Didn't SGC have a version of a tuner that sort of clamped on an outside car
window and had an 8 foot vertical rising from it ?

Did anyone here ever use one and what were the results ?

Nick

(in UK - don't see QST)

wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:02 pm, Art Clemons wrote:
I almost could not believe that an article that starts out with using an
antenna tuner to deliver all possible power to mobile HF antennas got
published.

I know quite a few people that want to try that set up. Without fail,
I warn against it. Some listen, some don't.. But that's ok, sometimes
failure is the best teacher...

I've considered putting a tuner on my Bugcatcher for 80 meters, but
haven't. The thing is so narrow there that the alternative is two taps
for the phone portion of the band.


Whats really bad is the few die hards that run those and think they
are world beaters. One will tell my friends they are the greatest
thing
since sliced bread, and then I'll have to tell em, no no no...
After a while they don't know who to believe...
So I often have to let them learn the hard way.

sometimes that is what it takes!


I assume the "die hards" don't try anything else to compare with..
I haven't read the article, as I don't QST, but if they recommended
that thing as a good performing antenna, they should be flogged.



I was surprised that they didn't include Bugcatchers in the test.
Perhaps they consider every center loaded mobile antenna identical?
Maybe they just tested the "pretty" antennas?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

QST editors can't be expected to be experts on all the topics they have
to deal with. Over the years, they've dealt with the problem in various
ways. One was to establish a pool of "Technical Advisors" -- volunteers
who had particular expertise in various areas. Some manuscripts being
considered for publication were sent to the appropriate TAs for comments
and review. This practice slowly died out, but I don't know why. I
suspect it was because the editors seldom had the time for this step in
the process due to erratic scheduling.

Eventually, they adopted a solution which was easy on the editors and
their schedules: post the proposed articles to a restricted web site
where the TAs could review them and leave comments. This saved the time
of communicating with individual TAs, and made it unnecessary to wait
for a response -- if comments weren't there by the deadline, too bad.
What I saw as one problem with this approach was that comments and
analyses were regularly being made by TAs whose appointments had nothing
at all to do with the subject matter. As an example (not representing
any actual particular occurrence), a TA whose expertise was, say, legal
matters or publicity would review (for technical content) an article on
phased arrays. As far as I could tell, their reviews were weighted
equally to those from people who really understood the topic. In any
case, the one or few reviews from knowledgeable people were generally
lost in the noise. I don't know if this is the method still being used
-- I resigned my TA appointment several years ago when it became
apparent that I was no longer able to make any substantial contribution.
I know of at least a couple of very knowledgeable people who have done
likewise. This is a shame, because they're perfectly willing to provide
free technical assistance, yet the ARRL doesn't seem able to find a way
to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure they've ever solved the problem of editors who don't
understand the material modifying it in such a way as to make it no
longer true. In all cases but one when this happened to me, I was able
to correct the problems before publication. In one case, however, I
wasn't given enough time to correct the numerous misinterpretations,
invalid "explanations", and other seriously wrong modifications made by
the editor and had to pull the article(*). Several extremely capable
people I know, however, have had serious errors introduced to their
articles by the editor *after their final review*, so they didn't even
get to see the errors until the article was published under their name.
Most of these people will never write for QST again as a result. This is
one of the reasons that QST has a smaller pool of knowledgeable and
capable authors to draw from.

So when you see a technically weak article in QST, the author might not
be entirely at fault.

(*) I want to make it clear that I'm very aware that my writing and
communicating skills aren't all that great, and I really appreciate
having an editor improve the style, clarity, and brevity of my writing,
as well as questioning any weak or inconsistent arguments I've made. [A
good editor would have cut half the words from the preceding sentence,
and made it a lot clearer at the same time.] So I welcome editing. What
I do object to is editing which changes the core meaning of the content
and/or results in its being technically incorrect.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On 26 Oct, 13:12, Roy Lewallen wrote:
QST editors can't be expected to be experts on all the topics they have
to deal with. Over the years, they've dealt with the problem in various
ways. One was to establish a pool of "Technical Advisors" -- volunteers
who had particular expertise in various areas. Some manuscripts being
considered for publication were sent to the appropriate TAs for comments
and review. This practice slowly died out, but I don't know why. I
suspect it was because the editors seldom had the time for this step in
the process due to erratic scheduling.

Eventually, they adopted a solution which was easy on the editors and
their schedules: post the proposed articles to a restricted web site
where the TAs could review them and leave comments. This saved the time
of communicating with individual TAs, and made it unnecessary to wait
for a response -- if comments weren't there by the deadline, too bad.
What I saw as one problem with this approach was that comments and
analyses were regularly being made by TAs whose appointments had nothing
at all to do with the subject matter. As an example (not representing
any actual particular occurrence), a TA whose expertise was, say, legal
matters or publicity would review (for technical content) an article on
phased arrays. As far as I could tell, their reviews were weighted
equally to those from people who really understood the topic. In any
case, the one or few reviews from knowledgeable people were generally
lost in the noise. I don't know if this is the method still being used
-- I resigned my TA appointment several years ago when it became
apparent that I was no longer able to make any substantial contribution.
I know of at least a couple of very knowledgeable people who have done
likewise. This is a shame, because they're perfectly willing to provide
free technical assistance, yet the ARRL doesn't seem able to find a way
to take advantage of it.

I'm not sure they've ever solved the problem of editors who don't
understand the material modifying it in such a way as to make it no
longer true. In all cases but one when this happened to me, I was able
to correct the problems before publication. In one case, however, I
wasn't given enough time to correct the numerous misinterpretations,
invalid "explanations", and other seriously wrong modifications made by
the editor and had to pull the article(*). Several extremely capable
people I know, however, have had serious errors introduced to their
articles by the editor *after their final review*, so they didn't even
get to see the errors until the article was published under their name.
Most of these people will never write for QST again as a result. This is
one of the reasons that QST has a smaller pool of knowledgeable and
capable authors to draw from.

So when you see a technically weak article in QST, the author might not
be entirely at fault.

(*) I want to make it clear that I'm very aware that my writing and
communicating skills aren't all that great, and I really appreciate
having an editor improve the style, clarity, and brevity of my writing,
as well as questioning any weak or inconsistent arguments I've made. [A
good editor would have cut half the words from the preceding sentence,
and made it a lot clearer at the same time.] So I welcome editing. What
I do object to is editing which changes the core meaning of the content
and/or results in its being technically incorrect.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

But "experts" are usually diehards and unwilling to
accept, analyse, or review change.
Can you imagine some of the "experts" on this group
having a hand at what should be printed and what was hogwash?
Maybe it is time to govern science by the polls.
Art

Jerry wrote:

I haven't read the article, but if the guy is claiming that his "tuner'
thing is *better than a center-loaded bugcatcher or reasonable sized
screwdriver (FULL sized), I would LOVE to get in on any wagers he is
prepared to entertain! (Snickers and unintentional "razzberries" beginning
a crescendo and bursting into loud, uncontrollable guffaws and knee
slaps!)



No, it wasn't quite that bad. The author though seems to have used a tuner
to match to the antennas being tested and then coming to some conclusion
about how well said antenna radiated energy to a relatively nearby field
strength meter (360 feet). One basic problem is that you then end up with
some signal level which may or may not be equal to the original output from
the rig (apparently an ICOM 706-MKIIG) reaching the antenna. That might
make the rig happy but it does leave the antenna with an awfully funny feed
at times, one that could be oh 3 dB or so down from what the rig puts out.

Richard Harrison wrote:

No problem with a tuner. "The input power was the same on each antenna."

How can the input power be the same if it's going through the tuner? The
input power is the same at the input of the tuner, but we have absolutely
no idea what the output power from the tuner is. Isn't that a problem for
a fair test? Would not a more reasonable approach be to use something like
Wattmeter and get the antenna resonant? I've seen folks who used antenna
tuners find out the tuner can get really hot into some loads? If the tuner
is consuming some of the RF as heat, that's power not reaching the antenna
ergo not a fair test.


No problem with 360 feet. Received carrier power is proportional to
radiated power at that distance along the horiaontal path.



Isn't 360 feet within the near RF field at most HF frequencies?

I haven't read the article, but are different mobile antennas being
compared on different vehicles, or the same vehicle? It's amazing how
many people don't realize that the vehicle is fully half the antenna,
and may in many cases play a more important role in determining overall
radiating efficiency than the supposed "antenna". So it's impossible to
draw any conclusions about mobile antennas based on comparisons done
when they're mounted on different vehicles. It's as much a test of the
vehicle's effectiveness as a radiator as it is the antenna's.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
QST editors can't be expected to be experts on all the topics they have
to deal with. Over the years, they've dealt with the problem in various
ways. One was to establish a pool of "Technical Advisors" -- volunteers
SNIP
Didn't look to see what you are using to post but could you please
set your line length correctly. Sixty eight characters would do
fine! (E.G. as Thunderbird has corrected your post above.)

Thanks,


Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I haven't read the article, but are different mobile antennas being
compared on different vehicles, or the same vehicle? It's amazing how
many people don't realize that the vehicle is fully half the antenna,
and may in many cases play a more important role in determining overall
radiating efficiency than the supposed "antenna". So it's impossible to
draw any conclusions about mobile antennas based on comparisons done
when they're mounted on different vehicles. It's as much a test of the
vehicle's effectiveness as a radiator as it is the antenna's.


Same vehicle, at least that part was correct

charlie wrote:

Didn't look to see what you are using to post but could you please
set your line length correctly. Sixty eight characters would do
fine! (E.G. as Thunderbird has corrected your post above.)



Roy seems to be using T'Bird which if I remember correctly defaults to 72
characters per line. Roy's post showed up fine in Knode here too.