At 08:51 PM 12/1/02 -0500, KI9A@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 12/1/02 5:40:58 PM Central Standard Time, K7LXC@aol.com
>writes:
>
>
> > You need a copy of the N0AX and K7LXC Tribander Comparison Report
> > available from <A
> HREF="http://www.championradio.com/";>www.championradio.com
> > </A>
>
>Nice....a list that acts as a sales pitch instead of real info.....
>
I think this is kind of a bum rap, considering that Steve spends a lot of
his time (and some of his money) keeping this list up and running. It's a
tremendous resource, and I don't think he's overdone the "commercials" in
proportion to the amount of list traffic. Stick around and see if you
don't agree.
On the report itself, I complained a little about the methodology when it
came out, but the authors are quite up front about the limitations of their
method. I think I would be inclined to trust it in relative terms (one
tested antenna vs another).
Those old Cushcraft gain numbers are definitely not to be believed. A few
years ago, I modeled the C-3 versus a TH7DXX in NEC-2, using an idealized
TH-7 model (no traps) and a C-3 model derived from the actual
hardware. The C-3's forward gain was within .5 to 1.5 dB of the TH-7,
depending on band. As Dick says, the C-3's F/B is considerably less than
the TH-7's (with its additional elements and 24-foot boom). I would not
expect it to be much less than an A-3, though.
73, Pete N4ZR
Sometimes a tower is just a tower
|