'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
H. David Kowal (KC0RUP)
on
December 30, 2004
View comments about this article!
I have both an electronic/computer background and a multimedia/graphics background. I say this because one is based on logic where you have truth tables and laws of physics to qualify an answer and the other is often subjective. Though some “rules” with balance, harmony, and composition are often followed. But often the case is you have to know the rules before you can effectively brake them, applies.
My question for discussion is this. I am limited in space and the type of antenna I can put up. I am disabled so resources are also a consideration. I like the idea of having the ability of turning an antenna and on top of some gain, be able to have a degree of signal rejection from the sides and the back. Since I got my license in March I have been using dipoles. I currently have eight running through the trees in our back yard. Over the summer I built two Quads, 6 and 2 meter. I love the way you can point the antennas and how they reduce the signals on the sides and back. But I would like to have a more active band then 6 right now as I play with the different modes and different bands, so I plan on taking down the 6 meter Quad that is on a 25’ mast and replace it with a mini beam.
Since I got my license I have worked 46 states of which 22 were CW, 4 of the 5 continents, 33 countries with phone, PSK, RTTY, MT64, SSTV and AM.
I have looked at a lot of antennas over the last few months, even e-mailed some of the people who wrote reviews here in eHam. The antenna that looks as if it will fit my bill is the MA5B by Cushcraft. I realize that anything but a full size beam is a compromise but here is were I have my problem.
Logic tells me that the antenna should be good or bad, not both given the compromise. There are some people who say that I will love the antenna and if they had to they would buy another. Some even go to far as to say the antenna works better then the company specs sheet. And there are some who say that I will be wasting my money. Even go so far as to say that the day I put it up I will wish I didn’t.
The people who speak highly of the antenna are ones who own it, some, even after 2-3 years. Two of the people who speak against it are people who I respect their opinions and I consider them Elmer’s and have been hams for over 30-40 years.
Now if this was a piece of art or the layout and design of a web page I could understand where some people would be subjective and personal likes and tastes would play a part.
But this is something that is governed by the laws of physics. Even with variables such as my QTH, soil type, prorogation, weather conditions, etc., I feel as yea or nay answer would be available.
How can people in the same hobby, studying the same laws of physics, been in the hobby for a length of time so they all have experience, come to completely 180 degrees about the same question?
I realize that I have a lot to learn about the hobby and because of my financial situation I do rely on more experienced Hams to help me so I don’t make costly mistakes. But this one has me in a fix.
It would seem to me that the antenna for what I want to do with it would either be a good investment or not. If it were not good I would then move on and try to find something that was. If it were good, then I would move on to the next phase of my hobby experience and maybe be able to work more DX and rag chew a little longer.
Am I missing the boat on this one? How can this antenna be good for me from some people and bad for me from other? As Spock would say, “Captain, this is not logical.”
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W8CAR on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Aye Captain we must replace the dilitium crystals!!!!
David, I have several comments here. I have been licensed for over 40 years and have experienced many antenna succeses, failures and head scratchers. Here is my take:
1) Expectations: If your expectations are high for an antenna and it doenst't seem to perform -you are disappointed and likely to blame the antenna and not your expectations. Example: Someone puts up an antenna and the band noise is lower than before so it's A) better or B) worse based on past experience. Some of us equate band noise as an indicator of an antenna's performance.
2) Mechanical: The Cushcraft R7 has a somewhat deserved reputation as a bugger to keep working. Lots of places exist to cause bad connections and thus intermittent operation. I picked one up in a flea market a few years ago and reworked it and it seems to work fine-sometimes. But, it sounds like a dummy load on 10 meters, But, as a second antenna to check band condx quickly it is fine. If you have less experience with the mechanical and electrical problems that antennas can have this will cause you to give it a poor rating.
3) Subjectivity: I have been lucky enough to have operated at several high profile stations in contests. You know high, large, well designed antennas with good radios and high power. Then I come home to my station with wires and a 55 foot tower. I know what to expect between my setup and a really top notch station (not that mine isn't top notch for my nitch!!!!) Many of us can not be objective when evaluating an antenna because we have nothing to compare it to. If the ad says "works all bands with good SWR' I tend to expect compromises (like the Cushcraft R7) but some people expect the ad works to be bascially true.
4) Grumpiness: Some of us (myself included) have been known to lose objectivity if we don't get good service or the antenna doesn't work out of the box or doesn't meet our expectations. We fire off a review that contains an acidic shredding and sarcastic comments before we cool off.
I would take all the reviews with a grain of salt and realize that the Cushcraft MA5 is a compromise antenna . Does it meet your needs? Does it fit your pocketbook? Could you put up something bigger (isn't that all our dream?! IF you put it together right and remember it's a compromise antenna (as are most antennas) then go for it.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by AA4PB on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are a couple of reasons as I see it:
1) Most antennas are a compromise of one sort or another. Different people make their compromises differently.
2) Most hams don't have a scientific means to measure and evaluate an antenna. What you get is a "general feeling" about its performance over some period of time. It is usually based on what DX they have worked and what kind of signal reports they received.
3) Lacking any scientific measurement capability, most analysis results from compairisons to some previous antenna. Seldom to we have the ability to make A/B comparisons in real time, switching between antennas using the same signals under exactly the same conditions of propogation, local noise, etc.
4) Even when you have scientific measurement data on an antenna it is often difficult to correlate the data to real world performance, especially on HF frequencies. There are just so many different variables involved in the real world propogation.
5) Given human nature, we usually don't like to admit that we've made a mistake. The antenna we just purchased is often the best antenna we ever used. The one we don't have must be junk or we would have purchased it instead :-)
Unfortunately the best you can do is to take input from as many people as possible, look at the mfgs specifications, and then make your own decision about whether to give it a try or not. Unless the comments lean very heavily one way or the other, I generally discard those that claim it is the best antenna ever as well as those that claim it is total junk. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.
You won't normally find a major, major difference between most antennas of a similar size and design, when they are properly installed. Performance wise, on HF a few dB difference generally gets lost in the propogation variations. When someone reports a giant difference it is likely because the antenna was not installed correctly, such as using a vertical with insufficient or ineffective radials attached.
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KB7LYM on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is Scotty.
You wrote.....
Am I missing the boat on this one? How can this antenna be good for me from some people and bad for me from other? As Spock would say, “Captain, this is not logical.
Well Captain there are here on Earth those that say that BAKED BEANS is the thing you should have !
Others say that it is bad for you, Gas and cramp.
But and this is a BIG but the BAKED BEANS lovers will say.. They are even better then the Farmers say they are.
On the other hand, the others howl when they come close to a BEAN lover in a confined Elevator so to speak.
That Captain is logical.
From the logbook of Scotty
Happy New Year and rememember
Always eat BEANS with ONIONS.
Why have GAS when one can upgrade to TEARGAS !
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W0FM on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keep in mind that you will occasionally read reviews that lack logic AND objectivity. Like a reviewer who rates the antenna a "5" and comments "Best antenna I've ever owned. Really glad I bought it"....while he is still unpacking the parts and reviewing the assembly manual. I think those folks are just excited and looking for someone to talk to. And the "5" still counts in the score.
73,
Terry, WØFM
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WA1SCI on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All you can do is put up the best antenna that you can given your space limitations and other restrictions. It really doesn't matter if your antenna doesn't perform as well as a full size monobander on a 100' tower, if you don't have the ability to put a monster antenna up, you can't put it up, and that's that. Besides, my experience says that when conditions are good, they are good for everyone, and when they are bad, they are bad for everyone. A good day with a dipole beats a bad day with a monobander.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N4GI on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>Unfortunately the best you can do is to take input from as many people as possible, look at the mfgs specifications<<<
No, the best you can do is get modeling software and/or a stack of good antenna books, educate yourself, and then make your own decisions.
Spending big $$$ on a commercial dipole??? That's what I call "not logical".
N4GI
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KE6BOL on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Captain! We're puttin out fifteen-hundred watts already! The finals canna take any more!
73! = "Peace, live long, and prosper!"
KE6BOL op Mark
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K1CJS on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about the various locations and differing conditions that those antenna were tested at and under (if they were tested at all, as someone pointed out).
1. One person tested theirs at their home, in a valley surrounded by hills while another tested theirs from the top of one of those hills. Whose test showed better results?
2. One person lives in an area where there are soil conditions that preclude easily putting in a good ground system (granted, some antenna do not need to be grounded) while another just has to drive a ground rod in and has, for all purposes, an excellent ground system. If their antenna requires grounding, who would most likely have better results?
3. A ham has been exposed to a certain brand for most of his life and has used them for his station (his father used them) and is asked about another brand name and a comparison between his favorite and the other. What is his answer likely to be?
My point is this: Everybody has different situations and different variables, not to mention their own sometimes pre-made opinion as to what is better. Personal opinion enters into this equation more often than not. Why not pick an antenna that fits your situation (as you have more than likely done) and run with that? Everybody would like to have the optimum setup and be able to dig that hard to hear signal out every time, but that never happens--not even to the operator who has that expensive setup and antenna system and all that space to build it in.
Now this is only my opinion, and you can tell from it I would never be a serious contester, but you can't miss the signal you don't hear, can you?
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K0IZ on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I concur with many of the above comments, and will extend a few of my own.
Installation factors can greatly affect antenna performance. Some install verticals with few or no ground radials, and get poor performance. Others read the antenna books and install a substantial number, with better performance.
Height above ground makes a great difference, both in gain and angle of radiation. Many hams make little distinction between comparison reports over shorter and longer distances. For example, a dipole close to ground will perform well over short distances (radiation mostly up), whereas at 1/2 wavelength or more, short distances will be worse and longer distances much better.
One antenna might be 10 db better than another(at a certain distance and radiation angle), but unless there is a good reference antenna, many hams might not know this.
Some confuse radiation efficiency with SWR. Just because an antenna has broad, low SWR doesn't mean it is an efficient antenna (a dummy load might have 1:1 SWR yet no one would try to use it as an antenna). Antenna advertisements seem to emphasize SWR more than gain (especially for non-beam antennas). PRobably since many multi-band compromise antennas actually have loss (worse than reference dipole or isotropic).
I have found that Cebik's (W4RNL)web site www.cebik.com is an excellent source of good antenna info and modeling.
John.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by AD6WL on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another thing to consider is what the individuals were comparing the antenna to. For example compared to a Force 12 C31, the MA5B may not be that good of an antenna. Compare it to a G5RV and you will probably have a good review.
Secondly, how was the antenna mounted: fixed or rotated? In the clear or near other objects? Up high or down low? Good coax or old cheap stuff?
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WIRELESS on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Since this sounds more like a philisophical discussion than something real I can offer an unattainable (probably) suggestion. About 25 years ago I had the opportunity to put up a dipole for 80 - 10 meters with open wire and a tuner with the wire at 175 feet. Not a typo, 175 ft. This antenna blew away every other antenna I have ever used including 3 element beams at typical heights. I put 20,40,60 over 9 signals just about everywhere with only about 75 watts (SR150 xcvr). Unfortunatly I only used the antenna for about a month. So what I suggest is try putting up the simpliest antenna at the highest height you can engineer.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N0NWO on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I run a small beam myself. I bought a used Higain EXP 14. They work and work well. To be honest, at times your small beam will not have much atvntage over a dipole. Depending on band conditions, it hardlly makes much difference where it is pointed.
BUT AT OTHER TIMES... it is wonderful. I get a couple S UNITS gain and another one or two rejection off the back. The best rejection is off the sides.
So for me, a gain off the front combined with some attenuation off the back and even more off the sides makes it well worth it.
No, it is not as good as a full sized beam, but you will enjoy the gain but then again I did not want a full sized beam. My friends and neighbors thing this beam is a monster! I'd scare the heck out them if I put up what was more ideal.
Many small sized beams are better than a dipole or a vertical and not as good as a full sized mono bander
Put it up and enjoy!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K4JSR on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB7LYM said, "Always eat BEANS with ONIONS.
Why have GAS when one can upgrade to TEARGAS !"
Spoken like a true Klingon Radio Officer, Sir! :-D
I'm through second gassing this thread!
73 and Happy New Year!
Cal K4JSR
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by AH6RR on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a MA5B and it is a very good compromised antenna. It is not a full size antenna so dont expect full size performance. In the past I have owned a 4 element 10 meter beam and the MA5B falls short of that but it works very good on 10. I have it mounted at 33 feet with a Ham 2 rotor. I have worked the world in this low sun spot cycle as I have only had the antenna up for 6 months. It will not bust through the pileups but it is much better than a dipole on 20-15-10 of course it is a rotatable dipole on 17 and 12 it does ok on those bands. As for side and back rejection its not great by any means but it beats a dipole a bunch. I know that a Force 12 C3 is a better antenna and if you have the room I would get one but I dont have the room so it's the MA5B for me.
Just my 2 cents worth.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Opinions, even amongst real experts with considerable experience, will still vary with good reason.
Antenna deployment (how it's installed) is as important -- no, often more important -- than the antenna itself. An MA5B on a 5' tripod in the driveway may work very poorly, while the same MA5B atop a 70' tower may work very well. Same antenna, different installation.
Height above ground, height above surrounding obstacles and ground conductivity below the antenna are all very important factors in the success or failure of any installation -- yes, for beam antennas, too. Remember a 1/2-wave dipole installed over an effective ground can have at least 3 dB gain "over a 1/2 wave dipole." That occurs because it's gain measured at a useful radiation angle for skywave propagation; by increasing a dipole's "gain," that means the same dipole has radiation loss in other directions...and that's a good thing, usually.
The MA5B, specifically, is also a fairly critical antenna to assemble and tune. Because it's small and loaded, everything about it is more critical than if it weren't.
I gues the important rule is the antenna you get up and operating always works better than the one still in the carton in the garage.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W6EZ on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I gues the important rule is the antenna you get up and operating always works better than the one still in the carton in the garage."
OUCH!
I have a few of those..
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Many ham's do not think in terms of overall concepts, and because of this, will not REAllY 'engineer their stations'.
When you ask a Ham, "how high is your antenna"? He will likely answer "Oh, its pretty high, about 25 feet".
Now if thats 6 Meters, thats about 1.3 wavelengths. This could be better but, not bad.
If the guy is talking about 80 Meters, thats .07 wavelength. Sort of laying the antenna on the ground!
How long is your antenna? "Oh, its really long, about a 12 foot boom I guess. On 6 Meters thats about .66 wavelength.
You get my idea?
Since 6 Meters is my favorite band...., try Hy-gain's 4 element 6 Meter beam. It will walk all over the Cuscraft!
Why you ask, they are almost the same (wavelength) size?
The Hygain uses a symetric Balenced feed system (a T-type 'Beta Match'. The Cuscraft uses a relatively lossy and non-symetric Gamma match.
Also, with the Cushcraft, you can remove the 2nd Director, and the antenna works better -- whats that tell ya?
73! de John
PS
Also, some of those guys might have failed to tell you, "Oh, and I'm using real good Belden coax, its RG58A/U and its only 150 feet long, although I have about 100 feet coiled up in my shack!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WA6BFH on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oooops I was thinking of Cushcraft's A505S!
I was wondering how you worked all those countries on 6 Meters with a small Quad. I have 5 countries, and all states but, its taken me many years!
Lets stick to the concept of performance/band Ok?
73! John
PS
Cubical Quad's will provide better gain over shorter Boom length but, Yagi Uda antennas can develop more gain (given longer wavelength booms) while adding minimal I2R losses!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W3DCG on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've heard so many opinions much based on theory/modeling, much based on experiences, some based on both.
Seen prejudices people have such as Vert vs Horizontal, Coil in the middle vs at the base or end,
a Windom is only an OCF dipole allowing for a better match on multiple bands with little if any significant... a beautiful specific 2 element beam works better at lower height rather than higher, there's quagi's, yagi's, quads, loops, vertical dipoles. Every claim made is likely supportable given a specific set of conditions- propagation, distance, direction, ground conductivity, height AMSL, size vs freq., phase relationships, take off angle vs elevation vs existing propagation, in a given direction at a given moment.
I've heard all of them perform amazingly well, and all of them sounding dismal (off the side of a beam for example), in the skip zone, etc. I've heard Windoms knocking the sox off normal dipoles and verticals, while I've also heard random wires performing the same or better. Depends on so many factors-
I'll hear a guy on a Hustler BTV with no radials coming in like gangbusters on 40, as if he had 60 radials. I've owned one of those installed as a GP with 4 radials, resonated- it performed like gangbusters, but poorly two states over when the band was long. I've heard people rail on R7's as if it's the worse thing that every happened in ham radio, while I've also heard the loudest signal on the band coming from a rickety "old" R7 that was leaning over a bit with 50 Watts applied to it. I've heard strong signals on 40m coming from copper flashing under the eves of the house configured in a horizontal loop, and another who was using his rain gutters just for fun, and it worked better than many antennas I have tried at one time or another, on that path, on that given night, at that given time.
Many of us have read, this trapped vert cost less and just blows away this other multiband vertical dipole. I've heard that same vertical dipole used on 20 and 40 QRP and they were louder than I was on my horizontal wire at 20W.
I've worked a guy in the Pacific heading to KH6 on a cruise 40m, and he was using 4W and a wire off the balcony, I copied him with some difficulty, but he copied me with some difficulty with me on a GP that always worked like gangbusters ON 40M DX but I had to use 80W for a similar result.
You know, I've come to believe one thing- there are so many variables, the best you can do is weigh them all, look at your application, optimize and compromise, because no antenna can possibly work optimally for every path you'll encounter. Sure an 80m wire has excellent gain on 10m, and where is that gain? That DX you don't have in your log yet might be in the center of an 80m wire's null, in which case the vertical might give you at least a chance of being heard, and you the chance of hearing, and even a 16' long end fed wire @ 20 feet broadside to that one station would likely be MUCH better in that moment.
Consider as much as you can figure- and roll the dice.
Everyone has different experiences, installation parameters, and even the most popular antenna might arrive with a defect, like you got the one out of a hundred with a bad trap, or a hole missing, or misdrilled.
When finally, you roll the dice- simply have expectations that fall within the realms of high scientific probability. Like if it's a multiple wavelength wire well matched, expect you'll sound like you're running a beam sometimes, and expect to not even be heard, or poorly heard at others, depending on prop+distance+heading+QRM+QRN.
The most important things are:
1. GET IT UP.
2. GET IT ON.
I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination, however these are my considered opinions based upon my limited understanding and experiences thus far.
Love your antenna. Even if it's a helical stick laid against a barstool in your apartment. No matter how fancy schmancy your radio gear is, it's all just dead weight without it.
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W2NSF on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the main reason for the Cushcraft MA5B antenna's many positive reviews is the value. While it's not the best beam antenna from a strength standpoint, from the reviews, it appears to work just dandy, for the price. In fact, most of the complaints I see are in the mechanical category, not electrical, and many folks have already figured out how to beef up the antenna, by the looks of the many suggestions. I'd say, go ahead and get one, and if wind is an issue (it's a BIG issue where I live) then do the various fixes before you put it up. I'll bet you'll be very happy with it and will have money left over to treat the family to a nice vacation somewhere. Good luck!!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K5UJ on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It sounds like this is a good time to get out the July 2000 QST and read the "Everything Works" article by N6BT.
A few quick points:
When the band is so hot, the atmosphere is almost on fire, as in a once-in-a-lifetime opening, a cantenna will get out. When a band is dead, it's dead. All the kws and giant antennas in the world won't help. that's why you can't hear a skywave from a 50 kw 1/2 wave tower bc station with 120 radials in the daytime--the band is dead. But for hams, most of the time, propagation is somewhere in between the extremes, on some frequency. So a good antenna is worthwhile because the edge allows for more/better qsos.
Anything (almost) makes you loud if you jam enough power into it. I think a lot of new hams, including me, have made this mistake: A few years ago I got back on the air. My first antenna was a vertical. Under typical condx running 1.2 kw on 40, i got S9+10 db from a friend. Wow, i thought, that's great. I thought I had a pretty good antenna. Of course, with 1.2 kw, I should have been about 35 or 40 over 9, which I am now, with another antenna. My opinion of the first one I put up has changed, not surprisingly, as I should have had that S9 report with 50 watts; not 1200. So, A--try more than one antenna, and B--try them with (relatively) low power.
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W8JJI on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Logic is illogical, let us examine this further.
Logic is illogical when illogical logic is illogically feasable. When we consider logic in it's illogical parameters we see that logic can not be logically logical.
Ill-logic. Not only are we speaking of logic that is not meant well , we are taking into account logic and illogical fundamental logic. In this realm we can demonstrate illogical basis for logic as a whole. Therefore, as we perceive logic and illogical logic we have to consider the absence of logic.
Logical theory. V.S. Quantum illogical logic.
This has befuddled mankind for eons (a really long time). Quantum illogical logic is not illogically logical nor logically illogicaly logical. We in this case have to consider the logic of anti-logic.
Anti-logic can be considered logic without logic therefore illogical in nature. However, anti-logic and illogical logic are not one in the same as we present logical guidelines to the logical nature of logically illogical anti-logic.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since you have not “operationally defined” “good” and or “bad”, you have people talking about evaluations based upon different methods and objectives using identical conclusions.
Down load some antenna modeling software, and play with it.
Cruse through Cebik’s site and read about his modeling results—every antenna is a compromise of some sort.
Have FUN
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W0OX on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My quick and dirty 20 meter delta loop was the worst thing i ever put rf into.. but it did get me a couple counties in state qso party last fall.. so I would intially rate low hanging delta loops a one.. on other hand If i was smart enough to realize i had grabbed the wrong piece of coax from the pile of black spaghetti.. I would have found I made 8 contacts on 20 with my two meter beam...gotta love tube rigs..
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N6AJR on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have up a ma5b up about 28 feet, and it works quite well, I also have a 4 ele tri bander and it works noticably beter, I hav a 10-40 rotatable dipole and it is not as good, I have a hustler 5btv ( vert) , and some wiresup among others..and a 3 ele steppir in the garage.
the ma5b is 2 elements on 10-15- and 20 and 1 ele on 12 and 17. It works amazingly well for a small trapped antenna and cost is $359 at hro, can be put up on a push up mast and turned with a small to medium rotor. or a hex beam at $900, on a push up or probably the best bet is a 2 ele steppir for about $800. there is lots of opthers like a quad etc, but for $359 at HRO, and $50 for a push up mast, and $50 for a used mediun rotor , and maybe a couple bucks for guy wires, I'd go with the MA5B I worked VU4 on the 24th in the morning, and then worked ZL1 10 minutes later... works for me.. YMMV tom
(AND THERE IS ALWAYS THE FAN DIPOLE)
http://www.hamuniverse.com/multidipole.html
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N6AJR on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have up a ma5b up about 28 feet, and it works quite well, I also have a 4 ele tri bander and it works noticably beter, I hav a 10-40 rotatable dipole and it is not as good, I have a hustler 5btv ( vert) , and some wiresup among others..and a 3 ele steppir in the garage.
the ma5b is 2 elements on 10-15- and 20 and 1 ele on 12 and 17. It works amazingly well for a small trapped antenna and cost is $359 at hro, can be put up on a push up mast and turned with a small to medium rotor. or a hex beam at $900, on a push up or probably the best bet is a 2 ele steppir for about $800. there is lots of opthers like a quad etc, but for $359 at HRO, and $50 for a push up mast, and $50 for a used mediun rotor , and maybe a couple bucks for guy wires, I'd go with the MA5B I worked VU4 on the 24th in the morning, and then worked ZL1 10 minutes later... works for me.. YMMV tom
(AND THERE IS ALWAYS THE FAN DIPOLE)
http://www.hamuniverse.com/multidipole.html
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N6AJR on December 30, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have up a ma5b up about 28 feet, and it works quite well, I also have a 4 ele tri bander and it works noticably beter, I hav a 10-40 rotatable dipole and it is not as good, I have a hustler 5btv ( vert) , and some wiresup among others..and a 3 ele steppir in the garage.
the ma5b is 2 elements on 10-15- and 20 and 1 ele on 12 and 17. It works amazingly well for a small trapped antenna and cost is $359 at hro, can be put up on a push up mast and turned with a small to medium rotor. or a hex beam at $900, on a push up or probably the best bet is a 2 ele steppir for about $800. there is lots of opthers like a quad etc, but for $359 at HRO, and $50 for a push up mast, and $50 for a used mediun rotor , and maybe a couple bucks for guy wires, I'd go with the MA5B I worked VU4 on the 24th in the morning, and then worked ZL1 10 minutes later... works for me.. YMMV tom
(AND THERE IS ALWAYS THE FAN DIPOLE)
http://www.hamuniverse.com/multidipole.html
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WL7CMG on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All you can do is try the one you are inclined to try. The same antenna may work only half as good for one guy as it does for the other a few miles down the road. There are just way too many variables.
But, you said it yourself....you love the quads. Why not stick with something you know and like? I don't think I have ever heard so many people say so much good about an antenna. You know? They're right...as I sure do love my 2 element Lightning Bolt.
73s & Good Luck!!!
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KU4MO on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with a lot of the previous comments. I think you have to use what fits your physical constraints as far as what fits on your property and try to tweak it to perform as best as it can given the type of antenna it is. Good Luck 73 de ku4mo
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N4GI on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'd go with the MA5B I worked VU4"
Will I be able to work P5 if I put up an MA5B? What about 2 MA5Bs?
Proceed with extreme caution when you find yourself in presence of anecdotal antenna "advice".
N4GI
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
David,
Try this. Take 10 people you know and trust. Ask them to put up a 20m Dipole, made of the same material, up 35 feet, and pointed in the same direction.
Ask them to evaluate the antenna and see what happens. I suspect you will see the same results that you have already encountered.
People like or dislike things for all sorts of reasons. Some of which has absolutely nothing to do with Logic (Picture Spock with that perplexed look on his face). Good Luck with your decision. 73 and hope you and yours have a GREAT New Year.
John
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W4KLP on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You might consider putting up a horizontal loop and feeding it with a auto-tuner such as a SGC. I made the loop a full wave for 80M and mounted the SGC tuner on a tree and terminated the loop at the tuner. It works very well 80-10M also has the advantage of low noise which can reveal very weak signals that may have otherwise been hidden. Hope you do well with this project and all the best in the new year.
Ken - W4KLP
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K1IR on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
David,
This one is not so difficult to answer.
Antennas do have measurable performance characteristics. But, they are very difficult to measure. Some manufacturers are able to do those measurements to a reasonable level of accuracy. Almost NO hams are able to make those measurements.
Here are the big factors involved:
1. While an antenna will have both predictable and measurable performance, the environment around the antenna extending out many wavelengths has a huge impact on that performance. To make good measurements you need to take the environment out of the equation.
2. Antenna performance is measured on an antenna range - a place equipped with lots of test equipment where the antenna can be rotated without influence by the surroundings. Although some measurements can be made at HF frequencies, the range needs to be quite large - maybe a mile or so for a 20/15/10 antenna. The second choice in antenna performance measurement is to use a scale model of the antenna operatng in a small antenna range at a much higher frequency. These results can be applied to the 1:1 scaled antenna.
3. Because antenna ranges are so expensive to create, they have become quite scarce. Replacing the performance "measurement" approach is performance "modeling". Scientists and engineers have developed algorithms that seem to fairly represent how a given antenna will work in an ideal environment - one in which nothing is anywhere near the antenna, or one in which there is a flat ground plane under the antenna. These tools have made it possible to characterize antennas independent of environment and allow you to choose the characteristics you need.
4. "Terrain analysis" is a next step in performance modeling. TA allows you to incorporate the effects of the terrain between the front of your antenna and a distant location to predict how the terrain will impact performance.
How many hams do you know who have a full-size antenna range? How many even have access to a scale-model antenna range? How many know how to use antenna modeling software and terrain analysis tools? Most don't do any of these things. Instead, they listen to on-the-air performance. They use their rigs S-meter to measure sigal strengths and compare with others. S-meters are notoriously inaccurate and non-linear. And, typical hams listen to more than their radios. They listen to eham reviews, and friends opinions, and they listen to their own feelings about the antenna, its manufacturer and its dealer!
Bottom-line: Most hams don't get anywhere near understanding how an antenna is actually working. Any number of hams with the same antenna will have any number of conclusions about the performance of that antenna.
Your best strategy is to learn what you can about the science of antennas and the tools available to explore that science. Although you can get antenna modeling software for free, its only the starting point. You need to learn how to use it and practice with it. Eventually you will get results that make some sense. This is the purpose of ham radio. You need to study something and enjoy doing it.
Don't take me wrong about on-the-air experience with antennas. In addition to study of performance and underlying antenna principles, you do want to listen to as many antennas as you can. You should try to visit other hams who own the antennas you are considering - after you've done the basic research. See if what you hear bears out what you know. When you do this, though, you need to be aware that the differences in environment may completely mask true performance. The antenna mounted at 30 feet behind a hill will not do anywhere near as well as the same antenna at 60 fet on top of the hill. Keep this in mind as you look around.
Good luck - don't jump too quickly. Enjoy the process of selecting that antenna. Its a big investment, and you want to make it a good one. You'll feel a lot better after you do your own independent analysis. It will be a good feeling when you select and install the antenna of your choice and it works as you had hoped - based on your own solid research. You WILL be satisfied.
73,
Jim K1IR
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KW3U on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The R-7 a bugger? Thats exactly what the topic writer spoke of. Mine has been up on a telescoping mast tied to the chimney for many years, and I give it 5 stars.
covers most of the bands and I generally work anything I hear(of course it is a vertical, and the laws of physics apply).
I purchased a MA5B off an qth.com ad for a lot less than brand new and also installed that on a telescoping mast(the cheap ones 40-50 ft at less than a hundred) on the side of the house. a used TV rotor(no heavy duty expensive one needed), putting it together was a snap and took the 3 elements to peak of roof and mounted them to boom myself(safety is a issue with those spokes-be careful/common sense).
bottom line for me is that it does just fine, many bands and I set 20/15 for cw so swr is happiest there.
nice product in my opinion.
HNY Jim
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A good analogy to the "180 degree subjectivity" of one hams opinion of antenna performance versus another can be found in the world of audio and home theater.
Home theater is one of my other favorite past times and opinions vary to the same degree about the performance of subwoofers, A/V receivers, tube vs. solid-state amplifiers, direct firing vs. reflected speaker technology, ...it goes on and on.
So what procedure so I follow when making a product selection, be it home audio gear or a vertical antenna?
*#1: Set my performance goals
* Rely on the technical training and skills I have accumulated over the years;
* I do some research on the available technology. It might start out fairly basic, like referring to a handbook on the subject, then if there are still gaps, I supplement why I need with internet technical resources, trade journals.
* Next, visit the manufacturers web site or a dealers site to review the description of the design, product specifications and materials used, then compare them to my performance goals, my budget and the differences in complexity of installation.
* Last on the list is reviews from others on websites or magazines - then and only then do I feel I'm informed enought to make a decision.
For antenna selection, the same drill applies.
The take-away here is this: You have to do the best you can to understand the technology and do some upfront research - then you have the ability to filter through the facts vs. the fiction posted by others.
When it comes to antennas, I think the biggest problem for most hams is that antenna design is truely an art, and to some degree seems like "black magic". The advanced concepts usually require a significant commitment of time to study to fully grasp. But you don't need to become an Antenna Design Engineer to make an informed decision, just an understanding of the basic concepts.
So when it comes to the MA-5B, research will show it is a loaded (shortened) close space yagi design, which inherently have much lower gain and front to back performance compared to a full size monobander or typically sized tri/multibander. It is also manufactured by a reputable company that has been in the business for many years and provides good support for its products.
Bottom line, you will be trading some levels of performance for a smaller, lighter weight and easier to install yagi that still offers some directivity and gain (or at least equal to a rotatable dipole) without the complexity and expense required to install one of the larger mentioned yagis.
If this is your goal and it's within your budget, then a couple of opinions from others about reliability might be worthwhile, but otherwise, you have probably found the antenna you're looking for.
73, Chris
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KB7LYM on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
10,780 Bytes to tell us the story
when 12 would have been enough.
It should be as follows ...
I CAN'T DECIDE
In the Royal Dutch Navy we used to say....
If a man can't decide in 5 minutes he never will.
HAPPY 2005
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W5NIG on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The one thing I've found over the years is that if you take a group of smart, educated people in any field they'll end up arguing about something on different sides sooner or later even if they went to the same school and had the same teacher.
Often you'll find that the teacher has something different to add as well :)
...but Spock, my friend, think on this; every antenna guru, idiot, or middle-of-the-roader out there that isn't insane, or having the spouse or HOA monitoring their conversation while they say this will still admit that...
...you can NEVER have too many antennas.
Nuff said!
Keep the dipoles and get the mini beam too and stick it in the air. You'll catch yourself flipping between both to cover different situations. Eventually you might want to put up a vertical as well and add that diversity to it too!
I put up my first tower this year. I was very fortunate to pick up a huge Force 12 yagi that covers 20-10 meters including the warc bands at a good used price. 15 elements!
...am I taking down my Gap vertical? No way!
I have a rotatable dipole for 40 on the top of the tower as well as the vert having 40. I still want to put an inverted V about half way up the tower come spring. More agles, different patterns, more options!
A lot of times you don't realize the different abilities that you have until you miss them. Like being here in Texas and using a vertical or e/w dipole and talking to a florida station and a cali station in round-table group. The beam may be better on 20 to florida but I can't hear squat off the back compared to the vertical.
Anyway you get the meaning. Put up what ever you can possibly get away with legally, safety wise and frying pan wise and just have a great time! :)
Michael W5NIG
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K5UJ on December 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<you can NEVER have too many antennas. >>>
True, in theory, but if you are unfortunate enough to own less than a substantial piece of property, you can reach a saturation point in which annoying interaction problems start showing up. Then you either have some or all of your antennas not really working the way you would like for them to work and living with that, or you have to go through the sometimes tricky process of figuring out which are trouble and which ones you can live without, or detune, relocate etc.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KT8K on January 1, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I read mostly the non-"5" reviews to see if people have had any unsatisfactory experiences with the antenna, and I take THEM with a lot of salt. If you don't have room and resources for a bigger antenna, put this one up as high as you can manage and enjoy!
C U on the bands. GL & 73 de kt8k - Tim
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W6TH on January 1, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
David (KC0RUP) Hello and a very happy New Year for 2005.
My suggestion to you David is to buy a few books such as old ARRL handbooks which were excellent to me when I was very young. We must all crawl before we walk, therefore I suggest reading material.
Also a very excellent book I highly recommend for beginners is The Amateur Radio Vertical Antenna Handbook written by Capt. Paul Lee, retired US Navy.
In his book you will get knowledge; comparison of vertical verses horizontal antenna and how gain works, plus so much more that you can become a antenna expert. "Even a teacher of antenna theory".
I am sure you will thank me for this information someday.
.: 73 W6TH.
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N0AH on January 1, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
(brag brag brag) Got my license in 1996. I'm one of only 675+- hams in the world with a complete 5 band WAZ and I think that the Cushcraft MA5B is awesome for what the environment it is designed for, a suburban stealth operation. You have give and take with any compromise antenna and I would suggust a small amplifier to make up for what gain this antenna lacks. 500 watts would be awesome as I think the antenna can handle 1.2KW? This combination will surprise you as the MA5B can take a lot more power than other trap mini-beams of sorts. A lot are at 600W or less. You can view my installation of my MA5B at QRZ.COM and my review at Eham. I use a FT-1000 Mark V right now with an Alpha 99 and the MA5B for 10-20M and Hustler 6BTV mostly for 30-80M. At grayline in the mornings, I work all over the Pacific on the low bands and at EU's sunrise grayline, all over Europe. Knowing about propagation characteristics on each band is as important as knowing about your equipment. I have a ranch style home, and a crappy back yard with limited space. I think wire antennas are worthless in limited space environments. If the low bands are not of interest to you, you might consider a Tennadyne T6. It can handle more power than the MA5B but is 42 feet across at it's longest element. But wow does it fry the pile ups!
73, GL and have FUN!
Paul N0AH
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KI4CRA on January 2, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
David,
I too am disabled, and have limited space, and limited resources. OH how I wish I could put up even a small beam on say a 40' tower, but such is not the case. I too had to compromise, I wound up getting a GAP ChallengerDX verticle. I have at this writting 6 counterpoises on it with plans of putting on 6 more. My verticle is mounted on a tilt over mount (handy thing to have during hurricane season!). Anyway the point I'm trying to make, is that we can only do what we can do. No more no less, for myself and my situation, the GAP works like a champ. I haven't sat down and counted all the countries I've worked nor all the states, I suppose some day I will. But right now thats not important, whats important to me is that MY antenna works for ME. I think thats what we all want an antenna that works for them.
Don't know if this helped or hurt, just thought I'd drop a line or two in. 73 and hope to work you soon. Have a great NEW YEAR!
Mark
AI4HO (formerly KI4CRA)
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by W2BRI on January 2, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As another ham pointed out, N6BT's article in QST is a great resource on starting to understand the differences between antennas. I would also suggest taking a few minutes to read it.I would then go to the Force 12 site and order his book "Array of Light," it is an excellent resource on understanding antennas from the ground up.
There are hams that take the time to understand how antennas work, and there are those that are satisfied with conjecture.
Many a time, people are just enthusiastic about the antenna they are using, and have never used anything else. As far as they are concerned, "it is the best!" Hardly.
Don't believe anyone, do the research for yourself. You'll be much happier in the end.
Brian, W2BRI
www.standpipe.com/w2bri
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K3UOD on January 3, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lots of good replies here.
I'd like to add that some people don't seem to be able to follow instructions or read specs. On a review thread for the B&W Broadband Folded Dipole, one poster panned the antenna. He had purchased the 40-10 meter version and was complaining bitterly because it didn't work well on 80 M. Go figure.
Even the experts' opinions have to be evaluated in light of your own needs. I have great respect for Mr. Cebik and have read most of his articles on wire antennas. However, he dismisses the OCF dipole as being no better than a center-fed dipole, claiming that the only reason one would want one is for ease of installation. If you are building an 80 M dipole for use on 80 M only, that is true. He ignores the fact that an OCF dipole works on EVEN harmonics, where a center-fed dipole works on ODD harmonics. My 135 ft OCF dipole works 80, 40, 20 and 10 M without a tuner. That's a lot of coverage for an antenna that only cost $20 to build.
|
| |
|
On not deciding
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on January 3, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB7LYM: "If a man can't decide in 5 minutes, he never will."
I agree. This is what makes men great shoppers, while women are the world's worst shoppers. Men go out to buy stuff, women go out to shop but have no idea how to do it; I've never met one yet who's good at it.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K5MDM on January 3, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
HI, the main problem is exactly what you said...anyone is allowed here, to say thier say, without justification, and many with little or no experience other than "I have one and because its mine, it must be the best!" and vice versa. So you need to pick someone or some few who you believe may actually have great experience, and who are , as you seem to be, logical, instead of prejudiced in thier own behalf. There are so many ifs and buts about antennas, that its pretty hard to tell what will be best for you unless it is an experienced ham in the area who advises you....and not necessarily and "old salt". I find (even though in some respects, age for instance , I qualify) that some of the older hams think only "this " radio is good...Only "this" antenna will work well for you. I could go on but I will stop now. In answer to your quest, I believe you will love the MA5B. I have had em all, big and small, The MA5B was just about as good as twice the size, twice the money. If it fits your physical plan, its a winner!! 73 K5MDM
|
| |
|
RE: 'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by N0TONE on January 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So far, nobody has hit on the MAIN FACTOR in determining whether to follow a particular ham's advice on whether an antenna is good or bad. And that is:
"Does the reviewer use the antenna for the same functions that you will use it for?"
Nothing's more important. If you want DX, then you should only pay attention to the reviews by DXers. If you are a local ragchewer, then pay attention only to those reviewers. Most antennas do better at one radiation angle than another, and that radiation angle is what determines if it's a short-skip or long-skip antenna.
Other items that I look for:
* Look up the callsign of each reviewer via a generic search engine. If the callsign does not show up in other hams' online logbooks, then ignore the review, because it comes from someone who is not active enough to know better
* Pay attention to what the reviewer claims is good about the antenna. If the claim is based on SWR, ignore it. SWR is the WORST POSSIBLE way to measure an antenna. Lots of hams do it because SWR is the only thing they know how to measure.
* To be honest, if you have six dipoles in your back yard, and you were not able to notice the performance of the first ones degrade as the later ones were installed in the near-field of the first ones, then youcan probably put up any old beam and it won't seem different than any other beam.
AM
|
| |
|
Logical, and Not Reasonable
|
|
|
by K4III on January 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
With your background "captain", you should know that nothing is definate. There are often factors that affect the performance of an engineered device from outside its "theoretically-tested environment". These factors for your antenna performance include such things as ground reflectivity, man-made absorption/reflectivity devices, location, terrain, and various other effects. An antenna that works well for one person in their experience or location may not work well for others.
A simple example. A fellow lives on a mountain and there's a UHF repeater in the valley down below him. He's looking for a great a mobile antenna. Each antenna he looked at has great specifications, but a friend in the desert claims his has the most gain and he's set on it being the only one he'd purchase in his lifetime. You look at the specs and agree the gain is great and it would work great in getting out well especially for those weak repeaters miles from town. You try it and finds you can't hear or receive the repeater in the valley in areas on the mountain when driving home, although the repeater is just below. Then you tries a simple cheap 1/4 wave antenna. What a difference! You hear everything clearly no matter what part of the slope you're driving on. However the distant repeater doesn't come in anymore. You tell your friend the antenna is faulty and that it is "NO-GOOD". However, in truth, the gain is so high in the horizontal lobes that it pulls enough signal in the vertical to lose the signals above and below your antenna at various sharp degrees. That is why engineering firms that study and take signal measurements at given locations are often requested to analyze and suggest antenna systems for commercial and government installations. Hams simply do this experimentation themselves, building, converting, modifying and testing different antennas. That is why there are so many views on what works well.
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K8NQC on January 5, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder how those who make five minute judgements adjust for changes in the sunspot cycle.
Comparisons are always relative and can tell us no more than our definition of what we are trying to compare and how we benchmark results.
From a common baseline we will rarely get a change of more than 10 db from antenna variation. A change in power level will rarely give a change of more than ten db. Over the course of natural cycles for skywave propagation we will see variation of over 100 db. Mother nature is regularly changing the best path, both in the vertical and the horizontal plane. Changes, such as an antenna that works best at low launch angles, is of value only when that is the path that is open. If the path is high angle, the antenna is not good at that time.
As a prior writer stated, you need to know where you wish to communicate, what the optimum path is at that time, to determine the effectiveness of a given antenna. To say that a "cloud burner antenna" is better than a good vertical on HF is ever so relative. That is why you get different answers!
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by K4CC on January 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As mentioned previously by many others, signal reports and antenna reports are subjective at best. Just look at manufacturers' specifications and gain figures--again subjective.
I lived in Dallas for a while on a small lot where my A3S beam would have hung over the neighbors' yards so I could not use it. I put up a 6BTV vertical and it worked OK--better than nothing on a small lot. I replaced it with a 48 foot tower with a MA5B beam, a G5RV, and a Cushcraft 6/2/440 beam. That way I covered a lot of bands with a very small foot print.
Did this configuration work as good as an A3S and a 5 element 6 meter beam. NO! But it was a lot better than the vertical and a whole lot better than nothing.
Good luck and have fun whatever you decide!
Cary
K4CC
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by KC0RUP on January 6, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Before this article goes QSB, I want to take a few minutes and thank everyone who answer this post or took the time and wrote me directly.
I have taken all the responses and started to make an evaluation worksheet applying it directly to my specific needs, desires and limitations.
I hear some people saying the Ham radio is dying and others talk about all the bad stuff that’s on the air, yet others spend so much time putting other down they miss out on one very important aspect of this hobby.
They have either forgotten or are too busy to have fun. Fun in some of the simplest things like the magic in a person’s face when you show them how you can talk into a little black box and a stranger, sometimes thousands of miles away thanks you for taking the time to talk to them.
The kind of fun you can have in learning something new, or sharing it with someone else. The fun that makes you feel good when you can reach back into your years of experience and share it with others. Fun when you worked your last state for your WAS award, or increased your code speed for no other reason other then, it is fun.
We live in a world full of violence, hate and destruction. Where within a blink of an eye bombs can kill or injury, where an act of nature can kill hundreds of thousands of people in a few minutes.
While all these things deeply concerns me and pulls at my conscience and tears at my heart. I am glad to be able to take a few minutes and with some friends, many who I have never seen, just have fun. And, for a few short minutes, this world is just a little bit better place to live in.
Thanks for allowing me to have a little fun as I learned something from you.
|
| |
|
'Captain, This Is Not Logical.'
|
|
|
by AA4LR on January 17, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would skip the MA5B. I would buy an A3S instead. If you look closely at the specs, the MA5B is pretty horrible.
Sure the A3S doesn't have the WARC bands, but I'd opt for better performance on the more crowded 20m, 15m and 10m bands and use something non-resonant through a tuner for 17m and 12m.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Magnetic Minds Think Alike
Apartment dwellers 7 in 1 'Hamstick' Tree!
In Search of 'The Perfect Mobile Antenna':
The NA4IT 'CHEAP' Dual Band Ground Plane
Varmint Proof Your Antenna
Other Antennas Articles
Running Radials the Easy Way -- Sew What?
The Worry and Apprehension of VHF Antenna Polarization
'No Show' HF Antenna that WORKS!
The Eagle Has Landed
My Quest for a New Antenna
|
