In a message dated 96-12-14 11:34:49 EST, you write:
>I have found as others have that the antenna performs relatively better on
>80-20
>(I get a lot of compliments and good "runs" on 80) than 160. My GAP sees
>salt
>water to the horizon and yet is not competitive with some others' 160m
setups
>that on balance should not be any louder, considering
>height/location/polarization, etc.
Jim --
We found the same thing with the GAP on 160M - it's not a competitive
antenna. We operated the CQWW 160 Test from the Washington State coast and a
couple of hundred yards from saltwater but within the beach water table. It
was amazing - we HEARD everything. But we could only work about 1/3 of the
stations we heard. My feeling was that it was therefore about 33% efficient.
The current owner of the antenna, N0AX, says that it does work much better
on 80M.
73, Steve K7LXC
TOWER TECH -- professional tower supplies and services for amateurs
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: K7LXC@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|