[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From:
Date: 22 Apr 2003
Time: 03:06:22
Remote Name: 20.138.254.2
Hakan - yes but that is speculation, there is no mathematical or physical evidence that it is true, and it would be nice to see evidence that the antenna works efficiently. You quoted the VK's results but even he said the CFA is "at least 2 S points" down on the comparison antenna. That is consistent with the inventor's statement that the CFA is "quiet" as a receive antenna. Reciprocity applies, so if it's quiet on receive is will be quiet (i.e. inefficient) on transmit. . . . 73s, Alan