Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
It was a great news to hear that my "noSaddam" addition to my aol address
became reality. If this helped in any way, then I am changing it to
"noBinLaden" and we will see how long will that take to materialize.

Interesting. You didn't happen to have a "noWMD" or a "noAlQaedaconnection"
addition to your aol address, too, did ya?

Yuri, K3BU quoted K4IA:
"According to ON4UN-linear loading can be made virtually loss free (pg
9-39)."

ON4UN does say that but the page is different in my copy of "Low-Band
DXing". Mine is the 2nd edition. On page 9-39 are SWR curves versus
frequency for the vertical top-hat loaded antenna on page 9-37.

Perhaps a better idea of "linear loading" may be seen in Fig 9-27 on
page 9-19 of edition no.2. The subscript reads:

"Since no coils are used in this form of loading (a zig-zag in the
radiator length), linear loading cam be used with almost no loss."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Since no coils are used in this form of loading (a zig-zag in the
radiator length), linear loading cam be used with almost no loss."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI




I would speculate that the opinion that coils are more lossy is from the
practice of using relatively thin wires for coils vs. heavier tubing or wire
for the linear loading.
With linear loading, depending on its mounting or folding, it will do some RF
cancellations and interacting with radiator, while coils are much "cleaner" in
this respect.
Again, W6?? drastically improved loaded 3 el. KLM 80m beam (efficiency,
pattern) by replacing linear loading with coils.
So maybe time to be more specific about what kind of coils vs. lin. loading.
Another subject for real life tests and measurements.

Yuri, K3BU