: light weight for easy back-packing, no tuner
required, inexpensive coax, ... Hey, maybe I should keep
it secret until I market it for $100.
Egad, Cecil! It's evident I wasn't too bright years ago when I showed why the
bazooka gets its meager increase in BW from resistive loss, not reactance
cancellation. My scamming genes hadn't developed to the point where I even
thought of marketing it instead of panning it. As you said, Cecil, with the
higher loss available using RG-174 vs RG-17, think of how rich we could have
become if we'd let the morons continue to believe what a great antenna it is,
and sold em with 174.

Walt, W2DU

"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:55:11 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
but any increase in the 1.5:1 SWR bandwidth is due to loss as Walt
proved
decades ago.

If you want a really broad-banded Bazooka, use RG-174. :-)
Advantages: light weight for easy back-packing, no tuner
required, inexpensive coax, ... Hey, maybe I should keep
it secret until I market it for $100.
Egad, Cecil! It's evident I wasn't too bright years ago when I showed why
the
bazooka gets its meager increase in BW from resistive loss, not reactance
cancellation. My scamming genes hadn't developed to the point where I even
thought of marketing it instead of panning it. As you said, Cecil, with
the
higher loss available using RG-174 vs RG-17, think of how rich we could
have
become if we'd let the morons continue to believe what a great antenna it
is,
and sold em with 174.

Walt, W2DU

Face it Walt, you're just not a scam artist.
73
H.

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 20:43:41 GMT, Walter Maxwell wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:55:11 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
but any increase in the 1.5:1 SWR bandwidth is due to loss as Walt proved
decades ago.

If you want a really broad-banded Bazooka, use RG-174. :-)
Advantages: light weight for easy back-packing, no tuner
required, inexpensive coax, ... Hey, maybe I should keep
it secret until I market it for $100.
Egad, Cecil! It's evident I wasn't too bright years ago when I showed why the
bazooka gets its meager increase in BW from resistive loss, not reactance
cancellation. My scamming genes hadn't developed to the point where I even
thought of marketing it instead of panning it. As you said, Cecil, with the
higher loss available using RG-174 vs RG-17, think of how rich we could have
become if we'd let the morons continue to believe what a great antenna it is,
and sold em with 174.

Walt, W2DU

There's a Double Bazooka currently on eBay for the "Buy it Now" price
of only $60.

Part of the sales pitch is:

"The Double Bazooka antenna was designed and developed by the M.I.T
staff in the 1940's as a radar recieving antenna. Its design was
modified for the hf amateur radio bands."

There's one born every minute...

bob
k5qwg

Walter Maxwell wrote:
Egad, Cecil! It's evident I wasn't too bright years ago when I showed why the
bazooka gets its meager increase in BW from resistive loss, not reactance
cancellation. My scamming genes hadn't developed to the point where I even
thought of marketing it instead of panning it. As you said, Cecil, with the
higher loss available using RG-174 vs RG-17, think of how rich we could have
become if we'd let the morons continue to believe what a great antenna it is,
and sold em with 174.

I wasn't too bright either, Walt. I should have bought up
a bunch of "Reflections II" when they were available. :-)
Somebody over on eHam.net just reported a used one for sale
for $180.00.
--
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 =---

Ken Bessler wrote:
My friend says that a double bazooka is 98% efficiant
and that a dipole is only about 70% efficiant.

Is he right? Will a double bazooka outperform a dipole
enough to notice a difference on 40m?

The efficiency graphs in The ARRL Antenna Book indicate
that the double bazooka is NEVER more efficient than a
dipole and that it has lower efficiency at every frequency
other than resonance. Is your friend an Old Wife?
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

A typical dipole is easily greater than 90% efficient. And a double
bazooka will be considerably less efficient than a dipole.

Ask your friend where he got those figures. I'd be interested in knowing.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Ken Bessler wrote:
My friend says that a double bazooka is 98% efficiant
and that a dipole is only about 70% efficiant.

Is he right? Will a double bazooka outperform a dipole
enough to notice a difference on 40m?

Who needs enemies when you have friends like that?

In article fXh4e.129$Jt.53@okepread04, says...
My friend says that a double bazooka is 98% efficiant
and that a dipole is only about 70% efficiant.

Is he right? Will a double bazooka outperform a dipole
enough to notice a difference on 40m?

I suspect your friend got his figures reversed.
Any properly-constructed half-wave dipole is well
over 90% efficient. The double bazooka gets its
meager bandwidth improvement by adding loss.

73,
Bob

--
+----------------------------------------------+
| Bob Schreibmaier K3PH | E-mail: |
| Kresgeville, PA 18333 | http://www.dxis.org |
+----------------------------------------------+

"Bob Schreibmaier" wrote in message
...
In article fXh4e.129$Jt.53@okepread04, says...
My friend says that a double bazooka is 98% efficiant
and that a dipole is only about 70% efficiant.

Is he right? Will a double bazooka outperform a dipole
enough to notice a difference on 40m?

I suspect your friend got his figures reversed.
Any properly-constructed half-wave dipole is well
over 90% efficient. The double bazooka gets its
meager bandwidth improvement by adding loss.

73,
Bob

--
+----------------------------------------------+
| Bob Schreibmaier K3PH | E-mail: |
| Kresgeville, PA 18333 | http://www.dxis.org |
+----------------------------------------------+

Thanks Bob, Roy, Walter, Richard & Cecil!

Wow - all the guru's agree for once? That fact alone
leaves me to forget the idea of replacing my ladder
line/coax fed 40m dipole with a Bazooka.

Info - my current antenna started out as a Van Gordon
"All Bander", a 134' dipole fed with 100' of ladder line.
I trimmed 50' off the ladder line and have a 12' rg58
coax feeding a CD size 13 turn coax coil which feeds
the ladder line going up to the antenna (which I trimmed
to 7.185 mhz). It's a flat dipole (almost) up 25'.

Due to a lack of space, I would have had to take that
antenna down to put up the Bazooka so comparing the
two would have been almost impossible.

Thanks again, guys - you rock!
--
73's es gd dx de Ken KGØWX
Grid EM17ip, Flying Pigs #1055,
Digital On Six #350,
List Owner, Yahoo! E-groups:
VX-2R & FT-857

My friend says that a double bazooka is 98% efficiant
and that a dipole is only about 70% efficiant.

===============================

Well, it sure makes a change from quoting or mis-quoting Terman.