On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 04:41:22PM +0000, R. Tyson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 10:55:14PM -0500, Kurt W. Zimmerman wrote: > > Reg; > > I'm just not sure a dipole is going to have an advantage over a vertical. > > The best antenna for that would be a "closed" antenna, like a loop. > > "Open" antennas really don't provide much in the way of a benefit in noise > > rejection. My other post to the reflector describes some of my other > > comments on antenna theory and I'm sure you would agree on what I said. > > > > > > Kurt - W2MW > > Hi Kurt, > Here in U.K real estate (gerden size) is *not* large, unless you > are financialy well off - which I am not >:-)) > > For Ham use I derived great pleasure from simple wire antennas and QRP > (low power) operation. Worked all round Europe and sometimes into USA > with 3 watts. I also use a Ten Tec rig for upto 100w. > > I found, in the overcrowded U.K, that dipoles outperformaed verticals > hands down. Verticals are virtually unusable after late afternoon, due > to noise. I would agree with your comments about loops. > > As you probably know we use 35 Mhz for model aircraft. Some sites I use > are extremely noisy. Switch Tx. off and it looks as though someone is > trying to fly the plane ! Cell phones, some military traffic,etc,etc. > > Might be worth trying a dipole at these sites. I fly 60" or larger > sailplanes so can very easily run a leg down each wing. > > Haven't opened my radio gear up, still under warranty, but I would > bet money that there is an impedance matching circuit on both the > Tx p.a. and the Rx. input as you state. > > Regards, > Reg G4NFR > > > > > RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off.
