What really matters with any antenna design is to compare the antenna against another antenna to find out the actual real world performance. Most Tak-tenna users have not done this from what I have been reading. This is probably due to not having the space for a full size antenna, since if they had the space they would not choose something that is less effective. Some of the comparisons that have been done have been, as expected, very significantly below a rudimentary dipole.
From my reading on this antenna, which is somewhat similar to the Bilal Isotron, you have an L-C circuit at the end of the coax that gives you a very, very, short dipole. As W9JI and other antenna experts have pointed out, a 2 foot antenna, now matter how many feet of wire it uses, will exhibit the characteristics of a 2 foot antenna. Most antenna designs that reduce a dipole length by more the 2/3 start to exhibit some losses. By the time they are 50% shortened, it becomes substantial. Even shorter antennas that appear to be resonant are likely going to be radiating some from the coax which can give you a sort of vertical or maybe low "L" design. The effective radiated power could be quite low, say, 10 watts or so (-10 dB) which mostly proves that QRP can work. It would be informative to compare a short vertical, which is very easy to install at say half size 16 feet or so high with a decent radial system (assuming ground mounting) compared with a similar height tak-tenna. Based on the height some are putting the tak-tenna, it seems that a simple vertical or even a dipole would be a much better solution. An inverted vee half size 40 meter dipole would fit in a linear distance of around 25 feet, would it not? Or use an end fed 33 foot wire fed against ground? 73, Rick, KV9U David wrote: > I own a Tak-Tenna. I selected it because I have almost no space on my lot > for a dipole. First, it is easy to build. Second, don't try this antenna > without an antenna analyzer. I have the 40 meter version and it works. > During the worldwide SSB contest I was able to talk to Finland, New Zealand, > and Austrialia, but was it the antenna or that these guys had 65 foot and > higher towers with beam antennas? Based on my contacts I think this antenna > does well when the other guy has a beam on a high tower. By the way, there > is enough public domain materials on various versions of this antenna around > that you could build your own pretty easily. > > >
