NEW CHA F-LOOP 2.0 from Chameleon Antenna is NOW AVAILABLE!

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KI6TRA, Apr 30, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-3
ad: abrind-2
ad: l-BCInc
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KI6TRA

    KI6TRA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Poor troll, spitting venom as usual! I'm so sorry for you and your weak behavior. You can believe whatever you want if you please! Your lack of decorum and childish behavior are exemplary...
     
  2. AA5CT

    AA5CT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Does Duffy examine or calculate the effect the proximity of "ground" has on losses in a low-height dipole too? Has anyone ever verified NEC-4 'ground-effects' modeling as well? To be honest in evaluating antenna performance one really needs to specify the environment in which operation is desired. With a low dipole, losses mount on account of E-field (dielectric) losses AND displacement current (resistive dissipation) losses in the ground beneath the antenna. A loop experiences lower reactive 'near-field' E-field losses on account of the "closed" nature of the loop's circuit and the concentration of electric flux *in* the capacitor, as opposed to ALL the space surrounding a dipole (WHICH include lossy "ground" for a low dipole). Simply concentrating on one antenna's performance to the exclusion of factors which adversely affect other antenna is a 'game' one sees quite often. Consider instead the relative trade-offs in losses.

    These factors I mention become increasingly important on the low bands, such as 160 meters where it is impossible for 99.9 percent of operators to achieve even 1/4 wavelength spacing above ground. The contrast in loop versus dipole performance at low height has represented itself as quite prominent in my experience with both antenna types on the low bands and in favor of the loops.
     
    AK5B likes this.
  3. W4OP

    W4OP Ham Member QRZ Page

    My error Carl, I thought you might want to see the math. Instead of attacking my math, can you dispute it? What behavoir is weak or childish? I presented a technical reply to yor statements that refuted them.
    All I have ever done is ask questions about statements that I saw as questionable. I have never seen a single accurate response to my questions.
    I posted ONE time on Julian's YouTube asking for verification of some statements. Instead, of a reply, my post was deleted. I even signed it Thank you.
    I have no issue with any other company. And again, I have no financial interest in the W4OP loop.
     
  4. KI6TRA

    KI6TRA Ham Member QRZ Page

  5. W6NIK

    W6NIK XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have NO horse in this race. Just want to point out that before your math 'lesson', you did offend his Intellect... Not a sure way to win someone to your side.
     
  6. KI6TRA

    KI6TRA Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm not easily offended!! I'm just tired of that none sense egocentric trolling.
     
  7. W4OP

    W4OP Ham Member QRZ Page

    I agree- and that was a poor decision on my part. Please accept my apology Carl- I mean this sincerely. Perhaps we can agree to disagree, and take this discussion to private email.

    Dale W4OP
     
    W6NIK likes this.
  8. W4OP

    W4OP Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hi Carl,
    You are not using Steve's calculator correctly. In the "Added Loss Resistance" field you HAVE to add in a value of resistance until the calculated field "Bandwidth" matches the measured 2.62:1 bandwidth of your antenna. If you do not do this, then the calculator assumes your mechanical connections are perfect- that is zero resistance and that your capacitor has infinite Q- an impossible situation. Why Steve made the 2.62:1 (-3dB) field a dependent variable instead of an independent variable only Steve can say.

    Dale W4OP
     
  9. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    After watching this spectacle, I'd never buy anything from either of you.
     
    OH2FFY and W4HM like this.
  10. WU3U

    WU3U Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    As a relatively new ham this kind of stuff has been frustrating to me. You're not sure who you can believe and I'm not one of those people that's sent stuff to test and review so I have to rely on what I can see or read on the web and we all know that "if it's on the internet, it must be true". Actually you can often see through certain reviews but nothing can replace actually using an item.

    After discovering that the quality of materials in the Chameleon appeared to be significantly better than the Alpha along with Chameleon offering the power compensator, I bought the Chameleon. When I received the Chameleon it was definitely the better constructed antenna along with better quality accessiories so I sold off the Alpha and took a partial loss.

    In Alpha's defense I will say that while I owned the Alpha I made 38 or 39 QRP contacts in the short part of an afternoon during the NC QSO Party but the contacts weren't that far away. Even still, they were successful contacts.

    At this time I haven't used the Chameleon long enough or under the same band conditions to form an opinion of it as far as being able to have a similar day like I had with the Alpha. As we all know, QRP can be tricky. I've made some contacts with the Chameleon all but one time that I set it up so I'm hopeful that I made the right choice between at least those two manufacturers.

    After researching mutliband portable verticals I feel like I'm caught in the same pi$$ing contest as what's happening with the loops so I've kind of come to the conclusion that my $20 MFJ Hamtennas that I've tuned to the middle of the band and I've talked all over the world from my mobile appear to be the safest bet for now. I can't picture myself buying the Alpha after seeing their current construction and real world reviews. At this time I can't say I'm ready to buy another Chameleon product until I see how things play out with the loop. That's not a negative comment towards Chameleon, I'm just being practical.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
    W6NIK likes this.

Share This Page

ad: Alphaant-1