This paragraph reflects the way that I'll more then likely go:
"If you really want to work 2m optimally, an antenna made for a
frequency 12% away isn't the right choice, unless it is vastly less
hassle to deploy and use. Then, it might work, but it could be 50% as
efficient, again depending upon a number of factors as not yet discussed
here. "
NOT to say, IF the marine band antenna was already up, that I wouldn't
give it a try, but it is not up, so I'll sell the marine band antenna
and purchase an antenna dedicated to the 2 meter band.
Thanks again for everyone's input. It is always a learning experience on
this reflector.
Tom W1ALZ
On 11/22/2013 8:58 AM, Mickey Baker wrote:
Engineers and proficient technical people live in a world of measurement,
optimization, and facts. Lots of things "work." Someone may use an antenna
with an unmatched 3:1 swr and get to the DXCC Honor Roll. I'm sure it has
happened.
But questions are posed and, hopefully, answered factually. Anecdotally,
there is the story of the ham who WAS on a light bulb. Yes, it worked, but
it was far from an optimal solution, I think we can all agree. With
tenacity, I'm sure someone could work all states on 20m or any
other band with a transmitter connected to a marine band antenna, but it
would be far from optimum.
As an engineer, I cringe when these anecdotes are told in context of an
answer to a technical question. They're entertaining, but not factually
helpful.
The problem is that the uninitiated user might not know the difference
between good advice and an entertaining anecdote.
If you really want to work 2m optimally, an antenna made for a frequency
12% away isn't the right choice, unless it is vastly less hassle to deploy
and use. Then, it might work, but it could be 50% as efficient, again
depending upon a number of factors as not yet discussed here.
Mickey N4MB
On Friday, November 22, 2013, Patrick Greenlee wrote:
Absolutely no offense taken. I read with interest and appreciate your
contributions to the technical issues on this site.
I am just standing up for a solution that was good enough and proven to be
so over a period of decades. Perfection is a wonderful goal but not always
cost effective in time, or dollars. The OP apparently has the MB antenna.
If he tries it and gets acceptable results then no harm done. If it
doesn't work acceptably for him then he can profit from the tech
suggestions offered here. Should be a win-win for him.
73
Patrick AF5CK
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Brown
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:59 AM
To: towertalk@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] 2 Meter Balun Question
On 11/21/2013 1:17 PM, Patrick Greenlee wrote:
I think the light bulb comment is unwarranted.
I'm sorry if you're offended -- none was intended. But most of us who
have heard Tom speak on the topic have found the story a clever way of
observing that some things work better than others. I have a vertical
half-wave dipole for 40M hanging next to a very tall redwood, and I can
make a lot of QSOs with it and get good signal reports. But if I switch
to a high horizontal dipole in he middle of the QSO, the other station
will tell me the horizontal dipole is ten dB louder.
My comments were specifically written for the original poster, and to
give him enough ideas to think intelligently about his problem.
73, Jim K9YC
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|