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, 9 Apr 2005 16:58:47 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H"
wrote:


"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.
Thanks, H, I needed that. I'm thankful for what my Mom and Dad did for me in heading me in the right direction.

Walt

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

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
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




Hi Bob
Actually that is historically correct about MIT and RADAR.
But the SWR reduction is where the reflected power is so low it doesn't
matter.
And you pay dearly for it in signal strength.
As soon as you move far enough from resonance (dipole SWR 1.2:1 or so) such
that the parallel-resonant network ("tank circuit") quits oscillating at the
DRIVEN frequency, the whole thing falls apart.
And they're a pain-in-the-ass to built "just right", errors of 1/4 inch are
bad news on 40 meters.
I know; Took seven tries to make two that resonated just right on 40.
On 160 the loss was such that I never got it to "ring".
I posted all the data here some time ago.
Walt once accused me of having "zeal" for taking data; I'm an experimental
physicist.
http://www.hep.utexas.edu/mayamuon/
Like I said, build a good dipole carefully.
There is no free lunch.
73
H.

Bob Miller wrote:

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...

There is nothing inaccurate in that description as far as I know.

Let's be fair about the Double Bazooka: It does exhibit a broader SWR
bandwidth than a dipole antenna.

I've now used the 160m coaxial inverted "L" described by Ted Cohen N4XX
in the January, 2000 issue of CQ Magazine. It has been up for about
four years, during which time I've worked just about any exotic DX which
has appeared on the bands--even FT5XO.

The antenna is simply half a double bazooka and it runs vertically 65
feet and horizontally a little over 62'. The entire 200 KHz of the 160m
band is covered with SWR under 2:1. Of course the fact that I have
about 6,000 of radials under the thing may help more than a bit. Can I
assume that since the antenna is only half a double bazooka that the
loss of power in using it would be roughly half of that using a double
bazooka dipole?

I can often work EU stations with just 100w. I could seldom do that
from my Cincinnati QTH in the late seventies and early eighties using a
60' omega matched aluminum tower with TH6DXX as top loading.

Dave K8MN
Cameron, WV

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 =---

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
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

You ought to see what old physics texts, like Feynman and Hibbs or Morse and
Feshback sell for.
Oh well. Goes to show ya, the classics keep their value!
73
H.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:35:28 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

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.


Wow. I'm hanging on to my autographed copy of the original. When
Social Security goes broke, I'll have something to fall back on.