On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:08 -1000, Ken Brown wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> > so although we've reduced the reactive
> > component we've also increased significantly the resistive component.
> > The resulting VSWR is improved ( to 2.32:1), but perhaps not by as much
> > as might first seem likely.
> >
> With some resistive losses in the cable, or lumped constants, the SWR
> improvement will be much "better" at the expense of inefficiency. Since
> SWR is easier to see on your meter than a few dB of signal loss is, this
> is interpreted as "good" to many people.
>
> I have an antenna that has less than 1.2 : 1 VSWR from 160 meters to at
> least 70 cm, but I don't make many QSOs with it. It sits on the floor of
> my shack, takes about a cubic foot of space, and has big black fins on
> it. It is a great wide band antenna, except for the low QSO rate it
> delivers.
A 100 watt light bulb can give nearly that bandwidth, but the impedance
match is drive sensitive. Cross country HF contacts have been made even
back in the AM days with a light bulb dummy load (not shielded) on one
end of the path. Probably better on AM that SSB or CW because of the
drive sensitivity of the load Z.
>
> DE N6KB
>
73, Jerry, K0CQ
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|