Freq. MHz. Efficiency Average Gain Peak Gain
MHz % DBi DBi

3.5 9.6 -10.43 -8.49
7.15 41.24 -3.85 -1.33
14.2 23.21 -6.36 -1.59
21.2 30.01 -5.23 -1.36
29 53.81 -2.69 2.17

73
Danny, K6MHE


80M is a bit lower than I expect, but not by much:referring to dBmax values. It
probably picks up a dB or more at the high end of 75M.

It doesn't mean much to discuss 'average gain' values unless its an isotropic
or (within a certain elevation range) an omni antenna. Sometimes vertical
dipoles are described as having an 'average gain', but I haven't seen that
used for horizontal ones:-)

The pattern is not bidirectional on the higher bands BTW... ar least that's
what intuition tells me...

73,
Chip N1IR

"Fractenna" wrote

Chip, how did we digress to comparing a "high B&W" to a "low dipole"?
When
the two are each at their optimal height (and why would we ever compare
anything else..) then the dipole has it all over a B&W. I use my (amost
1/2
wave height) dipole only for DX, without a tuner on it's two resonant
frequencies and with a tuner on two bands well above, with amazing
results.
5, 8, 11 and 15 mhz to Alaska, Equador, Venezuela and Canadian Maritimes,
if
that qualifies as "DX".

73

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va


Hi Jack,

It seems relevant to me in two big contexts: (1) why do some folks do well
(relatively) with the BW antenna; (2) what does it replace?

My response clearly explains (1). In the case of (2), I can think of many
circumstances where it is preferable to put one dipole (BW) up high than a
slew
of dipoles up high. If you have neighbors, you know what I mean:-)

Don't know what DX is to me anymore; I have DXCC #1 Honor Roll and haven't
been
active on the low bands in several years. To someone else, DX is what you
haven't heard or worked yet:-) I say go for it.

Some folks don't live in a perfect world, Jack, and its good to know when
a
compromise is a true degradation.

A BW antenna, up high, is a good antenna for DX across many bands. It is
hardly
a dummy load.

Hope this helps on this question.

73,
Chip N1IR

Hi Chip,

Yes it does help to hear it works reasonably well when other circumstances
limit the options. I can't for instance squeeze more long dipoles up, but I
could try one of the T2 varieties someday. Since the dipole I now have works
across many bands well with a tuner, the B&W could never replace it, but it
might augment it someday.

Cheers and thanks,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va

Jack Painter wrote:

"Fractenna" wrote


Chip, how did we digress to comparing a "high B&W" to a "low dipole"?

When

the two are each at their optimal height (and why would we ever compare
anything else..) then the dipole has it all over a B&W. I use my (amost

1/2

wave height) dipole only for DX, without a tuner on it's two resonant
frequencies and with a tuner on two bands well above, with amazing

results.

5, 8, 11 and 15 mhz to Alaska, Equador, Venezuela and Canadian Maritimes,

if

that qualifies as "DX".

73

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va


Hi Jack,

It seems relevant to me in two big contexts: (1) why do some folks do well
(relatively) with the BW antenna; (2) what does it replace?

My response clearly explains (1). In the case of (2), I can think of many
circumstances where it is preferable to put one dipole (BW) up high than a

slew

of dipoles up high. If you have neighbors, you know what I mean:-)

Don't know what DX is to me anymore; I have DXCC #1 Honor Roll and haven't

been

active on the low bands in several years. To someone else, DX is what you
haven't heard or worked yet:-) I say go for it.

Some folks don't live in a perfect world, Jack, and its good to know when

a

compromise is a true degradation.

A BW antenna, up high, is a good antenna for DX across many bands. It is

hardly

a dummy load.

Hope this helps on this question.

73,
Chip N1IR


Hi Chip,

Yes it does help to hear it works reasonably well when other circumstances
limit the options. I can't for instance squeeze more long dipoles up, but I
could try one of the T2 varieties someday. Since the dipole I now have works
across many bands well with a tuner, the B&W could never replace it, but it
might augment it someday.

Cheers and thanks,

Jack Painter
Virginia Beach, Va


As I have said many times here, The B&W antenna is for those that need
it not those who can/need/want to use other means of connecting with the
ether. It is definitely not the most efficient means of wireless
communications but it is definitely fool proof in operation.

Dave WD9BDZ

Hi Jack,

It certainly is relevant to ask whether line/antenna mismatch losses are lower
with the ATU across all the bands, compared to the ohmic matching of the T2. In
any case, nothing is a substitute for getting the antenna up high--but you know
this:-)

73,
Chip N1IR

As I have said many times here, The B&W antenna is for those that need
it not those who can/need/want to use other means of connecting with the
ether. It is definitely not the most efficient means of wireless
communications but it is definitely fool proof in operation.

Dave WD9BDZ



From what I can see, this is basically a military antenna sold to hams, hence
the high price. I think it is pretty reliable for what it delivers, and at 65
feet long, that's a pretty good solution many times. Just get it HIGH up.

Incidentally, I am at W3EF's right now and guest op'ing the night. He typically
works EU on 40M in mid-afternoon with 150 watts. Of course, the tower IS at 126
feet....:-)

His option was 3 els linear loaded at 126 feet vs 5 els trapped at 50 feet. I
don't think he regrets the decision.

Remember the other added bonus: less neighbor RFI with a higher antenna!

73,
Chip N1IR