Red Eyes wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Reg Edwards wrote:
Yes, whatever the explanation, it's just a load of old wives' tales
and bafflegab.

Quoting from the article: "If Comet had claimed that the CHA-250B
was a world-beating miracle antenna, we would have blasted it with
both barrels. Comet doesn't make such claims, however. Comet's
literature merely states that the antenna will radiate a signal
and provide a low SWR on all bands without the use of radials.
In this respect, the CHA-250B performs as advertised. It is neither
a miracle nor a fraud." (The article says it's about equal to a
mobile whip antenna.)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


There is a sizable market for such an antenna.

Those living in dwellings with no possibility of running a dipole or a
ground plane antenna with radials would be glad to get on the air with this
antenna. Naturally, the higher the frequency, the better it will work.

As most of us know, when the higher frequencies are "open", it doesn't take
much antenna or power to work the world.

I have never been a fan of store bought antennas. Never owned one
except a 2m mag mount. I don't know how much this one costs, but I
think there are numerous ways for city dwellers to get more bang for
the buck.
Things I have done: Use a 8-10 foot vertical piece of wire fed with
an "L" network at the base. Work this with your car or pickup as a
ground on 20m-6m. Should work every bit as well as a Comet on these
bands.
On 80m and 40m I have used a 33' vertical in the bed of my truck fed
with an "L" network and had good results. Leads me to believe that the
33' would work well with a modest ground system. The Comet is 22' feet
tall, and I would think a real dog on 80m and 40m.
The only advantage on these bands for the Comet is a broad bandwidth.
I think a 33' vertical with a minimal ground system would beat this
antenna especially on the low bands. Lot cheaper.
Gary N4AST