Richard (Rick) Karlquist wrote:
> Dan Zimmerman N3OX wrote:
>
>> I don't see anything in there that is a reason for implicit mistrust of the
>> model. A helical is better than a high Q base loaded vertical. Helical
>> winding is worse than a lumped mid-loaded antenna. Doesn't seem
>> particularly strange to me. It's somewhere in between. The effective coil
>> height *IS* higher than with base loading, so you get a more favorable
>> current distribution. It's non-optimum in terms of wire length (and hence
>> loss) but there's no reason to assume it's going to be worse than ***all***
>> possible lumped loading coils in various locations.
>>
>
> The point about HWV's is not "do they work?" but "are they worth the
> trouble to build?". If you can cover the entire antenna with windings,
> you can just a well, with a lot less work, cover the center 1% with
> windings and have a center loaded vertical.
But a center loaded vertical has a high profile, high wind drag, and is
more fragile than the helically wound vertical.
Some times that is a problem and sometimes it is not. If not, then the
decision is easy, if it is a problem then the helically wound is the
solution. The center loaded can also be recognized from over a 1/4 mile
while the helically wound is rather inconspicuous. A "Stealth" mobile
antenna, if you will.
73
Roger (K8RI)
> So we have shown that it
> is easier to make a center loaded vertical than a HWV. We agree that
> the center loaded vertical is at least as good and probably better.
> Can anyone present a "value proposition" to justify the HWV?
>
> Rick N6RK
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|