Blanket said:
All the alternative matching networks all do the exact same thing, the hairpin is simpler to use and construct than the gamma. It has about .04 db less loss than a gamma match.
They are only similar in the fact that they provide a match at the feedpoint. How they do it is very different. .04db less loss tells me it is "better" than a gamma. Good enough for me. Your point is taken about the little difference between the two.
Blanket said:
I dont use a gamma on a 5/8 wave antenna you know the one where you say the Hairpin is far more efficient when there isnt any data to back up your claim other than one cber saying he is getting a better signal on his radio.
I don't think anyone, other than Jay and Steve, have done any real comparisons and tests between various feedpoints for 5/8 wave antennas. But this is a totally different subject from the beam challenge above.
Most 5/8 antennas used some sort of a coil or shunt feed. Some were etched on very small circuit boards. Other than the Sigma IV (not a 5/8, but a vertical nonetheless), Wolf's .64 wave, and the Son-of-a-Gunn, I haven't seen a gamma on a 5/8 wave vertical. The real world tests of the I-10K is excellent proof that it is a great performing antenna.
But the "hairpin" on the Penetrator or the I-10K (trombone) is NOT a BETA MATCH! Don't confuse the two because some people call these "hairpins". As far as the Penetrator goes, it only LOOKS like a hairpin, hence the name.
Blanket said:
Honestly if a hairpin/beta was that much more efficient it would be used more often and classified a proven better performer, but it isn't.
It was used, and is still used by Hy-Gain. I'm sure their earlier patent prevented other manufacturers from using it. Again, this "hairpin" is
NOT the same hairpin you find on the verticals above.
Blanket said:
What do I think is better? they each have there place but I don't think anyone on a receiving end will know if you used the gamma or the hairpin on any style antenna
I disagree. There is case after case where people have seen a big improvement when using an I-10K over any other antenna (again, not the same "hairpin" as a beam). Are they all wrong? The performance of beams have been good enough for people to look into and study different type of matching networks. There must be a reason nobody uses gamma matches anymore.
Blanket said:
that is the whole argument that DaveGrntsr I believe was trying to make and I agree there isn't any difference, as antenna gain etc is more a function of element length and spacing etc where you can add any type of matching network to the antenna yes even the 1/4 wave transformer, btw who cares about the bandwidth the point is performance/efficiency.
Gain is a function of antenna design. We agree. My argument is that you will get MORE energy into your antenna design with a beta match than with a gamma match. In other words, same antenna with same layout, but with different feed systems will work differently. I say the beta will win and am willing to prove it.
Blanket said:
What is the definition of better you still haven't been able to arrive at that, since you have tapped danced around putting a number or figure on it so I cant answer what is better?
No tap dancing here. I already defined what I thought was better, I only stated that we need to
AGREE what the definition of "better" is. .04db is better as far as I'm concerned.
I like direct feed antennas. What I mean by this is that the center conductor of the coax makes a physical and electrical connection to the main radiating element. This happens with T-match, Beta-match, 1/4 wave transformers, and a few others.
This does NOT happen with a gamma match. It is a capacitive coupling like the thru-glass antennas that everyone runs out and buys because they are "just as good" as a roof mount. Do they work? Yep! Can you do "better"? Yep Yep!
That's all I'm trying to say.