Thats about as professional as an Eham review which is at the crux of this discussion.
Carl KM1H > Jim: > > Good points regarding my statement about "proven architecture" - I should > have more properly stated "as proven thus far by those in the field." > > 73, > Jack > > > On 7/31/2012 4:13 PM, W0UCE wrote: >> One aspect of the K2AV FCP is KISS. However, experimenting with change >> of >> components and proven architecture should anyone opt to do so will >> produce >> unfavorable results. > > Jack, > > "It seems to work good in the places it's been tried" but has never been > compared in a disciplined manner to something of known performance is > hardly "proven architecture." Guy has done some excellent engineering > here, and published it. Now he's getting some serious peer review, with > suggestions for possible variations on his work. That's how the "state > of the art" progresses. From where I sit, it appears that the most > important aspects of his design are the compact dimensions and the field > cancellation in the dirt, not the transformer. > > As an example of this peer review process, Rudy Severns, N6LF, published > some excellent and disciplined work several years ago on his > measurements of slightly elevated radial systems for a 40M vertical. > That work showed that, on 40M, four radials elevated only a foot or two > were nearly equivalent to many long radials on the ground (he set up > those and many other conditions and MEASURED the field strength). > > When I tried to scale his hypothesis to 160M (that is, multiply the > radial heights by a factor of 4x) on an antenna I had built, I could not > duplicate his result -- that is, the gain of the antenna was at least > 3dB less than I had expected. I discussed this over dinner this spring > with Tom Schiller, N6BT, who has also done a lot of work with radials > and verticals for 160M. He observed that you can't simply scale the > radial height by the difference in wavelength because "the earth is very > different at 160M as compared to 40M, and the radials must be much > higher." When I asked him "how high," he suggested 16 ft. This summer, > with a lot of help from W6GJB, I got them up to at least 16 ft for most > of their length, and preliminary testing suggests that I'm now getting > the gain I had hoped. When I've got more performance data, I'll publish > it. > > Peer review is a wonderful thing. It is an important part of the > scientific method. I've learned a lot by publishing what I think I know > and having folks fill in my weak spots. > > 73, Jim K9YC > _______________________________________________ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > > _______________________________________________ > UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2437/5168 - Release Date: 07/31/12 > _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
