I am surprised some folk on this group have rubbished Moonraker Antennas.
I know Moonraker HF antennas are used on some Australian Navy ships, so I don't think they are really "Dollar Shop junk."
I don't have any connection with either Moonraker or the the Australian Navy.
So perhaps those with complaints may need to examine their installation practices.
Or contact Moonraker or their dealer for support.
Just my 2c worth.
Cheers...Bob VK2ZRE
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 3/08/2023 2:33 am, Clyde Spencer wrote:
one has to consider the environment, not discussed prior in this thread. If
there were any metal or other electrically conductive material near the
antenna when tested that could be a possible cause for the difference in
measurement data and that which is published.
*Clyde K. Spencer*
On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:09?AM Jim via groups.io <teotwaki=
[email protected]> wrote:
This antenna is related to what antenna design literature calls a
¡°²ú¾±³¦´Ç²Ô¾±³¦²¹±ô¡°
- - Biconical antennas have dipole characteristics. The double cone
elements structure contributes to their wider bandwidth. The antenna
becomes more broadband as the cone angle increases. - -
Search on that name for design and results discussions
Jim
