| |
W4NTI > HF 25.08.03 16:41l 36 Lines 955 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 0G91B.7882$B
Read: DL9NDQ DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: Re: G5RV Antenna
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<7M3TJZ<CT1EJC<
CS1AAS<CS1CRE<CS1ACP<CT2HKY
Sent: 030824/1112Z @:CT2HKY.CTCO.PRT.EU #:18883 TSTHW221b $:0G91B.7882$B
R:030821/2126Z @:on4hu.ampr.org
"Dan Richardson" <ChangeThisToCallSign@mendolink.com> wrote in message
news:64i8kvkmqt7jhfq54em8pt2jrjm7muk203@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:18:03 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" <w4nti@get rid of this
> mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes it would be more effecient. However....what you will have is a
> >non-resonant center feed dipole. Make it resonant and it will be even
more
> >effecient.
>
> Nonsense! The fact that an antenna may be physically resonate doesn't
> have any thing to do that it will be more effecient or work better
> than an one which isn't physically resonate.
>
> That is an old wive's tale.
>
> One example: a 1¼-wave dipole has 3 dB gain comparied to a ½-wave
> (resonate) dipole.
>
> Danny, K6MHE
>
>
>
You believe what you want Danny. Do all the theory you want. I don't claim
to be an expert. But with over 40 years of running wires through trees...I
know what works and what dont.
Dan/W4NTI
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
