On Wednesday 20 March 2002 17:02, Mizuho@aol.com wrote:
> > Well unlike some people who have never used it and have big
> > opinions I own one, have used it and I love it. I have worked all
> > over the world with just the power supply as a ground.
Then, W2AGN wrote:
> The truth doesn't hurt a bit. Physical laws are broken all the time.
> ... If YOUR Miracle whip gets out, great.
It can't be too much worse than that Australian outfit's vertical with
the magical base that "couples to the ground" crap/junk/garbage/con-job
of a portable antenna! A fool could easly drop $500 or more on THAT and
wind up with something that a $3 dipole would beat by at least 20 dB!
(I was one such fool!) Still, there appears to be NO lack of
enthusiastic endorsements.
Antennas/dummy loads of this type always fail miserably in direct
comparison to antennas principally designed to produce something other
than revenue for some ham radio equivalent of P. T. Barnum.
Any commercial broad-band "dipole" with a load resistor fits in the same
category. For decades, one outfit has sold a folded-dipole for big
bucks, claiming broad-band low SWR. No surprise. My dummy load has
broad-band low SWR for EXACTLY the same reason!
Caveat Emptor!!
Mike / KK5F
[
QRP-L Archive |
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002
]