| |
VK3ABK > ANT 22.05.06 12:23l 40 Lines 1274 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 30399_VK3HEG
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Antenna competion (G0FTD)
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0IUZ<DB0GOS<DB0RES<DK0WUE<7M3TJZ<JE7YGF<
JN1ZPJ<VK7AX<VK3HEG
Sent: 060520/0530Z @:VK3HEG.#WEV.VIC.AUS.OC #:30399 [Ballarat] $:30399_VK3HEG
From: VK3ABK@VK3HEG.#WEV.VIC.AUS.OC
To : ANT@WW
Hello all pendants.
Once again I must try to chastise the annoying 'Ampersandy'. He who would
be king, is making a good court jester! He seems to be so wrapped in his
spreadsheets, and other trivia, that real science is passing him by. :-)
Look at the 'efficiency' of the latest effort from G0FTD....
" You could have a 2cm antenna on 80m and achieve 100% efficiency, but it
will still produce a lousy signal."
And, what has this got to do with it ?....
"Haven't you heard of the term "effective aperture" yet ?"
(Who is he quoting " " , anyway?)
- &y - (There's that ampersand back again.)
Can anyone tell us how a "2cm antenna on 80m" can have an 'efficiency' of
100%. (100% of what, we should ask!) AND! "...still produce a lousy signal."
Just what is the 'court jester' trying to do? Pull the leg of the king or the
chambermaid! I doubt that anything so 'ineffective' would make such nonsense
as a claim that 'efficiency' can be, and yet, not be, output dependant.
Hey, Amper (no, I'm not going to call you 'sandy' just yet) , Just what are
you trying to say? Give me some more mathematical 'proof' of your quotation
or explain it in plain 'technical' English.
With much puzzlement :-)
73. Dick. VK3ABK.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
