On 14/06/2005 12:11 PM, Bill Turner wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 07:33:25 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:


In a response to a CB antenna question on the rec.outdoors.rv-travel
someone posted a link to

http://www.firestik.com/Tech_Docs/CBs_%26_RVs.htm

Talk about snake oil salesmen.


_________________________________________________

That website is so appallingly full of crap I don't know where to begin.

Hey, can someone take the time to do a brief critique of said article?
It might be good to for interested parties to verify their knowledge.

For example, I note:

- The notion that "CB antennas" require a ground plane. My
understanding is that some antenna designs include one or more
counterpoise elements, but that this is different than a ground plane.

- Suggesting that the ground plane is necessary to pick up ground waves.

- Suggesting the ground plane is part of the feedline. If the
groundplane is a counterpoise (as suggested in the first paragraph) why
is the feedline part of the antenna? Is this some sort of special
feedline they are referring to?

- Frequency changes due to changes in the electrical length of the
feedline. Again, unless the feedline really is part of the antenna,
isn't it the idea to have a theoretical perfect feedline can be nearly
any length? That is, from the point of view of the radio equipment, the
feedline has infinite impedance? (I'm fuzzy on this one, so remind me
gently if I'm misleading myself.)

- The discussion of SWR is so wrong it has caused me to forget what it
really is. Sorry.

- The section on tuning somehow conflates the location of the antenna
with it's electrical length.

I invite everyone to set me straight, and in the process offer a good
rebuttal of this article.