Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.173.216.66] (account <marv@lancaironline.net>)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.1.1)
  with HTTP id 2547479 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:13:45 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Antenna Performance Demo
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.1.1
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:13:45 -0400
Message-ID: <web-2547479@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F4B80AB.1020308@ieee.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Charles R. Patton" <charles.r.patton@ieee.org>:

Brent Regan wrote:

> ....
> Regarding COM antennas and ground plane configurations, if I may 
> summarize:
>
> Antenna on glass epoxy airplane without a ground plane--- BAD
> Antenna on carbon epoxy airplane without a ground plane---  POOR
> Antenna on carbon epoxy airplane with a ground plane inside---  OK
> Antenna on carbon epoxy airplane with a ground plane outside---  BEST

I concur with your summary.

Chas
LNC2  360JM

[ and 4 correct length ground plane radials are better than
random sized mesh or conductive "paint".

If there is a remaining question, its how to test
for radiated efficiency.. a VSWR meter on the feed line,
(not, Charles proved a perfect resister would fix this)
or removing the antenna (hmm, that might be bad because
one might vibrate an internal component of the HT
at a secondary freq rather than the center freq) and
look at field strength.  -Rob ]