At 08:43 AM 8/27/01 -0400, Tom Rauch wrote:
>Unless we A-B an antenna time and time again against a known
>and stable reference and average the results, small or even modest
> changes are lost in the data clutter.
Very true. That's why I always base my conclusions on observations made
over a span of years. Log entries are a fair filter of "measurement noise"
and, after all, isn't the "best" antenna the one that make the operator the
happiest?
>A 70 foot vertical with four 45deg hat wires is equal to a 99ft vertical
>for loop radiation resistance. A 60 foot vertical with four flat hat
>wires is equal to the same.
Please repeat, if you can, your analysis using a 50 foot vertical section
and compare a two wire "flat top" to two drooping wires with the ends 10
feet off the ground. I would very much like to see if your results come out
close to mine.
>Using the hat wires for guying certainly isn't a big problem,
It is a very big problem if it is not practical to put guys at the top of
the structure. Remember that my original premise was for portable and
mobile antennas. Droopy wire "hats" must show a significant advantage to
justify a very large increase in construction, transportation and
installation difficulty. On the other hand, if you already have a large
guyed structure out in the pasture, the choice becomes obvious!
>Anything creates problems if done incorrectly.
Hence the need to pose the questions to the collective wisdom of the list.
Thanks for your input, Tom.
73,
Larry - W7IUV
|