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.
--
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
...

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


eBay, Cecil...... eBay!

--
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

"Ken Bessler" wrote in message
news:E5T5e.3534$up2.1493@okepread01...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


eBay, Cecil...... eBay!

--
73's es gd dx de Ken KGØWX

There ya go Cecil.
I'm sure you'll get rich!

Grid EM17ip, Flying Pigs #1055,
Digital On Six #350,
List Owner, Yahoo! E-groups:
VX-2R & FT-857

There was a outfit nr of years back even outdid the "Double Bazooka",
worked with ANY lengths of wire, garenteed less than 3:1 SWR.
Their secret was a 50 ohm, 100- watt non-inductive resistor in the
center plate. Got a GREAT SWR, but not terribly EFFECIENT!
They didn't last long after the ARRL/QST article described their
"MIRACLE" antenna ! As info, Jim NN7K


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.

Fortunately anyone who'd buy it couldn't be heard!
But the SWR was low!

73
H.

"Jim - NN7K" wrote in message
. com...
There was a outfit nr of years back even outdid the "Double Bazooka",
worked with ANY lengths of wire, garenteed less than 3:1 SWR.
Their secret was a 50 ohm, 100- watt non-inductive resistor in the
center plate. Got a GREAT SWR, but not terribly EFFECIENT!
They didn't last long after the ARRL/QST article described their
"MIRACLE" antenna ! As info, Jim NN7K


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.

Actually, they COULD, but weak! (RX was in parallel with the
dipole/coax terminals)!! What the resistor didn't catch, the antenna did!
Jim.

H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote:
Fortunately anyone who'd buy it couldn't be heard!
But the SWR was low!

73
H.

"Jim - NN7K" wrote in message
. com...

There was a outfit nr of years back even outdid the "Double Bazooka",
worked with ANY lengths of wire, garenteed less than 3:1 SWR.
Their secret was a 50 ohm, 100- watt non-inductive resistor in the
center plate. Got a GREAT SWR, but not terribly EFFECIENT!
They didn't last long after the ARRL/QST article described their
"MIRACLE" antenna ! As info, Jim NN7K


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.

RG-174 is great for some purposes.

Long, long ago I used it to feed an antenna (in the 5 MHz region) that had
to be invisible. Its small size was a great aid to that task. A short
piece of the stuff also makes an effective garrote because of the steel
strands in the center conductor.

As everyone else has said (more than once), the "Bazooka" antenna is
rarely worthwhile.
73 Mac N8TT



--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
snip

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

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