Miguel
There are "eyewitness accounts" of all sorts of foolishness.

If you build it perfectly a bazooka will show a decrease in SWR over a very
small range either side of resonance (SWR = 1:1) when compared to a dipole.
This is completely useless except as an academic exercise.

Here's how it works:
The antenna is a parallel-resonant network (the bazooka) in parallel with a
series-resonant network(the dipole).
The parallel resonant (tank circuit) network stores energy and will
oscillate at it's DRIVEN frequency when driven near resonance, so it stores
the energy that would otherwise be reflected as long as it oscillates. Go
too far from resonance and it quits oscillating. This effect manifests
itself at SWR of 1.2:1 or lower. It flattens the SWR curve very near
resonance.
The 2:1 bandwidth is unaffected except by the additional loss of the tank
circuit sitting across the dipole feed point.

What Walter Maxwell showed explicitly is that any increase in SWR bandwidth
is entirely due to loss, if I recall correctly.

So all the trouble of building a bazooka with both legs and the dipole
resonant at exactly the same frequency is a waste of time.
A simple dipole works a bit better and is *MUCH LESS* work and expen$e.

73
H.
NQ5H


"lu6etj" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dear friends:

Thank you very much for your answers.

First of all: I agree with you, but my agreement is inductive, not
experimental because I have not made my homework with that antenna...
..
I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell,
(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections"

But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are
enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With
the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and
this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR...

I think that it must have something true behind so many similar
statements. In the radio club of my area they say to have compared one
against another with clearly favorable results to the bazooka.

I thought...: A plain dipole is not a monoband antenna, it is, in fact,
a multiband antenna, it receives all the frequencies. But do let us
imagine a plain dipole that had connected on its terminals a couple
high Q tuned circuits. That system it would be really "monoband"...
then, if we connect such a system to a poor receiver Would not it
improve the reception perhaps?, eliminating by that way possible
saturation sources or intermodulación noises.
Such a system, empirically it would seem a practically "more silent
antenna" and it would explain, perhaps, the some results obtained by
the colleagues. I say this because it is said that the bazooka
possesses a syntony effect that transforms it into a true monoband
device (I am not sure of it).

It is only an arbitrary example of possible alternative explanations
that, without violating the fundamental principles, can be
compatibilized with the experiences of so many colleagues that
sympathize with this antennas(some of which deserve my technical
respect).

I thank all your answers but I continue to the search of some
explanation that endorses all the facts, just as the formidable article
of Walter in reference to its bandwidth...

I am for sure some of you will be able to help me to find a convincing
explanation.

Thank you very much in adavnce

Miguel Ghezzi (LU 6ETJ)