ad: w5yi

bazooka antenna

Discussion in 'Antennas, Feedlines, Towers & Rotors' started by PD1ANB, Jul 27, 2020.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: FBNews-1
ad: Left-3
ad: Subscribe
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
  1. PD1ANB

    PD1ANB Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hello, readers

    I wonder is it possible to mak a double bazooka antenna with 75 ohm coax and feed it with
    50 ohm coax.

    I have plenty of 75 coax cable....

    Any info is welcome

    ,73 pd1anb ( ron )
  2. W9WQA

    W9WQA Ham Member QRZ Page

    is that 75 like "tv" coax?...not too strong or ez to solder.

    general consensus is that bazooka is not worth it !
    i had 2 up for years but not possible to compare to any other...
    K0UO and K2XT like this.
  3. WR2E

    WR2E Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ditto that. Extra weight, extra fuss and bother, no extra benefit.

    Had both DB and regular dipole years ago, never saw a difference.

    K0UO, K7JOE and K2XT like this.
  4. WB2WIK

    WB2WIK Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I always wanted a bazooka in case of a tank attack.
    K0UO likes this.
  5. K2XT

    K2XT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    A double bazooka is nothing more than a dipole which uses the coax shield as a conductor for part of it's length. It works almost exactly like any dipole. The stubs that are built with the coax have almost no effect at all.
    This can be proven mathematically, with NEC2 modeling, and in actual practice. I have done all three.
    The claimed benefits of the DB are a myth and anyone who promotes them, such as Bob Heil, simply do not understand how the antenna really works or are selling snake oil.
    K7JOE, N8ZL, WA7ARK and 3 others like this.
  6. KU3X

    KU3X Ham Member QRZ Page

    That statement is so true. I've seen where someone was promoting a 15 meter double bazooka as a great antenna with gain. It actually has less ERP than a standard 15 meter dipole made out of plain old #14 THHN. All one has to do is look it up in the ARRL Antenna Handbook. It's all spelled out in the book.
    Barry, KU3X
    K7JOE and K0UO like this.
  7. K2XT

    K2XT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Do you have access to the article by Walt Maxwell in Ham Radio Mag., August 1976?
    W2VW likes this.
  8. AG5CK

    AG5CK Ham Member QRZ Page

    I read somewhere that a half wave dipole could match the the performance of a double bazooka by installing a 1db attenuator.
    KU3X, WA7ARK, K0UO and 1 other person like this.
  9. KU3X

    KU3X Ham Member QRZ Page

    K2XT and W2VW like this.
  10. K2XT

    K2XT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes, that is the defining resource on the topic, written by a real antenna expert, Walt Maxwell (SK). Thanks for the link, now available to everyone.

    But, I meant did YOU have access to it? So, you do.

    The reason I asked is because you had said the ARRL Antenna book had info on the antenna. The current edition, (24th) describes it on page 9.10 and DOES reference Maxwell's paper. It accurately summarizes the effects of the stubs as being superfluous. Where it prints a glaring error is it says "bandwidths of 250 to 500 khz are reported ....." An absurd statement, obviously, since it doesn't say on which band, and how it compares to the bandwidth of a simple dipole. The ARRL needs to be called out on this glaring 0mission and I will write to the editor and notify him how such statements undermine the credibility of the publication.

    It is surprising to see this in the current Antenna Book, especially since in the Maxwell article above, at the bottom of page 49 he says, "My analysis and experiments were reviewed by QST's assoc. Technical Editor Gerald Hall, K1PLP, WHO PERFORMED A VERIFYING EXPERIMENT at the ARRL Lab (my emphasis). Result: The coaxial dipole antenna has not been included in the ARRL Antenna Book."

    So, somewhere along the way someone has decided to reintroduce the myth-loaded double bazooka again into ARRL literature.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020
    W2VW likes this.

Share This Page

ad: ProAudio-1