> > it's also not a "stacked" so bear little relevence to the matter
Trying to understand what "stacked" has to do with the discussion... > > There is little or no > >automatic penalty for using a non-resonant antenna. > > just some efficiency Barry, try to understand that a resonant antenna is not automatically efficient. And conversely that a non-resonant antenna is automatically inefficient. There is much mis-information out there, and it dies very slowly. > > > > >Ask anyone on this list how well the DB420 works down into the 70cm > >ham gand. > > > > > claims are like water (sic) > > > >Very true. The <claims> I make here (6dbd gain and 144-162 mc. at > >less than 1.5:1 VSWR) are quoted from reputable commercial two-way > >antenna manufacturer's data sheets and catalogs, not some ham-grade > >antenna gain claim. > > interesting comparison and I doubt you meant to insult hams as a group Whoa, insult?? The term ham-grade as used here simply separates the reputable and known-to-be-honest-about-gain manufacturers from those that are obviously not-so-honest. 'Nuff said. Apparently you've not read some of the incredible claims of ham-grade antennas. They sometimes re-invent the laws of physics. Amazing! Laryn K8TVZ
