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 also noted that the testing antenna was 360 feet away.

I'm waiting to read on here that I've mis-understood a great method of
measuring HF mobile antennas, but absent a troll or two, I don't expect
too.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:02:12 -0400, Art Clemons
wrote:

I'm waiting to read on here that I've mis-understood a great method of
measuring HF mobile antennas, but absent a troll or two, I don't expect
to.

Yeah, that was ugly. I also noticed the author used what appeared to
be a base loaded motorized antenna and then concluded that the
motorized antennas weren't worth a hoot. There are some decent center
loaded ones out there that would have given better results. Base
loaded antennas are probably the worst possible case, based on my
experience. Wonder how that article made it past the editor?

S.T.W.

On Oct 26, 1:43 am, Sum Ting Wong wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:02:12 -0400, Art Clemons
wrote:

I'm waiting to read on here that I've mis-understood a great method of
measuring HF mobile antennas, but absent a troll or two, I don't expect
to.

Yeah, that was ugly. I also noticed the author used what appeared to
be a base loaded motorized antenna and then concluded that the
motorized antennas weren't worth a hoot. There are some decent center
loaded ones out there that would have given better results. Base
loaded antennas are probably the worst possible case, based on my
experience. Wonder how that article made it past the editor?

S.T.W.

Publish or perish?

denny

BTW, here is the email I sent to QST after reading that article...
************************************************** *********************

I know that as a business owner that customers only say something when
they are not happy... As your customer I have to say that the QST
article comparing various mobile antenna configurations appears to be
a bad decision... The methodology is non existant and the information
imparted is thin gruel indeed... I can only assume you are having
problems finding articles elementary enough to satisfy your target
membership of new hams who have rudimentary technical knowledge...

Let me urge you to return with us now to those thrilling days of
yesteryear when QST set a technical standard and stimulated the young
hams reading it to learn and understand, rather than simply sliding
down to our level... Success and leadership is not exclusively
defined by circulation numbers - rather it is more defined by the
standing and esteem it is held in by the rest of the amateur,
technical, and professional community...
************************************************** *******************************

denny / k8do

Sum Ting Wong wrote:
Yeah, that was ugly. I also noticed the author used what appeared to
be a base loaded motorized antenna and then concluded that the
motorized antennas weren't worth a hoot. There are some decent center
loaded ones out there that would have given better results. Base
loaded antennas are probably the worst possible case, based on my
experience. Wonder how that article made it past the editor?

I added a top hat and "RV extension" to my HS-1600
that doubled the length of the bottom section. Here's
a picture and the combined results of three CA
shootouts from about 20 years ago. There don't seem to
have been any break-throughs since then.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Denny wrote:
Let me urge you to return with us now to those thrilling days of
yesteryear when QST set a technical standard and stimulated the young
hams reading it to learn and understand, rather than simply sliding
down to our level.

Right on, Denny. Where is Larsen E. Rapp when we
need him? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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...
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.
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.
MK

Art Clemons wrote:
"I don`t expect too."

Why all the Andy Rooney crap here?

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

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

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:16:14 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote:
Denny wrote:
Let me urge you to return with us now to those thrilling days of
yesteryear when QST set a technical standard and stimulated the young
hams reading it to learn and understand, rather than simply sliding
down to our level.

Right on, Denny. Where is Larsen E. Rapp when we need him? :-)

Maybe QST has hired Hashafisti Scratchi away from CQ?

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Sum Ting Wong wrote:
Yeah, that was ugly. I also noticed the author used what appeared to
be a base loaded motorized antenna and then concluded that the
motorized antennas weren't worth a hoot. There are some decent center
loaded ones out there that would have given better results. Base
loaded antennas are probably the worst possible case, based on my
experience. Wonder how that article made it past the editor?

I added a top hat and "RV extension" to my HS-1600
that doubled the length of the bottom section. Here's
a picture and the combined results of three CA
shootouts from about 20 years ago. There don't seem to
have been any break-throughs since then.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil,

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!)

You mean they actually allow people like THAT to WRITE that s--- in
magazines?


73

Jerry
K4KWH