Double Bazooka?
 

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?

--
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

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:02:04 -0500, "Ken Bessler"
wrote:
Is he right?

Hi Ken,

No.

This topic has enough coverage in the archive (use Bazooka as a
keyword) to fully explain his folly.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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?

On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:02:04 -0500, "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?
Hi Ken,
Those who tout the double bazooka have been misled for eons. That antenna is
simply a resistance-loaded dipole and the increase in BW is due to the
resistance loading of the dielectric in the coax that forms the dipole. The
shunt reactance of the shorted quarter-wave sections forming the dipole does
nothing to increase the BW. The principle is ok, and was used on military
equipment during WW2, but for the shunt reactance to provide the increase in BW
the feedline Zo needs to be at least two times the resistive component in the
dipole input impedance for the concept to work. Consquently, the double bazooka
as misused by the amateur community has been misengineered.

I published a long and detailed expose of this antenna in Ham Radio, August
1976, with a shortened version in QST, Sept 1976. I explain mathematically why
it doesn't work as many claim. It appears as Chapter 18 in Reflections 1 and 2,
and is available for downloading from my web page at www.w2du.com. Please review
this document before wasting your time and energy on a dud.

Walt, W2DU

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 =----

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

Who needs enemies when you have friends like that?

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.

The converse is true. The dipole would be more efficient.
Your friend is incorrect.


"Ken Bessler" wrote in message
news:fXh4e.129$Jt.53@okepread04...
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?

--
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

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"Well, it sure makes a change from quoting or mis-quoting Terman."

Yes, it may be fun to condemn flawed information. There is not much
amiss or paradoxical in Terman`s encyclopedic 1955 "Electronic and Radio
Engineering". I found a typo, I think, on page 817:

"It is apparent from these considerations that the lower frequencies
(535 to 1605 Mc), the highest antennas that it is practical to use at
the transmitter and receiver are such that the direct propagation of
vertically polarized energy between the transmitting and receiving
antennas (i.e. not including ionospheric propagation) is necessarily by
the ground wave."

Frequencies of 535 to 1605 MHz do not propagate by ground wave.
Frequencies of 535 to 16o5 KHz do. Therefore I think the "Mc" was a
typo. I am a lousy proofreader, but I`ve read Terman for decades and
found only a single error.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 16:02:04 -0500, "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?
Hi Ken,
Those who tout the double bazooka have been misled for eons. That antenna
is
simply a resistance-loaded dipole and the increase in BW is due to the
resistance loading of the dielectric in the coax that forms the dipole.
The
shunt reactance of the shorted quarter-wave sections forming the dipole
does
nothing to increase the BW. The principle is ok, and was used on military
equipment during WW2, but for the shunt reactance to provide the increase
in BW
the feedline Zo needs to be at least two times the resistive component in
the
dipole input impedance for the concept to work. Consquently, the double
bazooka
as misused by the amateur community has been misengineered.

I published a long and detailed expose of this antenna in Ham Radio,
August
1976, with a shortened version in QST, Sept 1976. I explain mathematically
why
it doesn't work as many claim. It appears as Chapter 18 in Reflections 1
and 2,
and is available for downloading from my web page at www.w2du.com. Please
review
this document before wasting your time and energy on a dud.

Walt, W2DU

Hello Ken
We beat this one to death some time ago on this group.
A perfectly tuned bazooka (I had to build seven of 'em for 40 meters 'til I
got it nailed.)
exhibits some interesting SWR reduction effects right around resonance,
where the SWR is already so low it doesn't matter,
but any increase in the 1.5:1 SWR bandwidth is due to loss as Walt proved
decades ago.
In the mean time you lose 10-20 percent of your signal if you're lucky.
And if the antenna's not perfectly tuned, you lose more than that.
The equivalent circuit is a series-resonant network (the dipole) in parallel
with a parallel-resonant network (the stubs).
The (driven) parallel-resonant network oscillates at it's driven frequency
when it is driven close to it's resonant frequency, causing the already
small reflected power to nearly vanish. Move very far from resonance (where
the SWR on a dipole 1.2:1) and the parallel resonant circuit stops
oscillating.
I posted quite a bit of data here for bazookas made for 160, 80 and 40.
Don't waste your time, I already wasted mine.
Buy a balun from Walt or make your own and tune your dipole carefully.
There ain't no free lunch.


73
H., NQ5H

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
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.



LOL

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

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.