Can anyone figure out what this guy expected, other than a miracle?
http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/in...,100680.0.html
Printable View
Can anyone figure out what this guy expected, other than a miracle?
http://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/in...,100680.0.html
It looks sort of like the bait I used to use to catch squid as a kid on Martha's Vineyard.
I'd chuck it in the water and see what bites.
You should tell him to try a fractal vertical antenna. Probably work as good as the one he has now. :lol:
Can anyone decipher the following?
Quote:
The flat dipole configuration would be best for gain side-to-side but the SWR would be above 1.5 to 1 because of impedance around 70 ohms. It would not be good for QSOs with stations with vertical antennas.
Well, let me put it this way...Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ3N
40 years ago, he'd have bought a Gotham vertical. Ya know what I mean?
(a) Gain off the sides of the antenna is better when it is configured as a linear dipole, not an inverted VQuote:
Originally Posted by N8YX
(b) SWR in the above configuration will be higher because a linear dipole has a characteristic impedance at the center feed-poin of 70-75 ohms, whereas an inverted V has a characteristic impedance of 50 - 52 ohms.
(c) Because the flat dipole is radiating in the horizontal plane, thus horizontal polarization, it won't work well when communicating with stations running vertical polarization.
(c1) Whomever wrote (c) above is full of male bovine animal waste byproduct.
No, I don't. That's quite a bit before I got into ham radio. Please elucidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by W3WN
Antenna ads from the 50s and 60s? Boy, some of you are really old farts. :neener:
I imagine that the CHA-250B is the modern equivalent of the Gotham.
And second cousin to the bat wing dipole.