Hey Ed, you must be a life long disciple of Evelyn Wood's, if you can give a high sign for having read this book already.
I have read about 25 pages to date and find no arguments to be made.
I collect classic engineering texts, and read that one about 15 years ago. A superb text. I would also recommend John Kraus' "Antennas", a classic.Hey Ed, you must be a life long disciple of Evelyn Wood's, if you can give a high sign for having read this book already.
I have read about 25 pages to date and find no arguments to be made.Fortunately, it has a nice reference index and that may be the only way to read it.
I collect classic engineering texts, and read that one about 15 years ago. A superb text. I would also recommend John Kraus' "Antennas", a classic.
On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth
it seems to be available on line .
IEEE Xplore - Sign In
and the other google results .
On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth - Google Search
On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth
it seems to be available on line .
IEEE Xplore - Sign In
and the other google results .
On the Optimum Wavelength for a Vertical Antenna Over Perfect Earth - Google Search
I haven't yet come across any Japanese disclaimer report in my research. Still reviewing Kraus. Will be reviewing the NAB Handbooks in my possession.[...] I would like however, to be able to read the article. I'm really looking for the Japanese disclaimer report.
This is why I asked VA3ES for his help, but no response as yet.
marconi have you tried the i10k extended out to 64 to see how it performs? seems like that match would let you tune it to the longer 64 length
NB, I commented about this in my PM to you earlier.
I don't think there is enough difference in performance between these two to really tell...just using your radio. That's all that I would be able to do as well.
I don't consider the Imax to be a true .64 wavelength as claimed by many, so the only antenna I have that is claimed by the manufacture as being a .64, is the Wolf .64.
IMO, the Wolf is more likely to be true collinear simply base on its design. So the difference I've been able to see with it in real world comparisons, which is still small, may be due to that feature and the advantage it offers.
Your PM mentioned that you isolated the bottom of your mast for your rear bumper setup. I did not consider isolation in these models that I just posted. It may make a difference, but I would think isolating at the antenna would be better than at the base. If I do you project as requested, I will include isolation as well. If I do, it will not include the feed line in the model, so that alone, in the real world, would still be an issue to consider and a choke may be necessary.
thanks gamegeterran across this today and thought you might be interested in it. i have never run one so I don't know about it. just putting it out fyi.
thanks gamegeter
i just got off the phone with cheryl at hustler newtronics and we can add another 64 to the list. it measures 276 inches for 27.2 according to the tuning lenght chart she emailed to me in the owners manual file
64s:
1 old penetrater
2 radio shack 64
3 wolf 64
4 hustler 64
5 mr coily 64
6 imax? i dont think the imax is really a 64 because its 24 feet but the bottom mount is a foot and the match inside takes around 6 inches leaving about 22 1/2 feet which is only 5/8