Article: 226740 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:53:09 -0500 Message-ID: <12brelk76dlj901@corp.supernews.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> jawod wrote: > RHF wrote: > >> SC, >> >> Morris Code > > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226741 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: 5BTV Message-ID: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:10:07 GMT I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. -- Bart Article: 226742 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 18 Jul 2006 23:35:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1153290945.176667.305550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> jawod - Oops ! - You Are Right ~RHF . . . . jawod wrote: > RHF wrote: > > SC, > > > > Morris Code > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) Article: 226743 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 18 Jul 2006 23:55:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1153292127.825715.283790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> DGN, The Modern International Morse Code was invented by Friedrich Clemens Gerke in 1848 and first used for the Telegraphy between Hamburg and Cuxhaven in Germany. After some minor changes in 1865 it has been standardised at the International Telegraphy Congress in Paris (1865), and later normed by the ITU as International Morse Code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code#Modern_International_Morse_code Vice the "American Morse Code" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Morse_code Also known as "Railroad" Morse Code -by- Samuel Finley Breese Morse http://en.wikipedia.orwiki/Samuel_Morse Morris-the-Cat knows Code : mew-meow-meow-mew mew mew meow-mew-mew meow-meow mew http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Cats/Morris.htm talk to the animals - they know code ~ RHF . . . David G. Nagel wrote: > jawod wrote: > > > RHF wrote: > > > >> SC, > >> > >> Morris Code > > > > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) > > > Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we > use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" > Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. > > Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226744 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:04:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153191637.682724.240470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <45lqb2569ph5f3vnpqhm287chma94billt@4ax.com> <1153260421.724125.141020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the > Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in > that Morse encoded spark > Actually that is not correct. Within the original meaning of CW, the Titanic used a CW transmitter. It was not a spark transmitter, the rf energy was produced by an alternator which provided 'continuous' rf power, hence CW. The output was not a damped wave that a spark transmitter would produce, but an interrupted 'continuous wave' (from the alternator). Regards Jeff Article: 226745 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question From: Dave Oldridge References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:34:11 GMT Ben Jackson wrote in news:slrnebqol9.1msk.ben@saturn.home.ben.com: > I've used a couple programs (vertload.exe and I think LODI) to design > a shortened, single band dipole antenna for 30m. Specifically I'm > interested in 10.149MHz. Ah, the good old 10.149 packet net? I used to run a node on there (VE1EI) a fey years ago. > The result is: > > --1m wire--[~34t 1.5" form 2" long, ~24uH]----2m wire----[center]--... > > The center would be a 1:1 current balun, twisting the wires together > and then taking 10-12 turns on FT50-61 (or if that won't fit, fewer > turns on FT50-43). > > The predicted resistive input impedance is 22 ohms. Vertload is just > simulating half the antenna (with 0 ohm ground loss) so its match info > is not useful. The other program called for a ".71uH matching coil" > for 50 feed, which I assume is to cancel a calculated -j45 reactive > component?? > > I would like to pre-calculate an approximate match to Z=50ohms which > I can put directly at the feed point and shrink-wrap with the balun. > Is there a way to do that, or is it too touchy to do without measuring > the actual antenna? > How high is this antenna and above what kind of ground? For 15m high, I get values of 21.21 microhenries and 9.85 picofarads across the feedpoint (you could make that out of a short coax stub). SWR would be 1.82 to 1 on 50 ohms, though. That could be improved upon by altering the length of the outer wires a bit and tuning the capacitor to match. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Article: 226746 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: deployable antenna From: Dave Oldridge References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:40:12 GMT jawod wrote in news:cb7b1$44bd15de$453d9423$21785 @FUSE.NET: > Now, I hope I get some reasonable responses to this (along with the > usual crap). > > I recall a toy my kids used to have and it made think of similar > technology to creating a "deployable" antenna. > > In this particular toy, a series of slightly S-shaped plastic bars were > linked together such that the entire ball could be collapsed into a > spider-like ball with all bars positioned radially from the center. > When pulled apart, all bars positioned circumferentially in a > bucky-ball-like sphere. I thought that was cool. > > Has anyone come across an antenna design with similar mechanism? > > I can envision a loop antenna that could be deployed after dark, for > example. It could be rotatable vertically or stationary horizontally. Short loops do not work very well with rotating parts in them. Mainly because such rotating parts have rather large resistance compared to the radiation resistance of the loop itself. It's bad enough if you use some pure conductor like the shield of LMR-400 coax or heliax. Now as an unfoldable section ABOVE a center loading coil, the idea might work. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Article: 226747 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Length & number of radials From: Dave Oldridge References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:50:34 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in news:16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com: > If you are considering a new vertical antenna, instead of guesswork > and copying somebody else's un-thought-out efforts, download program > RADIAL_3 from website below. > > The program assists with choosing an economic length and number of > shallow-buried ground radials. It takes a new look at how radials work > by considering them to be lossy, single-wire transmission lines, > open-circuit at the other end. > > RADIAL_3 is a self contained file, 55 kilibytes. Easy to use. No > training needed. Download in a few seconds and run immediately. Very nice. But one thing I have noticed is that radial effectiveness begins to fall off at a distance from the antenna very similar to its height. This seems to be due to capacitive coupling between the top of the antenna and the radials. Does your algorithm take this effect into consideration? I modelled an antenna I used to use and the results did seem consistent with the behaviour, though. Actually I used to use two of them, and actually had a gain over a single perfect-ground antenna. Not a LARGE gain, but still, useful. More useful was the fact that I could control the take-off angle and pattern to the point where the antenna actually sounded about 10db louder than a low dipole--at distances of 1000 mi or more. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Article: 226748 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:48:14 +0000 From: Scott Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's Morris? Scott RHF wrote: > SC, > > Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission > -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? > - - - The Times They Are A Changing ! > > While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator > for Mastering Morris Code (CW). > > Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service. > > > Morris Code > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code > > Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in > and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave > > The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code > and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF > > Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO" > http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm > At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout > I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM > -but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag > "Semaphore" Signals Too ! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication) > Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone > Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout. > > > just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF > . > . > . . > > Slow Code wrote: > >>fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote in >>news:fmmck-1607061316520001@ac9bfd05.ipt.aol.com: >> >> >>>In article , "Alun L. >>>Palmer" wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to >>>>send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on. >>> >>>I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was >>>based. >>> >>>Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating >>>a digital camera user: >>> >>>"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save >>>him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" >> >> >>Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film. >> >>Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it >>bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an >>improvement. >> >>SC > > Article: 226749 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> <12brelk76dlj901@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:52:00 GMT David G. Nagel wrote: > Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we > use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" > Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong. Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes. It is true that Sam's "American" Morse was different from "International" Morse in about a dozen characters but both used dots and dashes. Still, more characters were alike than were different. The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to distinguish the dots from the dashes. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226750 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 04:56:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1153310207.605252.255470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > David G. Nagel wrote: > > Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we > > use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" > > Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. > > Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to > record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an > ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound > of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong. > Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish > the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and > therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes. oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the day could do so? Article: 226751 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: 5BTV References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:03:25 GMT Bart Bailey wrote: > I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good > counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at > the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions > but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow > the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary > to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? > The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. At least three symmetrical radials are required for a close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive interference thus adding constructive interference to the vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226752 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: <1153310843.220381.261550@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> an old freind wrote: > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > > an old friend wrote: > > > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > > > get help sicko > > > > Poor Markie, he's the reason the country is dumbing down. > LOL I'm sure you get one when you look in the mirror. Article: 226753 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> <12brelk76dlj901@corp.supernews.com> <1153310207.605252.255470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <3opvg.70224$fb2.34545@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:15:59 GMT an old friend wrote: > oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it > by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the > day could do so? Please note that I didn't say ordinary human beings could read telegraph code. All I said was that ordinary human beings could distinguish between the sound of a dot and the sound of a dash. I think that's a pretty safe assumption with "ordinary" in the sense of an average human possessing average hearing abilities. I would bet that a dog could even be trained to distinguish a dot from a dash. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226754 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:16:58 -0700 Message-ID: <1153311417.976949.320310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com wrote: > an old freind wrote: get help sicko Article: 226755 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:18:54 -0700 Message-ID: <1153311534.122551.258640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > an old friend wrote: > > oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it > > by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the > > day could do so? > > Please note that I didn't say ordinary human beings could read > telegraph code. All I said was that ordinary human beings could > distinguish between the sound of a dot and the sound of a dash. > > I think that's a pretty safe assumption with "ordinary" in the > sense of an average human possessing average hearing abilities. > I would bet that a dog could even be trained to distinguish a > dot from a dash. I stand corrected although the inclation was that ordinary people could read the code itself but the poit is made I think > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226756 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 19 Jul 2006 07:59:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153321143.964850.141630@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> n3ox.dan@gmail.com wrote: > 96 radials, 7MHz, antenna height 10.72m. Soil 500ohm*m, permittivity > 13\ > > Radials and antenna 1.024mm (18AWG), radials 3mm deep(surface) > Radial Length, %Efficiency > > 2m, 93.19% > 3m, 93.83% > 4m, 92.47% > 5m, 86.01% > 6m, 80.39% > 7m, 85.92% > 8m, 89.06% > 9m, 89.59% > 10m, 88.22% > 11m, 85.99% > 12m, 85.51% > 13m, 86.67% I sure wouldn't fully trust a NEC based program for buried wires, let alone a program someone just threw together without any verification at all. This is especially true when the answer looks so weird. Standing waves on a wire in contact with soil making efficiency go down as the wire length is increased? Give me a break! I seriously doubt any vertical antenna would be even close to 93% efficient with 7 foot long buried radials. A precise looking answer that gives us a warm fuzzy feeling makes the answer a good one, no matter how wrong the answer is. 73 Tom Article: 226757 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: 19 Jul 2006 08:05:30 -0700 Message-ID: <1153321530.566191.128860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Cecil Moore wrote: > My simulation indicated that the horizontal radials radiate > hardly any horizontally polarized radiation, unlike a horizontal > dipole antenna. That's true. But there's no way for me to separate the vertical > radiation of the radials from the vertical radiation of the > monopole. That's not true. You can look at the overall pattern and look at the effects on patterns with different radial systems to get an idea what direction and angle the radials might significantly radiate. Hence the pattern distortion as elevation angle is increased and decreased from an elevated or freespace vertical with two (or even to a much lesser extent four) radials. 73 Tom Article: 226758 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: A/B Switching Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:14:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same frequency. Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from 200 watts, will survive without damage? Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? Win, W0LZ Article: 226759 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Gregory MELLOTT" References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> <42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:30:50 GMT "dada" wrote in message news:42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com... > > How about mounting it rightside up but putting the mount in the top and > antenna on the bottom ? > > Joe > WB2JQT > The only problem is that the direction an postions on the controller will be reversed. For personal use probably no problem. Sincerely, Gregroy D. MELLOTT Article: 226760 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tam/WB2TT" References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> Subject: Re: A/B Switching Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:54:17 -0400 Message-ID: <7fydnSKm7MYCyCPZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Win" wrote in message news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to > make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this > A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the > other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end > (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B > switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage > the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. > > I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some > point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same > frequency. > > Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from > 200 watts, will survive without damage? > > Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? > > Win, W0LZ I have an IC756 and FT847 going to the same (HF) A/B switch. No problems. You will want to do this on the input side of any amplifier. Tam/WB2TT Article: 226761 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> <1153321530.566191.128860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:56:33 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: >> But there's no way for me to separate the vertical >> radiation of the radials from the vertical radiation of the >> monopole. > > That's not true. I make a statement about my personal abilities and you have the audacity to tell me it is not true???? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226762 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:48:47 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> I don't know about boundary conditions, but when I use this program to evaluate the following system: 3.62 Mhz, 18.3 meter height (simulating an inverted L with 25.4 ohms Rrad) Resistivity 25, Permittivity 25 2mm radials, 4mm antenna wire, radials 1 mm depth (actually #14 insulated wire, stapled to the lawn and sinking in gradually) ..it shows my predicted efficiency with (26) 50' long radials to be about 90%. My measurements indicated I am getting about 88%. Pretty good agreement. What causes me to cringe, is that the program shows that I can reduce the length of my radials from 16.1 meters to a little over 4 meters without losing ANY significant efficiency. Given everything else I've read over the years, that just seems to be way too good to be true. Now, I suppose I could rip up my 26 radials and shorten them all to about 5 meters and re-measure my efficiency, but that's a LOT of work (and it's 97 degrees out with a dew point in the mid 70's). Not going to happen. Here's the kicker... I have 1000' of remaining wire to put down (and I am going to add it). If this value of 4 or 5 meters (15 feet, let's say) is even remotely correct, I can put down 66 more radials (although they would be interlaced with the existing 26 longer ones of 50' each). Using my initial length of 50', I can put down 20 more radials, giving me a total of 46 radials 50' long. Reg, you program seems to be telling me that I would get the maximum benefit by putting in 66 more radials approximately 15' long, and that installing them at 50' would be wasting 35' of wire per radial, and reducing radial coverage as well. So...what should I do: 1. Add 66 greatly shortened radials (accepting Reg's program as correct) or 2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. I look forward to comments. ...hasan, N0AN Article: 226763 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:14:32 -0700 Message-ID: <71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:48:47 -0500, "hasan schiers" wrote: >So...what should I do: >2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. Hi Hasan, Build for the future. Anticipate working 160M. Enjoy the advantages (as slim as they may be) at 80M. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226764 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: 5BTV Message-ID: <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:17 GMT In Message-ID: posted on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:03:25 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Bart Bailey wrote: >> I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good >> counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at >> the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions >> but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow >> the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary >> to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? >> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. > >At least three symmetrical radials are required for a >close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are >elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive >interference thus adding constructive interference to the >vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are >also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. Thanks Cecil At this point I'm not afforded the geographical luxury of multiple radial placement, and am hoping any radiation at all will be better than none, thus am thinking that the solitary counterpoise will have to suffice. With my luck I'll likely have a prominent lobe out into the boonies where there aren't any stations, and a steep null right into choice DX. -- Bart Article: 226765 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Telamon Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:30:22 GMT In article , Scott wrote: > Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's > Morris? < Snip > He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to radio listening and scanner news groups. How about limiting Amateur subjects to the amateur news groups. -- Telamon Ventura, California Article: 226766 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: Re: A/B Switching Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:37:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> <7fydnSKm7MYCyCPZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:54:17 -0400, "Tam/WB2TT" wrote: > >"Win" wrote in message >news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >>I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to >> make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this >> A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the >> other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end >> (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B >> switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage >> the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. >> >> I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some >> point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same >> frequency. >> >> Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from >> 200 watts, will survive without damage? >> >> Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? >> >> Win, W0LZ > >I have an IC756 and FT847 going to the same (HF) A/B switch. No problems. >You will want to do this on the input side of any amplifier. > >Tam/WB2TT > Thanks, Tam. Good to know. I will check and see if the 746 and 756 have the same RF section. Win, W0LZ Article: 226767 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com> Good thinking, Richard, as I may try to get this inverted L to do 160 in the fall/winter by adding a trap to the 80m inverted L and extending the wire for 160m resonance. Incidentally, over the weekend I tried to add a 40m wire parallel to the 80m L...it was a complete failure. (I used a "fan" approach with 6" standoffs for the 33' vertical wire). I thought I might get 2 fer 1 at the feedpoint, but it just didn't work worth a darn. Very low noise level, signals were significantly weaker than my Carolina Windom 80 (on 40m) up 42'. I did work a few DX stations with it, but just not up to my expectations. A properly performing 40m 1/4 w vertical over very good soil and a full radial field as described in my prior message should have been outstanding. It wasn't. It was very hard to tune, showed no better than a 3:1 VSWR at resonance, and was only marginally better on a very few signals between sunset and sunrise. Very disappointing. So...your suggestion for 160m is a good one. I could do a trap pretty easily. If I wanted to try 40m with the same feedpoint, I could put a parallel tuned circuit at the feedpoint and run the 80m inverted L as a 40m half-wave. Of course, this requires switching at the feedpoint and I'm not sure I'd bother. I also have to get a 1.9 uH coil and 250 pf variable cap to do the tuned circuit (per ON4UN's Low Band DXing Handbook). I found an acceptable cap for 40 bucks and coil stock is readily available. I just have to get motivated and work out the relay switching. I wondered if I could EVALUATE the effectiveness of the 80m inverted L on 40m as a half wave, by temporarily taking an antenna tuner with wide range (T-network matches almost anything) out to the feedpoint and matching it there. If it hears well, and works ok at 300w (tuner limit), then it might be worth investing in the coil/cap/relays to switch a more standard high-Z feed in and out. What do you think? Thanks for your input. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Richard Clark" wrote in message news:71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com... > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:48:47 -0500, "hasan schiers" > wrote: > >>So...what should I do: >>2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. > > Hi Hasan, > > Build for the future. Anticipate working 160M. Enjoy the advantages > (as slim as they may be) at 80M. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226768 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: 5BTV Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:17 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: >>> I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good >>> counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at >>> the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions >>> but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow >>> the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary >>> to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? >>> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. >> >>At least three symmetrical radials are required for a >>close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are >>elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >>from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive >>interference thus adding constructive interference to the >>vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are >>also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. > >Thanks Cecil >At this point I'm not afforded the geographical luxury of multiple >radial placement, and am hoping any radiation at all will be better than >none, thus am thinking that the solitary counterpoise will have to >suffice. With my luck I'll likely have a prominent lobe out into the >boonies where there aren't any stations, and a steep null right into >choice DX. Hi Bart, Having noticed your question went unanswered, and that you have a very curious arrangement that begs discussion: Yes, the fanned out tuned radials are necessary for resonance (or at least reduce interaction during the tune process). This is because these types of antennas are especially designed for these very requirements. That, or ground mounting that allows the proximity of earth resistance to wash over the inherent Q that forces attention to radial lengths. You have chosen to mount up high, and that demands that attention to those lengths. This much should already be apparent with a SWR meter reading. Alternatively, this curious several hundred foot long "counterpoise" may give some relief to a raging SWR meter, but along with that comes unintended consequences. Given this "counterpoise" is easily ten times bigger than the "antenna" you may note that my usage of "quote" marks is to denote another irony. You have, in fact, a horizontal dipole with a vertically oriented, tuned, short half. The 5BTV is more the radial than it is the antenna. This is not to say that it affects performance poorly. In fact it may be a boon, but it certainly isn't going to be performing for the reasons you might ascribe to it. Let's just say this is an example of Ham Luck which proves radio is fun for not having critical requirements. Any pretense to gain and efficiencies being obtained through carefully balancing this "counterpoise" are sheer fantasy. You could as easily pull down the 5BTV, leave the "counterpoise" connected to the mast, and drive the mast to the same advantage. (Or leave the 5BTV up there as a sort of top-load.) If you want to resurrect the 5BTV's dignity that is now in shreds, follow the manufacturer's recommendations for installing tuned radials for each band, and attached at the correct point. Unfortunately, there's no promise of any increase of performance, but others may offer reports that confound my advice. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226769 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:46:55 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Length & number of radials References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> hasan schiers wrote: > >I wondered if I could EVALUATE the effectiveness of the 80m inverted L >on 40m as a half wave, by temporarily taking an antenna tuner with wide >range (T-network matches almost anything) out to the feedpoint and >matching it there. If it hears well, and works ok at 300w (tuner >limit), then it might be worth investing in the coil/cap/relays to >switch a more standard high-Z feed in and out. What do you think? > The configuration of 35ft vertical + 35ft (or so) horizontal worked well for me on 40m at the old QTH, and was quite effective on 80m DX. For 160m, I added a 100ft loading wire to bring the total length up to about 130ft, and that configuration doubled as an end-fed half-wave for 80m short-skip. Having a QRO auto-ATU made band changing easy, so it wasn't necessary to resonate the antenna on any band. However, the quarter-wave resonances on 80m and 160m could have been trimmed to length. Coming back to the difference between the 40m vertical quarter-wave and the bent half-wave, I compared the bare 35ft mast and the same mast with the added loading wire and didn't find much difference. For DX, the bent-half-wave should have been down on the quarter-wave (because some of the radiation was being wasted at high angles); but in contests, both antennas seemed to work the same regular DX stations. The bent half-wave was louder for short-skip, which meant more QRM at night, but made it easier to continue making low-point contacts during daylight hours. If you use an 80m trap, the antenna could still work on 40m but the horizontal section would be way over-long. Unless rapid band changing between 80m and 160m is a priority, I'd suggest you use a physical disconnect at the end of the 35ft horizontal section. (My setup made it very easy to loosen a rope and lower the connection into reach, so I used simple banana plugs, with snap links to add either wire or plain cord.) -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226770 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 12:02:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153335724.330428.82810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> an old freind wrote: > kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com wrote: > > an old freind wrote: > get help sicko Poor Markie! Article: 226771 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:00:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:03:16 -0500, "hasan schiers" wrote: >Incidentally, over the weekend I tried to add a 40m wire parallel to the 80m >L...it was a complete failure. (I used a "fan" approach with 6" standoffs >for the 33' vertical wire). I thought I might get 2 fer 1 at the feedpoint, >but it just didn't work worth a darn. Hi Hasan, I must think that you were only slightly off in length, and that the proximity, even at 6 inches, is still proximal. >Very low noise level, signals were >significantly weaker than my Carolina Windom 80 (on 40m) up 42'. Not unlike many similar reports. >I did work >a few DX stations with it, but just not up to my expectations. A properly >performing 40m 1/4 w vertical over very good soil and a full radial field as >described in my prior message should have been outstanding. It wasn't. Some of those same reporters suggest split operation where the vertical is the radiator and a high horizontal is the receiving antenna. >I wondered if I could EVALUATE the effectiveness of the 80m inverted L on >40m as a half wave, by temporarily taking an antenna tuner with wide range >(T-network matches almost anything) out to the feedpoint and matching it >there. If it hears well, and works ok at 300w (tuner limit), then it might >be worth investing in the coil/cap/relays to switch a more standard high-Z >feed in and out. What do you think? I would encourage that, simply because you seem to be amenable to such a path already. Gaining experience is always a noble work. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226772 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153191637.682724.240470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <45lqb2569ph5f3vnpqhm287chma94billt@4ax.com> <1153260421.724125.141020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:27:18 -0400 On 18 Jul 2006 15:07:01 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: >a thread related not > >I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the >Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in >that Morse encoded spark For the duration of a dash, spark is CW. Maybe slightly damped, but still CW. Article: 226773 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) Subject: Re: deployable antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:28:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> In article <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net>, jawod wrote: > How would I fashion an approach to calculate resonance for any given > diameter under these circumstances? > > Yes, I'm probably not the brightest bulb in the pack, but it's still fun > to speculate...this is an AMATEUR group, afterall. John- Its hard for an old fogey like me to follow the details of this thread. To start with, I'm not familiar with the toys mentioned. Yet this type of discussion is conducive to creative thinking. You start with something that may be a bit fantastic, and end up with a good idea. My idea of a "deployable" antenna is a metal tape measure. Only it isn't a new idea. Many years back, Telex Hy-Gain produced a Model 18TD, Tape Doublet, 10 thru 80 meters portable antenna. There was also a military version, the Hy-Gain HA4000. See a discussion at http://www.qsl.net/n2ckh/HA4000.htm Fred K4DII Article: 226774 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <1153192328.628332.204860@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153260241.240723.217480@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:32:05 -0400 On 18 Jul 2006 15:04:01 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700, "an old feind" >> wrote: >> >> Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a >> >> schematic and ask them to find a component by function. >> >I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the >> >component >> I said "by function". Not "locate the resistor", but "locate the >> balanced modulator circuitry". >you were vague I said, "ask them to find a component by function". That's only vague to those who don't understand simple English. > not my fault you can't express yourself Not in what you use for language but, then, I speak English. >nor is a EE needed to be ham and contrube to advancing the state of the >radio art No one said otherwise - but refusing to learn anything shouldn't be a criterion, and it certainly doesn't contribute to anything but sloth. >the tests needed to cover those things THEN >THEN they more os less needed to inculde Morse code (lathough it could >have been avoided but for the treaty) >times change >adapt or die Oh, I could pass a test on the technical aspects of communications as it's practiced today. Could you? (Rhetorical question - I know you couldn't.) And I don't mean could you memorize enough answers to pass. Article: 226775 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <762tb2hcuqrdtlnj0jnlht6f8736jkuijo@4ax.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:33:11 -0400 On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:21:22 -0500, "David G. Nagel" wrote: >Computer program was substituted for foreign language where I went to >college. Computer programming wasn't (as in, didn't exist), when I went to college. :) Except maybe at IBM. Article: 226776 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:33:34 -0400 On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:10:39 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >At Texas A&M in the late '50's, a BA in EE required a >foreign language but a BS didn't. Don't know why. Language is an art? Article: 226777 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 12:32:21 -0700 Message-ID: <1153337541.613517.284650@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: may the lord bless and grant you reales from the mental illness that traps you Article: 226778 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Message-ID: <2h2tb25anl46jvkh0eq8jlnbsshtilmn4c@4ax.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:38:31 -0400 On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:48:14 +0000, Scott wrote: >Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's >Morris? Morris is also known as C. W. Katt. Article: 226779 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David" References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: However, I still think that with only the vertical element connected to the centre conductor, the vertical element radiates although not very well. With only the radials connected to the outer braid, the radials do not radiate. The RF live of the transceiver is normally connected to centre conductor, and the RF ground side (the 0V side) is normally connected to the braid. The outer of the connector on the transceiver is possibly connected internally to the case and mains Earth. Article: 226780 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: 5BTV Message-ID: <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:49:49 GMT In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:17 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: >>>> I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good >>>> counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at >>>> the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions >>>> but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow >>>> the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary >>>> to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? >>>> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. >>> >>>At least three symmetrical radials are required for a >>>close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are >>>elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >>>from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive >>>interference thus adding constructive interference to the >>>vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are >>>also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. >> >>Thanks Cecil >>At this point I'm not afforded the geographical luxury of multiple >>radial placement, and am hoping any radiation at all will be better than >>none, thus am thinking that the solitary counterpoise will have to >>suffice. With my luck I'll likely have a prominent lobe out into the >>boonies where there aren't any stations, and a steep null right into >>choice DX. > >Hi Bart, > >Having noticed your question went unanswered, and that you have a very >curious arrangement that begs discussion: > >Yes, the fanned out tuned radials are necessary for resonance (or at >least reduce interaction during the tune process). RFI is definately one of my concerns with this make do arrangement. Last year when I had an inverted VEE for 6m, the RFI was horrendous, even set off my CO detector inside the shack. Going to the Diamond V-2000 (store bought) solved that nicely, however. > This is because >these types of antennas are especially designed for these very >requirements. That, or ground mounting that allows the proximity of >earth resistance to wash over the inherent Q that forces attention to >radial lengths. You have chosen to mount up high, The height is somewhat variable, as the mast can be collapsed to a single section, total height above ground would be about twenty feet, because it's placed on a second story back porch so as to reduce the temptation to vandalism. >and that demands >that attention to those lengths. This much should already be apparent >with a SWR meter reading. I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. >Alternatively, this curious several hundred foot long "counterpoise" >may give some relief to a raging SWR meter, but along with that comes >unintended consequences. Given this "counterpoise" is easily ten >times bigger than the "antenna" you may note that my usage of "quote" >marks is to denote another irony. You have, in fact, a horizontal >dipole with a vertically oriented, tuned, short half. The 5BTV is >more the radial than it is the antenna. You've stated exactly what I think will occur, that being that the 5BTV will serve as a tuned odd leg to a very ad hoc Windom of sorts. >This is not to say that it affects performance poorly. In fact it may >be a boon, but it certainly isn't going to be performing for the >reasons you might ascribe to it. Let's just say this is an example of >Ham Luck which proves radio is fun for not having critical >requirements. Any pretense to gain and efficiencies being obtained >through carefully balancing this "counterpoise" are sheer fantasy. Giving the tuner something to grasp within its ohmage range capabilities would satisfy my fantasy of 80m access from an inner city QTH >You >could as easily pull down the 5BTV, leave the "counterpoise" connected >to the mast, and drive the mast to the same advantage. (Or leave the >5BTV up there as a sort of top-load.) I've actually tried that using both a 1:1 and a 4:1 balun to fool the tuner into finding a sweet spot, but the longish counterpoise seems to get more noise than signal on any of the bands it will tune at all. >If you want to resurrect the 5BTV's dignity that is now in shreds, >follow the manufacturer's recommendations for installing tuned radials >for each band, and attached at the correct point. Unfortunately, >there's no promise of any increase of performance, but others may >offer reports that confound my advice. To install any radial more than about 5 feet long would require a fastener to a neighbor's gable, fat chance of that considering the constipated look on their faces whenever they glance skyward at what's up there now. >73's >Richard Clark, KB7QHC 73 de KM6RF -- Bart Article: 226781 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:06:55 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:33:29 +0100, "David" wrote: >However, I still think that with only the vertical element connected to the >centre conductor, the vertical element radiates although not very well. With >only the radials connected to the outer braid, the radials do not radiate. >The RF live of the transceiver is normally connected to centre conductor, >and the RF ground side (the 0V side) is normally connected to the braid. The >outer of the connector on the transceiver is possibly connected internally >to the case and mains Earth. Hi David, Only the slimmest margin of this comes close, and not enough to explain anything. 0V, ground, live, dead, hot, cold, or whatever you want to call it has long since disappeared from the scene at the other end of a cable or twin lead. Radials do not mimic these terms even if the illusion of continuity suggests otherwise. There is no "rf side" nor is there a "ground side" to appeal to. Such distinctions are reserved for very untechnical allusions. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226782 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 19 Jul 2006 14:12:41 -0700 Message-ID: <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Dear friends: Thank you very much for your answers. First of all: I agree with you, but my agreement is inductive, not experimental because I have not made my homework with that antenna... . I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... I think that it must have something true behind so many similar statements. In the radio club of my area they say to have compared one against another with clearly favorable results to the bazooka. I thought...: A plain dipole is not a monoband antenna, it is, in fact, a multiband antenna, it receives all the frequencies. But do let us imagine a plain dipole that had connected on its terminals a couple high Q tuned circuits. That system it would be really "monoband"... then, if we connect such a system to a poor receiver Would not it improve the reception perhaps?, eliminating by that way possible saturation sources or intermodulaci=F3n noises. Such a system, empirically it would seem a practically "more silent antenna" and it would explain, perhaps, the some results obtained by the colleagues. I say this because it is said that the bazooka possesses a syntony effect that transforms it into a true monoband device (I am not sure of it). It is only an arbitrary example of possible alternative explanations that, without violating the fundamental principles, can be compatibilized with the experiences of so many colleagues that sympathize with this antennas(some of which deserve my technical respect). I thank all your answers but I continue to the search of some explanation that endorses all the facts, just as the formidable article of Walter in reference to its bandwidth... I am for sure some of you will be able to help me to find a convincing explanation. =20 Thank you very much in adavnce Miguel Ghezzi (LU 6ETJ) Article: 226783 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> Message-ID: Al Klein wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:10:39 GMT, Cecil Moore > wrote: > > >>At Texas A&M in the late '50's, a BA in EE required a >>foreign language but a BS didn't. Don't know why. > > > Language is an art? Back in the olden days a BA degree focused on art, humanities, language, sociology, etc. Back in the olden days a BS degree focused on math, more math, physics, chemistry, biological sciences, etc. The basic difference was M A T H ... M O R E M A T H ... then four or more semesters of C A L C U L U S. In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...] Article: 226784 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:42:22 -0400 On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400, Dave wrote: >In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still >like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean >something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...] It's only been 43 years for me, but I've also forgotten some of the math and I also like to read about some of the humanities. But I still earn my living doing the BS stuff, although being a field anthropologist does sound interesting. Article: 226785 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David" References: <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:14:33 +0100 Message-ID: I agree that in the coax side, there is no real 0V because the current has a standing wave. But the transceiver has a DC power supply (normally 12V) that is controlled or modulated. One side of the power supply is regarded as 0V and connected to 0V rail of circuits. The modulated side is the RF live that is connected to the centre contact of transceiver output connector. In theory, while transceiver is transmitting, if I touched the outer of the output connector, I would not expect to get a shock or RF burn. If I touched the centre contact of output connector, then I would expect to get a shock or RF burn. Admittedly, I could touch the outer and find that I am close enough to the centre contact for RF to capacitively couple into me. In real life, I would never touch the output connector while the rig is transmitting. Does RF live and ground not exist on the output connector of the transceiver? Article: 226786 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:29:26 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> Message-ID: <-I6dnY5GqOfbLyPZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> Al Klein wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400, Dave wrote: > > >>In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still >>like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean >>something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...] > > > It's only been 43 years for me, but I've also forgotten some of the > math and I also like to read about some of the humanities. But I > still earn my living doing the BS stuff, although being a field > anthropologist does sound interesting. I retired from the BS business in 2000. Now I'm an ordained minister, ordained in 1988 as a Catholic Deacon, and serve as Chaplain to the incarcerated in addition to parish responsibilities. Us old hams have diversified interests !! Article: 226787 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:41:55 -0000 Message-ID: <12btd9j3btcal41@corp.supernews.com> References: >I agree that in the coax side, there is no real 0V because the current has a >standing wave. But the transceiver has a DC power supply (normally 12V) that >is controlled or modulated. One side of the power supply is regarded as 0V >and connected to 0V rail of circuits. The modulated side is the RF live that >is connected to the centre contact of transceiver output connector. > >In theory, while transceiver is transmitting, if I touched the outer of the >output connector, I would not expect to get a shock or RF burn. If I touched >the centre contact of output connector, then I would expect to get a shock >or RF burn. Admittedly, I could touch the outer and find that I am close >enough to the centre contact for RF to capacitively couple into me. In real >life, I would never touch the output connector while the rig is >transmitting. > >Does RF live and ground not exist on the output connector of the >transceiver? "Live" and "ground" aren't absolute, universal things. These terms exist only in relation to a specific reference point, which you must choose. Yes, it's true that the outer rim of the coaxial connector is usually tied to the chassis of the transceiver, and that this chassis is also tied to your DC ground. So, the potential voltage between the connector and your body is usually low and it's not all that likely to shock you. However, this doesn't mean that this same thing is true at the other end of the coaxial cable (i.e. up at the antenna)! Although the far end of the coax braid is at (or very close to) DC ground, it's far enough away in RF terms (that is, in terms of wavelengths) that its voltage is going to be very different much of the time. Consider also the case in which your transceiver isn't "grounded" at all... it's sitting on a wooden table, powered by a battery, and the coax cable runs directly from it to the antenna. There's no "third wire" in the power cord, or other grounding wire connecting the transceiver to a water pipe or electric outlet or a grounding rod or anything like that. Let's further assume that your antenna is a vertical, with radials, elevated up on an insulated mast. Now, when you transmit - what's the voltage present at the base of each radial? If it's "0V", then why, and with respect to what? -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 226788 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:57:55 -0700 Message-ID: <43dtb2hou5rhcgsfea2ut9qg87pfcd9qet@4ax.com> References: <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:14:33 +0100, "David" wrote: >I agree that in the coax side, there is no real 0V because the current has a >standing wave. Hi Dave, This doesn't really make much sense. Even discounting that and trying to extrapolate your response, it isn't even 0V then and not true for SWR in general. >But the transceiver has a DC power supply (normally 12V) that >is controlled or modulated. A modulated power supply? Even if you mean regulated, it bears no resemblence to the topic. >One side of the power supply is regarded as 0V >and connected to 0V rail of circuits. The modulated side is the RF live that >is connected to the centre contact of transceiver output connector. It will, then, come as a surprise to you that the output of the transmitter comes from an AC coupled link. You may choose either wire in that link to go to any part of a ground system, or conversely, to what you consider to be the radiator. It makes no difference because there is no Ground Hot Cold Dead Live or any other distinction until you plant that wire. You can paint that wire turquoise in the belief that it is safe, and grab it at a later time to fry you. >In theory, while transceiver is transmitting, if I touched the outer of the >output connector, I would not expect to get a shock or RF burn. Expectations here are a belief system, not a proof. I suggest you stay away from situations that encourage such lethal presumptions. >If I touched >the centre contact of output connector, then I would expect to get a shock >or RF burn. Admittedly, I could touch the outer and find that I am close >enough to the centre contact for RF to capacitively couple into me. In real >life, I would never touch the output connector while the rig is >transmitting. > >Does RF live and ground not exist on the output connector of the >transceiver? There are no absolutes as you might expect. Plenty of correspondents here complain daily of problems stemming from what you might deny. If you worked your rig on 10M or 20M from the second story window, you are so far from ground, electrically, that its apparent proximity is only an illusion. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226789 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Miguel There are "eyewitness accounts" of all sorts of foolishness. If you build it perfectly a bazooka will show a decrease in SWR over a very small range either side of resonance (SWR = 1:1) when compared to a dipole. This is completely useless except as an academic exercise. Here's how it works: The antenna is a parallel-resonant network (the bazooka) in parallel with a series-resonant network(the dipole). The parallel resonant (tank circuit) network stores energy and will oscillate at it's DRIVEN frequency when driven near resonance, so it stores the energy that would otherwise be reflected as long as it oscillates. Go too far from resonance and it quits oscillating. This effect manifests itself at SWR of 1.2:1 or lower. It flattens the SWR curve very near resonance. The 2:1 bandwidth is unaffected except by the additional loss of the tank circuit sitting across the dipole feed point. What Walter Maxwell showed explicitly is that any increase in SWR bandwidth is entirely due to loss, if I recall correctly. So all the trouble of building a bazooka with both legs and the dipole resonant at exactly the same frequency is a waste of time. A simple dipole works a bit better and is *MUCH LESS* work and expen$e. 73 H. NQ5H "lu6etj" wrote in message news:1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... Dear friends: Thank you very much for your answers. First of all: I agree with you, but my agreement is inductive, not experimental because I have not made my homework with that antenna... . I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... I think that it must have something true behind so many similar statements. In the radio club of my area they say to have compared one against another with clearly favorable results to the bazooka. I thought...: A plain dipole is not a monoband antenna, it is, in fact, a multiband antenna, it receives all the frequencies. But do let us imagine a plain dipole that had connected on its terminals a couple high Q tuned circuits. That system it would be really "monoband"... then, if we connect such a system to a poor receiver Would not it improve the reception perhaps?, eliminating by that way possible saturation sources or intermodulación noises. Such a system, empirically it would seem a practically "more silent antenna" and it would explain, perhaps, the some results obtained by the colleagues. I say this because it is said that the bazooka possesses a syntony effect that transforms it into a true monoband device (I am not sure of it). It is only an arbitrary example of possible alternative explanations that, without violating the fundamental principles, can be compatibilized with the experiences of so many colleagues that sympathize with this antennas(some of which deserve my technical respect). I thank all your answers but I continue to the search of some explanation that endorses all the facts, just as the formidable article of Walter in reference to its bandwidth... I am for sure some of you will be able to help me to find a convincing explanation. Thank you very much in adavnce Miguel Ghezzi (LU 6ETJ) Article: 226790 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 16:44:19 -0700 Message-ID: <1153352659.407310.171810@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Slow Code wrote: > Telamon wrote in > news:telamon_spamshield-1A563C.10302219072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com: > > > > He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to > > radio listening and scanner news groups. > > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. who would be sbe equiped to send such an SOS SC? you want to imporve the toene of NG get off your ass and stop troling looking for a fight bless you and grant new mental health to you soon Article: 226791 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:40:27 +0100 Message-ID: > What would NEC4 say? > Who or what is NEC4? Article: 226792 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:45:52 GMT Slow Code wrote: > SWL's should learn CW too. > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. SWL's normally listen to AM stations. How would they hear a CW station? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226793 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 16:53:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1153353216.895669.181590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. > > SWL's normally listen to AM stations. > How would they hear a CW station? CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226794 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:22:38 GMT lu6etj wrote: > But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are > enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With > the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and > this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... The Double Bazooka is probably quieter than a plain dipole because, unlike a plain dipole, there is a DC path between all points in the antenna thus minimizing the effects of precipitation static. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226795 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: <_KAvg.142548$S61.119428@edtnps90> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:11:22 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:cvudnXTTm-B6XiPZRVnytg@bt.com... > >> What would NEC4 say? >> > Who or what is NEC4? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_Electromagnetics_Code Article: 226796 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:17:00 -0500 Message-ID: <12btmcdajro5rd2@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:i1Avg.174556$F_3.117899@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > lu6etj wrote: >> But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are >> enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With >> the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and >> this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... > > The Double Bazooka is probably quieter than a plain dipole > because, unlike a plain dipole, there is a DC path between > all points in the antenna thus minimizing the effects of > precipitation static. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp So a nice 2.5 K ohm resistor at the feed point of a dipole would be vastly less work. "With >> the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole" I doubt anyone can document that. Article: 226797 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:18:50 -0500 Message-ID: <12btmfqdm4f6q3c@corp.supernews.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> <_KAvg.142548$S61.119428@edtnps90> You need at least an odd number of 1/4 wavelengths to satisfy the boundary conditions. You need at least three to define a plane (or cone, if you want a 50 ohm feedpoint) 73 H. NQ5H Article: 226798 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "g. beat" <@> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500 Message-ID: "Bart Bailey" wrote in message news:44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil... > In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on > Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: > > I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, > we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, > might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. > Bart - Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT). The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !! IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your situation. You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical --- that does not require the radials field !! w9gb Article: 226799 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:50:13 +0100 Message-ID: "hasan schiers" wrote in message news:e9lnpg$det$1@news.netins.net... > I don't know about boundary conditions, but when I use this program to > evaluate the following system: > > 3.62 Mhz, 18.3 meter height (simulating an inverted L with 25.4 ohms Rrad) > > Resistivity 25, Permittivity 25 > > 2mm radials, 4mm antenna wire, radials 1 mm depth (actually #14 insulated > wire, stapled to the lawn and sinking in gradually) > > ..it shows my predicted efficiency with (26) 50' long radials to be about > 90%. > > My measurements indicated I am getting about 88%. Pretty good agreement. > ========================================= Yes Hasan, good agreement. How did you determine efficiency to THAT degree of accuracy? ========================================= > What causes me to cringe, is that the program shows that I can reduce the > length of my radials from 16.1 meters to a little over 4 meters without > losing ANY significant efficiency. Given everything else I've read over the > years, that just seems to be way too good to be true. ========================================= You've been reading books and magazines about rules-of-thumb written by old-wives. At 3.62 MHz and a radial length of 16 metres the attenuation approaches 100 decibels. So there's no current flowing in the radials beyond 5 metres. You can remove the excess 12 metres. They are not doing anything. What small current density there is beyond 5 metres is all flowing in the soil. The cross-sectional area of the soil carries the small current just as well as the radials. ========================================= > Now, I suppose I could rip up my 26 radials and shorten them all to about 5 > meters and re-measure my efficiency, but that's a LOT of work (and it's 97 > degrees out with a dew point in the mid 70's). Not going to happen. > > Here's the kicker... I have 1000' of remaining wire to put down (and I am > going to add it). If this value of 4 or 5 meters (15 feet, let's say) is > even remotely correct, I can put down 66 more radials (although they would > be interlaced with the existing 26 longer ones of 50' each). > > Using my initial length of 50', I can put down 20 more radials, giving me a > total of 46 radials 50' long. ========================================== Yes. Use the program to calculate efficiency with the extra 20 radials. Assume all the radials are 5 metres long. But you may not think the meagre 3% or 0.13dB in efficiency is worth all the labour and back-ache. By now you are beginning to appreciate how useful the program is. ========================================== > > Reg, you program seems to be telling me that I would get the maximum benefit > by putting in 66 more radials approximately 15' long, and that installing > them at 50' would be wasting 35' of wire per radial, and reducing radial > coverage as well. > > So...what should I do: > > 1. Add 66 greatly shortened radials (accepting Reg's program as correct) > > or > > 2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. > > I look forward to comments. ========================================== Hasan, if I were you I would lay some extra short radials between the existing long radials - and get some Sloan's liniment to be massaged into my back. But the increase in efficiency would be un-measurable. You are fortunate to have very low soil resistivity. Mine is about 70 ohm-metres and for years on the 160m band I have had 7 radials about 3 metres long plus an incoming lead water pipe. ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 226800 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:22:59 -0400 From: John Popelish Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> Message-ID: Fred McKenzie wrote: > John- > > Its hard for an old fogey like me to follow the details of this thread. > To start with, I'm not familiar with the toys mentioned. (snip) I think he might be talking about a Hoberman sphere: http://hoberman.com/fold/Sphere/sphere.htm Article: 226801 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Yuri Blanarovich" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:22:42 -0400 Reg wrote among other stuff: > You've been reading books and magazines about rules-of-thumb written > by old-wives. At 3.62 MHz and a radial length of 16 metres the > attenuation approaches 100 decibels. So there's no current flowing in > the radials beyond 5 metres. You can remove the excess 12 metres. > They are not doing anything. What small current density there is > beyond 5 metres is all flowing in the soil. The cross-sectional area > of the soil carries the small current just as well as the radials. > ========================================== > Yes. Use the program to calculate efficiency with the extra 20 > radials. Assume all the radials are 5 metres long. But you may not > think the meagre 3% or 0.13dB in efficiency is worth all the labour > and back-ache. By now you are beginning to appreciate how useful the > program is. > ========================================== Reg, NEC4 engine can accommodate on the ground or buried radials in modeling and calculating vertical antenna parameters and performance. I bet Roy has his hair standing up, or perhaps still trying to recover from the "appreciation" of your program, unless he is still running calculations :-) You are trivilializing, ignoring 100 years or so of vertical antenna research, measurements and misleading innocent users of your program. You might be right in calculating the resonant frequency of piece of wire in the dirt, but that is far from its contribution to the vertical antenna performance and efficiency. You better switch to some better quality vino and read up on the subject. :-) Yuri K3BU Article: 226802 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 19 Jul 2006 19:41:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153363263.979619.289230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Thanks Cecil I haven't experience with the antenna, a colleague suggest possibilitie in a RC meeting, but fans of bazooka insisted on "all wheather quieter" (in addition, on various internet selling sites bazooka it is offered being "less noisy"). I think if this was the case would be enough to install on plain dipole a RF ckoke or standard trifilar balun + a ckoke to ground on de rig. what do you think about? I have seen very well documented measurements about claims about "EH Antennas" (my predilect Roswell alien antenna :>)), but i haven't find anything similar about "silents bazookas" :>( Here, there are many "hard to die" myths, and I can=B4't deal alone with all of them, hi hi. SWR related are the mains but antenna gain specific myths run "elbow to elbow" 73's Miguel LU 6ETJ www.solred.com.ar/lu6etj Article: 226803 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:57:08 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153353216.895669.181590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44bef104$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> an old freind wrote: > > CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw > gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS > You have, what we call in the midwest, a MORON CHIP problem. The part of your brain that keeps you from being a total moron, is broken. tom K0TAR Article: 226804 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BEF6DF.3090605@fuse.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:22:07 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> John Popelish wrote: > Fred McKenzie wrote: > >> John- >> >> Its hard for an old fogey like me to follow the details of this >> thread. To start with, I'm not familiar with the toys mentioned. > > (snip) > > I think he might be talking about a Hoberman sphere: > http://hoberman.com/fold/Sphere/sphere.htm Yes, My wife informs me that it is a Hoberman sphere. Thanks. Article: 226805 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 20:44:11 -0700 Message-ID: <1153367051.402482.124650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Tom Ring wrote: > an old freind wrote: > > > > CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw > > gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS > > > > You have, what we call in the midwest, a MORON CHIP problem. > > The part of your brain that keeps you from being a total moron, is broken. Frankly I thining it is you that is missing something, asence of humor. I tend to supect form your posts it was surgiccaly removed at some point > > tom > K0TAR Article: 226806 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 19 Jul 2006 21:42:35 -0700 Message-ID: <1153370555.394879.4780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Here in Buenos Aires (near de Atlantic Ocean and the River Plate) it is a very humid area, our typical old wives phrase for all the illness is "lo que mata es la humedad" (what kills you is the humidity) ;>) (R to Adam I don't see your 2k5 answer, and R also to your doubts about a documented quieter performance, well, I am just searching for a documented falsehood of these extended claims, hi hi) Another antenna very reputed here as "quieter" it is a simple triangular loop, similar to Cecil's example, maybe the static explanation is OK. But... very few days at the year we have low humidity climate. (I never have burn a FET o MOS IC by touch them in my 38 years of continuated activity in electronics, but, yes, I kill various equipments by invert its polarity :>) ) Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in these conditions? cheers Miguel Article: 226807 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:56:29 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK Article: 226808 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 20 Jul 2006 01:09:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1153382997.351692.12600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. > - SWL's normally listen to AM stations. - How would they hear a CW station? > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp CM, Yes - Many Shortwave Radio Listener's (SWL's) do just that. Listen to the best "AM" International Shortwave Radio Broadcasters that they can 'hear' at their location. and morse code is not on their mind ~ RHF { just like 'html' is not on my mind as i simply type these words on rrs } . . . . Article: 226809 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 20 Jul 2006 01:14:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1153383279.604912.16680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> an old freind wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > > Slow Code wrote: > > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > > > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. > > > > SWL's normally listen to AM stations. > > How would they hear a CW station? > - CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC - no matter the mode cw gets trough even without a tranmitter - for that vital signal SOS > > -- > > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp aof - not if no one is listening ~ RHF { radio - it's about communicating } Article: 226810 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Message-ID: <44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:45:52 GMT In Message-ID: posted on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500, "g. beat" <@> wrote: > >"Bart Bailey" wrote in message >news:44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil... >> In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on >> Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >> >> I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, >> we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, >> might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. >> >Bart - > >Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT). >The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !! >IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your >situation. Geography is the problem. I only have a very small area available. >You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical --- >that does not require the radials field !! That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right? I can't really go that high without guying which is just as restricted as radials are. ...and if you're going to suggest a self supporting tower, that does get into the financial consideration area. Thanks for the heads up in any case, I may still get the Hustler, I'll just lower my expectations for its performance. -- Bart Article: 226811 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:03:17 +0100 Message-ID: > NEC4 engine can accommodate on the ground or buried radials in modeling and > calculating vertical antenna parameters and performance. > ======================================= How many weeks of user training does NEC4 require? Hour many hours of work and imagination are required to enter input data? What is the purchase price of the latest version? Is it legally available to non-USA citizens? ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 226812 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Big Rich Soprano Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:25:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3fmub2tv9kvhmlmgflrcm7dijio47mgc4t@4ax.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> >Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's >Morris? Some fictitious cat... Article: 226813 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Big Rich Soprano Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:27:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> >> SWL's should learn CW too. >> You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending >> an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. >SWL's normally listen to AM stations. >How would they hear a CW station? When i was a kid in the 60's a local ship to shore cw station could be heard just under the local AM broadcast band station my family listened to. That's what got my interest in radio going. The same thing happens on short wave if you detune it right... Article: 226814 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? From: "Alun L. Palmer" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: 20 Jul 2006 13:47:03 +0200 jawod wrote in news:44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net: > RHF wrote: >> SC, >> >> Morris Code > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) > Wasn't morris the cat in the TV ads who eat with his paws? Article: 226815 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:01:06 GMT Big Rich Soprano wrote: > When i was a kid in the 60's a local ship to shore cw station could be > heard just under the local AM broadcast band station my family > listened to. That's what got my interest in radio going. The same > thing happens on short wave if you detune it right... In that case the AM carrier is the BFO for the CW signal. How many SWL's are going to accidentally "detune it right" for the purpose of hearing an SOS? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226816 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 20 Jul 2006 05:03:10 -0700 Message-ID: <1153396990.480103.315760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Reg Edwards wrote: > You've been reading books and magazines about rules-of-thumb written > by old-wives. At 3.62 MHz and a radial length of 16 metres the > attenuation approaches 100 decibels. So there's no current flowing in > the radials beyond 5 metres. You can remove the excess 12 metres. > They are not doing anything. What small current density there is > beyond 5 metres is all flowing in the soil. The cross-sectional area > of the soil carries the small current just as well as the radials. How did you verify your program Reg? I can go outside right now and measure current in a 40 meter vertical radial system, and 100 feet from the base there is significant radial current. Your programs results also dramatically disagree with Brown, Lewis, and Epstein's data in one of the most comprehensive radial studies ever done. 73 tom Article: 226817 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 20 Jul 2006 05:11:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1153397502.554403.52800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> lu6etj wrote: > Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in > these conditions? No. It makes no difference at all. If you have a static build-up problem all you need do is install a leak resistance or a suitable RF choke to ground. One should have that in an antenna anyway. I have the choice of any antenna I want and unlimited space to install them. I often have several antenna types up for any one band at the very same time. I've had a coaxial dipole up along with another dipole the same height, and there is no noticeable difference in any aspect of performance. I've even removed the shorted wire connection (the center conductor connection past the feedpoint) and restored it, and the antenna performance remains virtually identical in both noise and bandwidth. 73 Tom Article: 226818 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153396990.480103.315760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:19:41 +0100 Message-ID: <0tadnX4De7dR6CLZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com> > Your programs results also dramatically disagree with Brown, Lewis, and > Epstein's data in one of the most comprehensive radial studies ever > done. > > 73 tom > ========================================= All three of B,L & E forgot to determine ground resistivity and permittivity. That's hardly comprehensive! ---- Reg. Article: 226819 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Message-ID: References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:33:42 -0400 On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:01:06 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >In that case the AM carrier is the BFO for the CW signal. >How many SWL's are going to accidentally "detune it right" >for the purpose of hearing an SOS? You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it just means ragged tone. Article: 226820 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153363263.979619.289230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153370555.394879.4780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153397502.554403.52800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:32:24 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > lu6etj wrote: >> Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in >> these conditions? > > No. It makes no difference at all. It certainly made a difference in the Arizona desert under conditions that cause precipitation static in a dipole with no DC path between the elements. Many hams have direct experience and have reported it. Here is a discussion of such over on eHam.net. http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/83174?ehamsid=87e9956f8473775c84a978db4ce15751 > If you have a static build-up problem all you need do is install a leak > resistance or a suitable RF choke to ground. One should have that in an > antenna anyway. But a lot of hams don't know that and run their dipoles with the two coax conductors DC isolated from each other. I'll bet the "plain dipoles" being described by lu6etj as noisy don't have a leak resistance. The Double Bazooka is automatically protected from static buildup between the elements as are loops, and folded dipoles. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226821 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:36:03 GMT Al Klein wrote: > You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's > extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is > strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as > noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it > just means ragged tone. So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when a BFO is not present? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226822 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dale Parfitt" References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> Subject: Re: A/B Switching Message-ID: <74Lvg.15453$A8.9001@trnddc02> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:56:35 GMT "Win" wrote in message news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to > make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this > A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the > other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end > (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B > switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage > the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. > > I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some > point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same > frequency. > > Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from > 200 watts, will survive without damage? > > Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? > > Win, W0LZ My concern would be the port- port isolation of the A/B switch. Depending on the mfg, they're all over the map. Dale W4OP Article: 226823 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:57:36 -0500 Message-ID: <12buve0hud7iu21@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> I think he's referring to the Maxwell of Maxwell's Equations. "Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message news:QOXmYVFdkyvEFAAY@ifwtech.co.uk... > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >>I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >>(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" > > "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? > > > -- > 73 from Ian GM3SEK Article: 226824 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:21:50 GMT Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >> (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" > > "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? There's a false attribution above, Ian. It should be: > "lu6etj" wrote: >> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a >> fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article >> "Another look on reflections" -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226825 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:22:11 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Length & number of radials References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Reg Edwards wrote: > >> Your programs results also dramatically disagree with Brown, Lewis, >and >> Epstein's data in one of the most comprehensive radial studies ever >> done. >> >> 73 tom >> >========================================= > >All three of B,L & E forgot to determine ground resistivity and >permittivity. That's hardly comprehensive! > Do your predictions fit BL&E's measurements, or those of Sevick, for *any* assumed values of ground resistivity and permittivity? Also , please tell us more about the fan of 1.0m radials, on the ground, that will give ninety-several percent feedpoint efficiency. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226826 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:53:08 GMT Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: > >> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >> (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" > > > "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? > > It's the royal "their." 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 226827 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:19:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Not vouching for "degree of accuracy", but here's how I estimate efficiency: (Known Rrad/Measured R at X=0) at the feedpoint. If my Inverted L has a predicted Rrad of 25.9 ohms and I measure the R at resonance as 29 ohms, the 3.1 ohms is return loss. This would indicate an approximate efficiency of 89%. It seems to me to be a fair approximation. When you have added as many radials as possible and watched the input R at the feedpoint (at resonance) drop asymptotically toward the predicted or "known" Rrad, your final "R" value is used in: Rrad/R. For a perfect ground Rrad = R I use an MFJ-269 antenna analyzer for the measurements. Have I gone astray? (aside from my starting value of Rrad, which I took from two sources: your rule of thumb formula for Inverted L's, and ON4UN's Low Band DX'ing Handbook). Both your formula and ON4UN agree as to the value of Rrad for my antenna. I'll replay to other aspects of your response in another post. 73 and thanks for the new program. As you can tell, I've been playing with it. As you can also tell, the implications with respect to length of radials required for good efficiency are causing my brain to cramp. ...hasan, N0AN "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:ZuydnULP8LzUfyPZRVnyrA@bt.com... > > ========================================= > Yes Hasan, good agreement. How did you determine efficiency to THAT > degree of accuracy? > ========================================= Article: 226828 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153363263.979619.289230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153370555.394879.4780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153397502.554403.52800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:26:55 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > I've even removed the shorted wire connection (the center > conductor connection past the feedpoint) and restored it, and the > antenna performance remains virtually identical in both noise and > bandwidth. If these tests were not performed under precipitation static conditions, they obviously wouldn't show any difference. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226829 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:38:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Frank, How about posting a summary of them, for my example in an earlier post (I listed all the input values for Reg's program). I'd LOVE to have the data for my measurement verification!. If you need the my values I can send them to you for a run. I'd be very excited to see what NEC-4 says, and use them to validate my measurements. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Frank" wrote in message news:NTLvg.147445$771.19250@edtnps89... >> That is quite a bold statement and looks like trivilializing, ignoring >> the real workings of vertical antennas and radials! >> >> What would NEC4 say? >> >> 73 Yuri, K3BU > > NEC 4 produces significantly different results. I can provide NEC code > and NEC 4 output files if anybody is interested. > > 73, > > Frank > (VE6CB) > Article: 226830 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:03:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Reg, I think you made a typo...if I go with the shorter 5 metre radials, I have enough wire to put in 66 more radials, not 20. If I stay with my existing 50' length per radial, then I have enough wire for 20 more. I have the wire. It won't be used for antennas. I have 200 more lawn staples, so there is no burying, they are "stapled" to the surface, soon to fall below the "thatch". My 1000' of copper wire has become too valuable to let sit on spools in the basement. (In case you haven't noticed, copper prices have gone through the roof!) So...I'll be putting down either (20) x 50 ft or (66) x 15 ft radials. Don't worry about my back. When you have a radial plate and a light hammer, stringing tons of radials is a piece of cake...paying for the copper (in the future) is going to generate pain elsewhere. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:ZuydnULP8LzUfyPZRVnyrA@bt.com... > ========================================== > Yes. Use the program to calculate efficiency with the extra 20 > radials. Assume all the radials are 5 metres long. But you may not > think the meagre 3% or 0.13dB in efficiency is worth all the labour > and back-ache. By now you are beginning to appreciate how useful the > program is. > ========================================== . > ========================================== > > Hasan, if I were you I would lay some extra short radials between the > existing long radials - and get some Sloan's liniment to be massaged > into my back. But the increase in efficiency would be un-measurable. > You are fortunate to have very low soil resistivity. Mine is about 70 > ohm-metres and for years on the 160m band I have had 7 radials about 3 > metres long plus an incoming lead water pipe. > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ > > Article: 226831 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <6x2cHZZaN6vEFAn5@ifwtech.co.uk> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:38:02 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: >Ian White GM3SEK wrote: >> H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >>> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of >>>Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on >>>reflections" >> "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? > >There's a false attribution above, Ian. It should be: > >> "lu6etj" wrote: >>> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a >>> fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article >>> "Another look on reflections" You're right, Cecil - my apologies to all concerned. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226832 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:56:18 GMT > Frank, > > How about posting a summary of them, for my example in an earlier post (I > listed all the input values for Reg's program). I'd LOVE to have the data > for my measurement verification!. > > If you need the my values I can send them to you for a run. I'd be very > excited to see what NEC-4 says, and use them to validate my measurements. > > 73, Hasan, I ran a sample model from Cebik's 2nd book, and compared it with results >from Reg's program. The antenna used in the example is a 160 m vertical, with four buried radials. The height of the vertical is 40 m, and the radial lengths are 40.95526 m. The diameter of the vertical section is 25 mm, and the radials 2 mm. Ground Er = 20, and conductivity 30.3 mS/m (33 ohm-m). The radials are buried 0.163821 m (0.001 WL). The test frequency is 1.83 MHz. NEC 4 shows in input Z of 47.2 + j 14.44 ohms. Max gain 2.11 dBi at 17 degree elevation angle. At the moment I have not figured out how to obtain the total radiated power from NEC, other than the numerical integration of the normalized far field data. For a symmetrical pattern this is fairly trivial using Excel. The model does not include copper losses, so this should be added for accuracy. Reg's program computes the input impedance as 30.35 - j 53.1. I think I have all the data for your antenna from your previous post. There may be some difficulty in actually running it in NEC 4 with the parameters you have provided. The depth of the radials is so small (1mm), in relation to the wire diameter of 4 mm. Wire junctions must occur at Z = 0, and the wire diameter must be less than the segment length, which obviously cannot be met. Also segment length tapering would be required in order to keep the number of segments at a minimum, and avoid excessively long run times. In effect your radials are close enough to be considered laying directly on the surface of the ground. Cebik does imply this is acceptable in his book, but on his web site states that NEC 4 becomes unstable with wires in the region of Z = 0. I assume this also applies to wires below ground. Under certain conditions wires can approach the ground to within 10^(-6) Lambda (about 0.1 mm at 3.62 MHz). Based on these constraints I could develop a model, which will probably be close enough. 73, Frank Article: 226833 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:34:54 GMT "Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message news:IPBvg.917$An1.349@fe08.lga... > Reg wrote among other stuff: > >> You've been reading books and magazines about rules-of-thumb written >> by old-wives. At 3.62 MHz and a radial length of 16 metres the >> attenuation approaches 100 decibels. So there's no current flowing in >> the radials beyond 5 metres. You can remove the excess 12 metres. >> They are not doing anything. What small current density there is >> beyond 5 metres is all flowing in the soil. The cross-sectional area >> of the soil carries the small current just as well as the radials. > >> ========================================== >> Yes. Use the program to calculate efficiency with the extra 20 >> radials. Assume all the radials are 5 metres long. But you may not >> think the meagre 3% or 0.13dB in efficiency is worth all the labour >> and back-ache. By now you are beginning to appreciate how useful the >> program is. >> ========================================== > > Reg, > > NEC4 engine can accommodate on the ground or buried radials in modeling > and calculating vertical antenna parameters and performance. > > I bet Roy has his hair standing up, or perhaps still trying to recover > from the "appreciation" of your program, unless he is still running > calculations :-) > > You are trivilializing, ignoring 100 years or so of vertical antenna > research, measurements and misleading innocent users of your program. You > might be right in calculating the resonant frequency of piece of wire in > the dirt, but that is far from its contribution to the vertical antenna > performance and efficiency. > You better switch to some better quality vino and read up on the subject. > :-) > > > Yuri K3BU Has anybody confirmed the "on-ground" accuracy of NEC 4? Cebik has published conflicting statements regarding this capability. Frank Article: 226834 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 20 Jul 2006 09:34:53 -0700 Message-ID: <1153413293.091968.209340@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> RHF wrote: > an old freind wrote: > > Cecil Moore wrote: > > > Slow Code wrote: > > > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > > > > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. > > > > > > SWL's normally listen to AM stations. > > > How would they hear a CW station? > > > - CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC > - no matter the mode cw gets trough even without a tranmitter > - for that vital signal SOS > > > -- > > > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp > > aof - not if no one is listening ~ RHF > { radio - it's about communicating } no you are worng CW gets through wether you to hear or not (prehaps I should say sarcasm on) Article: 226835 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Message-ID: References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:50:31 -0400 On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:36:03 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient >not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when >a BFO is not present? If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. The tone it's coming in with doesn't make much difference. I've copied signals so weak that they were just changes in the quality of the noise and I've copied perfect S9++T9 signals. They were all mostly R9. The R only changes if the signal fades completely out or if there's interference that masks the signal. Try that with PSK. Article: 226836 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:03:39 -0400 From: John Popelish Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> <44BEF6DF.3090605@fuse.net> <44BFB2C4.3B20F294@shaw.ca> Message-ID: Irv Finkleman wrote: > jawod wrote: > >>John Popelish wrote: >>>I think he might be talking about a Hoberman sphere: >>>http://hoberman.com/fold/Sphere/sphere.htm >> >>Yes, My wife informs me that it is a Hoberman sphere. >>Thanks. > > > A Fractal! Oy! Not in the slightest. Where do you see similarity in structure at many scales? Article: 226837 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:14:13 GMT Al Klein wrote: > If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're that good but I am not. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226838 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BFB2C4.3B20F294@shaw.ca> From: Irv Finkleman Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> <44BEF6DF.3090605@fuse.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:43:34 GMT jawod wrote: > > John Popelish wrote: > > Fred McKenzie wrote: > > > >> John- > >> > >> Its hard for an old fogey like me to follow the details of this > >> thread. To start with, I'm not familiar with the toys mentioned. > > > > (snip) > > > > I think he might be talking about a Hoberman sphere: > > http://hoberman.com/fold/Sphere/sphere.htm > Yes, My wife informs me that it is a Hoberman sphere. > Thanks. A Fractal! Oy! Irv VE6BP -------------------------------------- Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/index.html Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/index.htm Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/index.htm -------------------- Irv Finkleman, Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP Calgary, Alberta, Canada Article: 226839 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Message-ID: <4egvb2hgd8coi7rc7ligljjhcj5olq8hvf@4ax.com> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> <44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:49:00 GMT On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:45:52 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: >> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. Why don't you split this up as an 80 meter dipole, if that's where you're trying to get. bob k5qwg >In Message-ID: posted on >Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500, "g. beat" <@> wrote: > >> >>"Bart Bailey" wrote in message >>news:44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil... >>> In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on >>> Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >>> >>> I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, >>> we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, >>> might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. >>> >>Bart - >> >>Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT). >>The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !! >>IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your >>situation. > >Geography is the problem. >I only have a very small area available. > >>You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical --- >>that does not require the radials field !! > >That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right? >I can't really go that high without guying >which is just as restricted as radials are. >...and if you're going to suggest a self supporting tower, >that does get into the financial consideration area. >Thanks for the heads up in any case, I may still get the Hustler, >I'll just lower my expectations for its performance. Article: 226840 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: ricknj10@hotmail.com (Rick) Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Message-ID: <44bfc6ac.113740703@news.optonline.net> References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:15:18 GMT On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:14:13 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. > >I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver >is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're >that good but I am not. >-- >73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Hey Cecil, Would you do me a favor, please. Note this thread has been being crossposted to all of these newsgroups, rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap ,rec.radio.shortwave I don't know which one you are reading and posting to it from, but I assume the antenna newsgroup. I am onlt posting this to the antenna group. This topic really only belongs in the policy newsgroup, so would you please edit your replies and delete out all of the other newsgroups where this topic is not relevant? Then the subject will either die out, or it will be propagated over in a newsgroup where people care about something rather than antennas. For me, I wish crossposting was not possible....... why do we have separate newsgroups? Thanks very much, keep up the great antenna postings, Rick K2XT Article: 226841 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "g. beat" <@> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> <44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil> Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:16:16 -0500 Message-ID: >>"Bart Bailey" wrote in message >>news:44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil... >>> In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on >>> Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >>> >>> I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, >>> we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, >>> might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. >>> >>Bart - >> >>Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT). >>The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !! >>IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your >>situation. > > Geography is the problem. > I only have a very small area available. ==== YES, I understand this. >>You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical --- >>that does not require the radials field !! > > That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right? ==== NO, the Cushcraft R7 product will easily fit. Now, IF 75/80 meters is your BID band that you want to work -- it is a challenge with small space and a vertical (limited bandwidth between 2:1 SWR points. > Thanks for the heads up in any case, I may still get the Hustler, > I'll just lower my expectations for its performance. ==== The Hustler 5BTV is probably the BEST BUY for 1/4 wave verticals. http://www.dxengineering.com/ProductDetail.asp?ID=13&SecID=16&DeptID=8 DX Engineering is the best Internet web site for buying Hustler x-BTV series HV verticals and ANY parts or accessories that you may need. http://www.dxengineering.com/Sections.asp?ID=16&DeptID=8#Top STOP, TAKE A BREATH, PULL UP A CHAIR and YOUR FAVORITE BEVERAGE. Time to read - and learn from the mistakes and lessons of others -- that is why you posted your question - otherwise if you have spare time on you hands to repeat previous mistakes and dead-ends that is your decision and responsibility. Here are 3 installations of 5-BTV that produce the desired results K3VR http://home.ripway.com/2005-7/357648/5btv.html K7CIE (PDF file) http://www.dxengineering.com/pdf/K7CIE%20Hustler%20doc.pdf AD5TH http://www.ad5th.com/5-BTV.html gb Article: 226842 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: 80m mobile antenna question Message-ID: References: <120d11fn5ontsb0@corp.supernews.com> <12478-440723AF-300@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> <120ekkmb2nbrk75@corp.supernews.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:19:02 -0400 On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:08:42 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Roy Lewallen wrote: >> A ground plane is a poor model of how currents flow along a car body. > >If the car body was 1/2WL in the air, would the antenna >be more efficient? Maybe we can get Fear Factor's engineers to calculate the number of boxes needed to perform the test. One of us will have to drive our car off a cliff and make signal reports as the car goes down into the boxes ;) -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226843 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: 80m mobile antenna question Message-ID: <3kivb2h8ef8487e87kl0rpvurrutc133qb@4ax.com> References: <120d11fn5ontsb0@corp.supernews.com> <12478-440723AF-300@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> <0YGdnc2vqPncEprZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:26:21 -0400 On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:35:15 -0500, Amos Keag wrote: >Cecil Moore wrote: >> Dan Richardson wrote: >> >>> Roy is quite correct in stating that a vehicle's body behaves as one >>> side of a dipole. A lopsided dipole to be sure, but one half the >>> antenna just the same. >> >> >> Seems the truth might lie somewhere in between. If the ground >> plane of a vertical antenna is near the ground, there are >> losses. If the ground plane of a vertical antenna is located >> 1/2WL above ground, the losses are a lot less. I'll bet that >> if the vehicle were located 1/2WL in the air, the efficiency >> would increase. > >Kind of tough though going under power lines, bridges and overpasses :-) That depends.... If you take cecil up on his idea, you may go over them.... of course, that you may want to be on the low bands when you cross some bridges.... :) -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226844 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "g. beat" <@> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> <44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil> Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:26:18 -0500 Message-ID: "Bart Bailey" wrote in message news:44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil... > In Message-ID: posted on > Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500, "g. beat" <@> wrote: > > Geography is the problem. > I only have a very small area available. > >>You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical --- >>that does not require the radials field !! > > That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right? Not if you are looking at trap designs. IF you deisre ONE band verticel - DX engineering is now offering a 40 meter (24 feet high) and 80 meter vertical (41 feet high) http://www.dxengineering.com/Parts.asp?ID=1277&PLID=213&SecID=113&DeptID=22&PartNo=DXE%2D80VA%2D1 Article: 226845 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: peewee_lloyd_davies@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 20 Jul 2006 11:43:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1153421002.319174.222520@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: an_old_friend wrote: Hey Markie, are you trying to be the world's longest licensed no code tech? Schlechte Markierung. Article: 226846 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Telamon Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:16:19 GMT In article , Cecil Moore wrote: > Al Klein wrote: > > You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's > > extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is > > strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as > > noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it > > just means ragged tone. > > So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient > not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when > a BFO is not present? The swishing sound is coming from aliens. Try making the same sounds back to them. You might get a more intelligent conversation going than the one in this cross posted thread. -- Telamon Ventura, California Article: 226847 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Chris" Subject: Antenna installed below ridge line? Date: 20 Jul 2006 13:43:21 -0700 Message-ID: <1153428201.081171.242200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> What kind of loss will I have if I install this antenna on our 2nd story roof, but below the ridge line? We live in a neighborhood where no one has an antenna and wife is worried about the ascetics of it. Channel Master 4228 with a rotor of course. http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Fzc9uoNaIKU/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=15920&I=6594228 Article: 226848 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 20 Jul 2006 13:48:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1153428481.449292.101950@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1152903904.823970.155070@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> peewee_lloyd_davies@yahoo.com wrote: forgive him his hate and may he find peace Article: 226849 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Message-ID: <44c0ebea.2245213@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> <44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil> <4egvb2hgd8coi7rc7ligljjhcj5olq8hvf@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:49:48 GMT In Message-ID:<4egvb2hgd8coi7rc7ligljjhcj5olq8hvf@4ax.com> posted on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:49:00 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: >On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:45:52 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: > >>> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. > >Why don't you split this up as an 80 meter dipole, if that's where >you're trying to get. > >bob >k5qwg It's the ground strand for a commercial utility, not something I have a desire to tinker with. I'm lucky to be able to connect to it. -- Bart Article: 226850 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Antenna installed below ridge line? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:57:05 -0000 Message-ID: <12bvrh1olffdm5f@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153428201.081171.242200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> >What kind of loss will I have if I install this antenna on our 2nd >story roof, but below the ridge line? We live in a neighborhood where >no one has an antenna and wife is worried about the ascetics of it. When the antenna is pointing towards transmitter towers for which it has a clear field of view (that is, not towards the house's ridgeline) it ought to work well. The presence of the ridgeline "behind" the antenna ought to have only a minor effect, because the antenna is equipped with a reflector that will make it quite insensitive to signals arriving from behind. On the other hand, if you rotate it so that it's trying to "see through" the ridge line of the house, to a transmitter tower located on the opposite side of the building, it could perform rather poorly. Just how poorly will depend on the actual construction of the roof. If there's a significant amount of metal involved (if e.g. the inside of the roof is insulated with batts of fiberglass that have a foil vapor barrier) you'd have to expect a lot of signal attenuation, and you might or might not get an acceptable signal. In this situation, you might actually get a more usable signal by rotating the antenna so that it points _away_ from the transmitter, and towards a nearby building or other structure which reflects some of the signal >from the transmitter. The key thing to remember is that UHF signals travel almost entirely by "line of sight", and to a lesser extent by line-of-sight with one or more reflections. You can't count on much of the signal either getting through, or diffracting around solid obstacles between your antenna and the transmitter. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 226851 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Message-ID: <44c1ecbf.2458643@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> <44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:58:18 GMT In Message-ID: posted on Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:16:16 -0500, "g. beat" <@> wrote: >NO, You're correct, my bad as they say. I started to say I don't know what I was thinking, but I do know, I was thinking about the quarter wave legs of a half wave dipole for 80. >the Cushcraft R7 product will easily fit. > Now, IF 75/80 meters is your >BID band that you want to work -- it is a challenge with small space and a >vertical (limited bandwidth between 2:1 SWR points. I also considered the Butternut HF2V, but thought for less outlay I could get five instead of two bands. Maybe better to get two bands that work than five that don't. -- Bart Article: 226852 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dee Flint" References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:04:17 -0400 Message-ID: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:FROvg.70672$fb2.9968@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > Al Klein wrote: >> If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. > > I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver > is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're > that good but I am not. > -- > 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. Dee, N8UZE Article: 226853 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 20 Jul 2006 14:11:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1153429894.595318.61330@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Dee Flint wrote: > I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. your point ? if any Dee > > Dee, N8UZE Article: 226854 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Yuri Blanarovich" References: <120d11fn5ontsb0@corp.supernews.com> <12478-440723AF-300@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> <0YGdnc2vqPncEprZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <3kivb2h8ef8487e87kl0rpvurrutc133qb@4ax.com> Subject: Re: 80m mobile antenna question Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:10 -0400 "Buck" wrote in message news:3kivb2h8ef8487e87kl0rpvurrutc133qb@4ax.com... > On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:35:15 -0500, Amos Keag > wrote: > >>Cecil Moore wrote: >>> Dan Richardson wrote: >>> >>>> Roy is quite correct in stating that a vehicle's body behaves as one >>>> side of a dipole. A lopsided dipole to be sure, but one half the >>>> antenna just the same. >>> >>> Not exactly. Body of the vehicle behaves more like a ground plane and a capacitor coupling to the ground. As soon as "radials" or ground plane has antenna mounted somewhere else than on the edge, you get cancellation of current along the body - two sides "working against each other". We are talking vertical antenna here, not a goofy dipole. >>> Seems the truth might lie somewhere in between. If the ground >>> plane of a vertical antenna is near the ground, there are >>> losses. If the ground plane of a vertical antenna is located >>> 1/2WL above ground, the losses are a lot less. I'll bet that >>> if the vehicle were located 1/2WL in the air, the efficiency >>> would increase. >> Depends. If vehicle is going over metal grid frame bridge or good ground, like salty beach, the efficiency goes up. Body of vehicle is like a plate of capacitor, coupling the ground plane to effcient ground and performance of the vertical goes up, especially at low angles. Drive over the bridge or ocean beach and see the S-meter go up. >>Kind of tough though going under power lines, bridges and overpasses :-) > > That depends.... If you take cecil up on his idea, you may go over > them.... of course, that you may want to be on the low bands when you > cross some bridges.... :) > -- > 73 for now > Buck > N4PGW Yuri, K3BU Article: 226855 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Why Should Only White Males "Know" CW ? ? ? - Women and Minorities Need CW Too ! ! ! Date: 20 Jul 2006 15:12:50 -0700 Message-ID: <1153433570.393215.45580@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Cecil Moore wrote: > Al Klein wrote: > > You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's > > extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is > > strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as > > noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it > > just means ragged tone. > > So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient > not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when > a BFO is not present? > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp CM, OK - Lets make "CW" 5 WPM a High School Graduation Requirement and Start the Nation-Wide Testing of Every Child at Every Grade Level to Ensure that Our Kids Know "CW" ! ! ! We can call it the Uniform Education "Code" {CW} Law -and- Require that No Child Is Left Behind the "CW" Learning Curve ! Why should only White Males 'know' CW ? ? ? Equality Demands that Women and Minorities "Know" CW Too ! ! ! - - - We need an Urgent National Federally Funded Program to Close the "CW" Gap [.] oops - am i ranting ? ? ? . . . oh never mind ! ~ RHF . . . . Article: 226856 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 20 Jul 2006 15:16:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Hi Hi... Don't forget I am argentine, here we speak spanish all the day, it is my own translation error of possesive case... "their" it is wrong , "his" is the correct.-> "...from HIS famous article..." R? References to "both" Mawells, yes, James an Walter..., (thanks Adam) Miguel ----------------------- Tom Donaly ha escrito: > Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: > > > >> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, > >> (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" > > > > > > "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? > > > > > > It's the royal "their." > 73, > Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 226857 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "ferrymanr" Subject: Diamond X-300 poor SWR on 2M OK on 70cm Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:35:34 +0100 Message-ID: I have an X-300 which used to work well but has been stored away for 3 years. It has now been erected well in the clear and fed with good coax. SWR is good on 70cm and very good gain but SWR is high on 2M, causing power foldback on the TX. Anyone have any idea what could have gone wrong? The internal element loks good and the centre joint OK. Richard Article: 226858 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 20 Jul 2006 15:38:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1153435123.460895.216170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Dirk wrote: > Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. > > :-( This ham know CPR. I wonder how many a retired old-timer who decided to join ham radio stroked out instead while doing speed runs trying to get to 13/20wpm on CW? CW kills. Article: 226859 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Kelly" Subject: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700 Message-ID: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. Brian w3rv Article: 226860 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dave" References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:17:34 -0000 Message-ID: open the windows and stick them out for the drive. this works best if you open both the driver and passenger windows on the front doors and put the rods sideways across the car, this way they won't rub against any upholstery and you can keep a close eye on them the whole way.' "Brian Kelly" wrote in message news:1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods > 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the > roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. > Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the > shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes > of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here > is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > > Brian w3rv > Article: 226861 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? From: Slow Code References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:23:08 GMT Cecil Moore wrote in news:Quzvg.174547$F_3.24513@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: > Slow Code wrote: >> SWL's should learn CW too. >> You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress >> sending an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get >> help. > > SWL's normally listen to AM stations. > How would they hear a CW station? Many SWL's are Ute listeners. They are the ones most likely to stumble across an SOS. Just like a person isn't a real ham unless they've passed a code test, a shortwave listener isn't a real SWL unless their receiver has a BFO. (SWL's who listen to shortwave with antique receivers are exempt.) SC Article: 226862 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:25:08 GMT lu6etj wrote: > Don't forget I am argentine, here we speak spanish all the day, it is > my own translation error of possesive case... "their" it is wrong , > "his" is the correct.-> "...from HIS famous article..." R? The negative comments occurred because of errors in the attribution of your posting. It wasn't your fault so please don't worry about it. Back to Double Bazookas: It is a well accepted fact that insulation reduces the precipitation static problem. So the Double Bazooka reduces the precipitation static in two ways. 1. DC path between elements, 2. Insulation. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226863 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:31:02 GMT Dee Flint wrote: > "Cecil Moore" wrote: >> I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver >> is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're >> that good but I am not. > > I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. How does a deaf person do that? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226864 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: <1d40c21u5posa4ur8q0klqqj9ev63970e2@4ax.com> References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:32:36 GMT On 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: >I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods >35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the >roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. >Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the >shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes >of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here >is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > >Brian w3rv Stick 'em in the back side window, over the front passenger seat, stab 'em in on the front floor, blunt end down. Maybe you could also lower the front seat back. A few towels would protect things. bob k5qwg Article: 226865 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus From: Ed References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: 20 Jul 2006 23:33:24 GMT "Brian Kelly" wrote in news:1153437176.242544.67620 @m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com: > I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods > 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the > roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. > Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the > shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes > of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here > is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > > Brian w3rv > If you are doing this for someone else, or a contractor, I'd talk to them first. While you could easily make up the difference in ground effectiveness by simply adding another one or two 6' long rods to the system with those shortened rods, some codes do require 8' in their language..... not that anyone is really going to pull them out to check! Or you can do as Dave suggested in his reply to you and just open your car windows and stick them crosswise.... should be little sticking out of either side that way.... especially if they are diagonally across. Personally, I think one can never have a good enough ground where lightning is concerned.... but I'd say you probably won't significantly be lessening your effectiveness with 6' rods vs. 8' rods. Ed K7AAT Ed K7AAT Article: 226866 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "clfe" References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:41:27 -0400 Message-ID: <44c014e1$0$3660$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:WmUvg.128118$H71.50163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > Dee Flint wrote: >> "Cecil Moore" wrote: >>> I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver >>> is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're >>> that good but I am not. >> >> I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. > > How does a deaf person do that? > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Using a series of flashes of light OR vibrations........... Article: 226867 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "clfe" References: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:42:52 -0400 Message-ID: <44c014ec$0$3662$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Dee Flint" wrote in message news:etednbf7z8NgciLZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Cecil Moore" wrote in message > news:FROvg.70672$fb2.9968@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... >> Al Klein wrote: >>> If you can copy CW, you can copy CW. >> >> I can copy CW, but I cannot copy CW when the receiver >> is in AM mode and there's no CW tone. I'm glad you're >> that good but I am not. >> -- >> 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp > > I am not good at code but I can do it. You just listen to the rhythm. > > Dee, N8UZE > If everyone was proficient at everything they did, there "may" be fewer problems. I'm "rusty" at code, but I can do it. Keep on plugging away. Article: 226868 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:48:22 GMT On 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: >I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods >35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the >roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. >Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the >shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes >of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here >is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > In this part of the world one can buy joiners for the rods. The idea would be you cut them in two, then when you install them, drive the first rod, put the joiner on, place the second rod in the joiner, drive it etc. That's how rods of tens of metres are driven in. Maybe those joiners are available from you electrical contractors suppliers. Owen >Brian w3rv -- Article: 226869 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: Re: A/B Switching Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:59:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> <74Lvg.15453$A8.9001@trnddc02> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:56:35 GMT, "Dale Parfitt" wrote: > >"Win" wrote in message >news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >>I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to >> make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this >> A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the >> other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end >> (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B >> switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage >> the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. >> >> I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some >> point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same >> frequency. >> >> Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from >> 200 watts, will survive without damage? >> >> Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? >> >> Win, W0LZ > >My concern would be the port- port isolation of the A/B switch. Depending on >the mfg, they're all over the map. > >Dale W4OP > Dale, the one I have is a XS201, cast iron, much like the MFJ. I would consider buying a better switch, though, if you could recommend one. Win, w0lz Article: 226870 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Kelly" Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: 20 Jul 2006 17:44:46 -0700 Message-ID: <1153442686.560016.170560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Dave wrote: > open the windows and stick them out for the drive. this works best if you > open both the driver and passenger windows on the front doors and put the > rods sideways across the car, this way they won't rub against any upholstery > and you can keep a close eye on them the whole way.' I should have explained that that's what I want to avoid. I boogered it. Sorry Dave. I took the out-the-window approach a couple years ago and got whacked by somebody in a van who came very close to side-swiping me. Shoved the rod back into my upholstery and dinged it and I almost lost my passenger-side mirror. I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and car-top the full-length versions Tnx. Brian w3rv Article: 226871 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Kelly" Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: 20 Jul 2006 17:51:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1153443094.499395.263740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Owen Duffy wrote: > On 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: > > In this part of the world one can buy joiners for the rods. The idea > would be you cut them in two, then when you install them, drive the > first rod, put the joiner on, place the second rod in the joiner, > drive it etc. That's how rods of tens of metres are driven in. > > Maybe those joiners are available from you electrical contractors > suppliers. Interesting approach but I've never run into any such things on this side of the pond. I'll ask an electrician or electrical supply house. Tnx. > Owen Brian w3rv Article: 226872 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:20:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1153444847.573012.239470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Brian Kelly wrote: > I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods > 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the > roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. > Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the > shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes > of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here > is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. Brian, I know this doesn't answer the transport problem, but what are you going to do with the rods? Lightning protection comes much more from how you wire things than a few ground rods...or even a dozen ground rods. As a matter of fact adding or improving a ground can make things worse if the bonding and entrance is installed wrong. The station ground always should attach at the cable entrance point, and that entrance MUST be bonded to the utilitly entrance ground. Many people don't do this even though it is critical. I have virtually no ground rods at all at my shack entrance, I leave all the cables connected all of the time, I have several tall towers including one 300 ft tall that gets hit several times a year, I have virtually no in house lightning arrestors on cables, and I never have lightning damage inside the house. I do have a cable entrance panel for all cables, and that panel is bonded to the power mains ground and telco ground. The reason I don't have problems, even though the magnetic field from some hits is so strong it magnetizes the TV screens, is how things enter and how they are "grounded" to a common point. I haven't even lost a computer modem. As for RF, unless you are end feeding an antenna the only way RF-in-the-shack is an issue is if something is wrong with an antenna system...either in basic design or layout. Any two conductor feeder, either balanced or unbalanced, should not produce RF in the shack. 73 Tom Article: 226873 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153443094.499395.263740@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:31:50 GMT On 20 Jul 2006 17:51:34 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: >Owen Duffy wrote: >> On 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: >> > >> In this part of the world one can buy joiners for the rods. The idea >> would be you cut them in two, then when you install them, drive the >> first rod, put the joiner on, place the second rod in the joiner, >> drive it etc. That's how rods of tens of metres are driven in. >> >> Maybe those joiners are available from you electrical contractors >> suppliers. > >Interesting approach but I've never run into any such things on this >side of the pond. I'll ask an electrician or electrical supply house. >Tnx. > Brian, these ferrules are for copper clad steel electrodes. The are slimline, and have a hole with a slow taper bored in each end. They are "connected" during the driving process, no silver soldering etc. They cost about six pacific pesos for half inch rods, equivalent to about $4+ of your money. Owen -- Article: 226874 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:26:14 -0700 Message-ID: <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> I A B tested a regular low dipole made from number 8 AWG bare wire against a double bazooka. Even during severe weather there never was a difference in measureable noise levels. That's just from a direct observation over a long period of time between the two antenna types. There also was no measurable or noticeable difference in signal strength or bandwidth. 73 Tom Article: 226875 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Message-ID: <61c0c2tn8t28q8javj9krjak26tilcqtd9@4ax.com> References: <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:39:13 -0400 On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:31:02 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >How does a deaf person do that? How does a blind person read the computer screen? Article: 226876 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:37:41 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > I A B tested a regular low dipole made from number 8 AWG bare wire > against a double bazooka. Even during severe weather there never was a > difference in measureable noise levels. Did you A B test them under precipitation static conditions? If not, the test was incomplete. There is obviously a charged particle difference between a bare wire dipole and a double bazooka. If you weren't testing using charged particles, the test was just as obviously incomplete. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226877 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:39:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> hasan schiers wrote: > Not vouching for "degree of accuracy", but here's how I estimate efficiency: > > (Known Rrad/Measured R at X=0) at the feedpoint. > > If my Inverted L has a predicted Rrad of 25.9 ohms and I measure the R at > resonance as 29 ohms, the 3.1 ohms is return loss. This would indicate an > approximate efficiency of 89%. Hi Hasan, Roy Lewallen and I just measured some ground systems. Actual measurements using good instruments, not guesses or models. In one case we had an antenna with four elevated radials that within measurement error (using lab type gear) had equal signal strength level as the very same vertical element over 16 buried radials. As I recall the buried radials had over 60 ohms of base impedance, the six foot high elevated radials was down around 40 ohms or less. Over the years I have measured many antenna with very low base impedance and terrible efficiency, I have measured verticals where changing the ground system did not change impedance but improved field strength, and it is very easy to find cases where changes in a ground system can have MORE efficiency with higher feed impedance without changing anything but the ground system. Over simplification of a complex system will often not produce reliable results. Just look at the results of Reg's progam where it predicts highest efficiency with very short radials. We all know that doesn't happen, but the oversimplified program says it does. 73 Tom Article: 226878 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 20 Jul 2006 18:39:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1153445987.534517.169510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:31:02 GMT, Cecil Moore > wrote: > > >How does a deaf person do that? > > How does a blind person read the computer screen? he does not which of course has nothing to do with the matter at hand somethat would easy to sow were to have the slightest intelectual hoestly but no you hacked evverything away Article: 226879 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <61c0c2tn8t28q8javj9krjak26tilcqtd9@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:42:01 GMT Al Klein wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: >> How does a deaf person do that? > > How does a blind person read the computer screen? I'm not yet blind but I, like my father, am going deaf. I couldn't hear a CW signal without a BFO if my life depended upon it. I can't hear most of the CW signals even with a BFO. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226880 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Higgins Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153442686.560016.170560@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:22:30 GMT On 20 Jul 2006 17:44:46 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: >Dave wrote: >> open the windows and stick them out for the drive. this works best if you >> open both the driver and passenger windows on the front doors and put the >> rods sideways across the car, this way they won't rub against any upholstery >> and you can keep a close eye on them the whole way.' > >I should have explained that that's what I want to avoid. I boogered >it. Sorry Dave. > >I took the out-the-window approach a couple years ago and got whacked >by somebody in a van who came very close to side-swiping me. Shoved the >rod back into my upholstery and dinged it and I almost lost my >passenger-side mirror. I guess I'll have to bite the bullet and car-top >the full-length versions Tnx. > >Brian w3rv Lordy! If you were willing to try the above a year ago, why not try slinging them under the car this year... attached to the front and rear bumpers? I mean as long as we're pulljng each others' legs here... Article: 226881 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:55:05 -0400 From: jawod Subject: If you had to die to save someone's life, would that person send Message-ID: <40506$44c0425a$453d9423$899@FUSE.NET> Think about it. Article: 226882 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: 80m mobile antenna question Message-ID: References: <120d11fn5ontsb0@corp.supernews.com> <12478-440723AF-300@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> <0YGdnc2vqPncEprZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <3kivb2h8ef8487e87kl0rpvurrutc133qb@4ax.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:20:14 -0400 On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:10 -0400, "Yuri Blanarovich" wrote: > >"Buck" wrote in message >news:3kivb2h8ef8487e87kl0rpvurrutc133qb@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 19:35:15 -0500, Amos Keag >> wrote: >> >>>Cecil Moore wrote: >>>> Dan Richardson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Roy is quite correct in stating that a vehicle's body behaves as one >>>>> side of a dipole. A lopsided dipole to be sure, but one half the >>>>> antenna just the same. >>>> >>>> > >Not exactly. Body of the vehicle behaves more like a ground plane and a >capacitor coupling to the ground. As soon as "radials" or ground plane has >antenna mounted somewhere else than on the edge, you get cancellation of >current along the body - two sides "working against each other". We are >talking vertical antenna here, not a goofy dipole. > > >>>> Seems the truth might lie somewhere in between. If the ground >>>> plane of a vertical antenna is near the ground, there are >>>> losses. If the ground plane of a vertical antenna is located >>>> 1/2WL above ground, the losses are a lot less. I'll bet that >>>> if the vehicle were located 1/2WL in the air, the efficiency >>>> would increase. >>> > >Depends. If vehicle is going over metal grid frame bridge or good ground, >like salty beach, the efficiency goes up. Body of vehicle is like a plate of >capacitor, coupling the ground plane to effcient ground and performance of >the vertical goes up, especially at low angles. Drive over the bridge or >ocean beach and see the S-meter go up. > >>>Kind of tough though going under power lines, bridges and overpasses :-) >> >> That depends.... If you take cecil up on his idea, you may go over >> them.... of course, that you may want to be on the low bands when you >> cross some bridges.... :) >> -- >> 73 for now >> Buck >> N4PGW > >Yuri, K3BU > Thanks for the reply, I suppose you figured out I was playing on Cecil's reply. Tonight, I did have a related experience. I have an FM BC band xmtr in the car attached to my CD player. I use it to monitor the cds on the car stereo. I noticed tonight when I crossed a very high bridge that Radio signals drown out my little monitor transmitter, only while I was on the bridge. The car was specifically over 1/2 wave above the highway below it. for what it's worth.... :) Buck -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226883 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:24:23 -0600 From: Hank Zoeller Subject: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Message-ID: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Hello everyone, I'm contemplating putting up a vertical antenna for HF use. I'm looking at an approximate height of 30 feet or so. I am thinking of using aluminum tubing (0.058" wall) in a 'telescoping' manner. Here are my questions (so far): 1) Diameter. For wind resistance, should I start with something like 1 inch diameter and work down to 3/8 inch? Would the antenna be stronger if I started with 2 inch diameter and worked down to 1-3/8 inch? It would seem to me that the larger diameter might be better able to withstand wind but it would also offer more resistance to wind possibly negating the additional strength. But, I have no experience to draw from. So, fat or slim? 2) I am planning a set of guy ropes at about the 12 foot level, a bit over 1/3 height. Is there a better height for guy ropes? I can put as much concrete in the ground as I like, and a very robust mount system is possible. Is there any way to make an unguyed 30 footer that isn't a tower form factor? Something like making the bottom 12 feet or so from 2 inch diameter, 1/4 inch wall tubing and then light weight tubing from there up to full height? -- 73, Hank Article: 226884 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:24:40 -0400 On 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: >I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods >35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the >roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. >Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the >shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes >of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here >is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > >Brian w3rv The rods I have seen aren't solid copper, but copper plated over some other metal. One I saw appeared to have a concrete filling. You may find putting the rod back together again a little difficult. If it is just copper tubing, you may find using couplings will put you back in business.. Buck -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226885 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1d40c21u5posa4ur8q0klqqj9ev63970e2@4ax.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:26:14 -0400 On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:32:36 GMT, Bob Miller >Stick 'em in the back side window, over the front passenger seat, stab >'em in on the front floor, blunt end down. Maybe you could also lower >the front seat back. A few towels would protect things. > >bob >k5qwg Flag the end of the rods. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226886 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: If you had to die to save someone's life, would that person send CW? Message-ID: References: <40506$44c0425a$453d9423$899@FUSE.NET> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:29:04 -0400 On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:55:05 -0400, jawod wrote: > >Think about it. I don't know, but would you try it? please!! -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226887 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <8LV95FEqcHwEFAtH@ifwtech.co.uk> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 07:41:46 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Bob Miller wrote: >On 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: > >>I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods >>35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the >>roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. >>Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the >>shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes >>of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here >>is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. >> >>Brian w3rv > >Stick 'em in the back side window, over the front passenger seat, stab >'em in on the front floor, blunt end down. Maybe you could also lower >the front seat back. A few towels would protect things. The brochure for our European subcompact hatchback showed a photograph with a surf-board inside. They folded down half the rear seat, reclined the front seat back until it was flat, and then pushed the pointy end of the board all the way into the glovebox. It was all highly contrived, and of course "your car may vary", but maybe some of those ideas will help. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226888 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:11:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> >I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods > 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the > roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. > Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the > shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes > of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here > is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > What's wrong with putting them on the roof? They are only 8' long, so they won't overhang. Even without a roof rack it would be a simple matter to protect the roof and tie the rods down. Regards Jeff Article: 226889 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153396990.480103.315760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0tadnX4De7dR6CLZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:05:01 +0100 Message-ID: "Ian White wrote > please tell us more about the fan of 1.0m radials, on the ground, > that will give ninety-several percent feedpoint efficiency. > ========================================== Ian, you must have had no experience of a few short radials. Try 16 or 32 radials, 1 or 2 metres long, in good soil, with a 1/4 or 3/8-wave vertical or inverted-L antenna. Radiating and receiving efficiency will surprise you. Also at all higher frequencies. At your new QTH you may not find much good soil. But try it anyway. Or persuade someone else to try it. I managed for many years with 7 radials 2 metres long, covering an angle of only 90 degrees. Soil resistivity was only 70 ohm-metres. Unfortunately, had to abandon it when the garden was turned into a patio. Damned concrete! ---- Reg. Article: 226890 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:41:30 GMT Hank Zoeller wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm contemplating putting up a vertical antenna for HF use. I'm looking > at an approximate height of 30 feet or so. I am thinking of using > aluminum tubing (0.058" wall) in a 'telescoping' manner. Here are my > questions (so far): > > 1) Diameter. For wind resistance, should I start with something like 1 > inch diameter and work down to 3/8 inch? Would the antenna be stronger > if I started with 2 inch diameter and worked down to 1-3/8 inch? > > It would seem to me that the larger diameter might be better able to > withstand wind but it would also offer more resistance to wind possibly > negating the additional strength. But, I have no experience to draw > from. So, fat or slim? > > 2) I am planning a set of guy ropes at about the 12 foot level, a bit > over 1/3 height. Is there a better height for guy ropes? I can put as > much concrete in the ground as I like, and a very robust mount system is > possible. Is there any way to make an unguyed 30 footer that isn't a > tower form factor? Something like making the bottom 12 feet or so from > 2 inch diameter, 1/4 inch wall tubing and then light weight tubing from > there up to full height? When I bought my aluminum tubing from Texas Towers, they had a computer program that calculated and specified all of the above. http://www.texastowers.com -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226891 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153444847.573012.239470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:36:47 GMT On 20 Jul 2006 18:20:47 -0700, w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >Brian Kelly wrote: >> I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods >> 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the >> roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. >> Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the >> shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes >> of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here >> is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > >Brian, > >I know this doesn't answer the transport problem, but what are you >going to do with the rods? > >Lightning protection comes much more from how you wire things than a >few ground rods...or even a dozen ground rods. As a matter of fact >adding or improving a ground can make things worse if the bonding and >entrance is installed wrong. > >The station ground always should attach at the cable entrance point, >and that entrance MUST be bonded to the utilitly entrance ground. Many >people don't do this even though it is critical. > >I have virtually no ground rods at all at my shack entrance, I leave >all the cables connected all of the time, I have several tall towers >including one 300 ft tall that gets hit several times a year, I have >virtually no in house lightning arrestors on cables, and I never have >lightning damage inside the house. I do have a cable entrance panel for >all cables, and that panel is bonded to the power mains ground and >telco ground. You should put up some pictures of your ground installation :-) bob k5qwg > >The reason I don't have problems, even though the magnetic field from >some hits is so strong it magnetizes the TV screens, is how things >enter and how they are "grounded" to a common point. I haven't even >lost a computer modem. > >As for RF, unless you are end feeding an antenna the only way >RF-in-the-shack is an issue is if something is wrong with an antenna >system...either in basic design or layout. Any two conductor feeder, >either balanced or unbalanced, should not produce RF in the shack. > >73 Tom Article: 226892 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 21 Jul 2006 05:40:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1153485636.857409.304970@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: an old friend wrote: > I forgive him his hate and may he find his dick in my mouth Article: 226893 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Kelly" Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: 21 Jul 2006 06:05:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1153487142.834227.113080@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> > Brian, > > I know this doesn't answer the transport problem, but what are you > going to do with the rods? Ground things . . . ? > Lightning protection comes much more from how you wire things than a > few ground rods...or even a dozen ground rods. As a matter of fact > adding or improving a ground can make things worse if the bonding and > entrance is installed wrong. > > The station ground always should attach at the cable entrance point, > and that entrance MUST be bonded to the utilitly entrance ground. Many > people don't do this even though it is critical. > > I have virtually no ground rods at all at my shack entrance, I leave > all the cables connected all of the time, I have several tall towers > including one 300 ft tall that gets hit several times a year, I have > virtually no in house lightning arrestors on cables, and I never have > lightning damage inside the house. I do have a cable entrance panel for > all cables, and that panel is bonded to the power mains ground and > telco ground. > > The reason I don't have problems, even though the magnetic field from > some hits is so strong it magnetizes the TV screens, is how things > enter and how they are "grounded" to a common point. I haven't even > lost a computer modem. I understand exactly what you're saying, I agree with all of it and ideally I'd do exactly as you've done. Problem is that I'm not able at this point in history and for several reasons to do as rigorous a a job of grounding as I'd like to. This place is a nice old relic in a mini-forest which was built and wired long before there were any such things as electrical and building codes. I can't tell if the power service entrance is grounded or not but I suspect that if it is grounded it's via the water supply line which is 3/4" copper tubing. Eventually I'll get an electrician in here to sort it out. In the meantime I'm getting back on the air with some simple wires at low heights. > As for RF, unless you are end feeding an antenna the only way > RF-in-the-shack is an issue is if something is wrong with an antenna > system...either in basic design or layout. Any two conductor feeder, > either balanced or unbalanced, should not produce RF in the shack. This will not be the fabled W8JI antenna and grounding farm. The antennas will be end-fed 20 & 15M Dale Parfitt half wave dipoles strung up vertically in trees. There will be a ground rod at the base of both verticals to which the coax sheild is bonded. There will be a ground rod at the copper plate cable entrance and all ground rods will be connected via a solid #8 AWG copper wire snaked along the ground. Both verticals will be only 25 feet or so from the station so I expect a lot of RF to be floating around. Which will need grounding. I have homeowner's insurance, I'll buy some ARRL equipment insurance, I have two 10 pound dry chemical fire extinguishers and I go to church. Once in awhile . . Back to finding a pair of cartop cargo carriers which work with these new-fangled aircraft-style flush doors . . <> Thanks Tom. > 73 Tom Brian w3rv Article: 226894 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 21 Jul 2006 06:11:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1153487491.859019.75840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Reg Edwards wrote: > Try 16 or 32 radials, 1 or 2 metres long, in good soil, with a 1/4 or > 3/8-wave vertical or inverted-L antenna. Radiating and receiving > efficiency will surprise you. Also at all higher frequencies. That sounds like scientific validation of a program or theory, compared to all the work Brown, Lewis, and Epstein did with field strength meters. Maybe that's where S units came from? S-urprise units? > At your new QTH you may not find much good soil. But try it anyway. > Or persuade someone else to try it. ...and they will be able to quantify what? Emotions? > I managed for many years with 7 radials 2 metres long, covering an > angle of only 90 degrees. Soil resistivity was only 70 ohm-metres. > Unfortunately, had to abandon it when the garden was turned into a > patio. Damned concrete! I managed with a ground rod. I managed 12 dB better with radials. Who was it that said if you can put a number on it you don't understand it? Someone in England I think. 73 Tom Article: 226895 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Date: 21 Jul 2006 06:19:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1153487941.423112.110110@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> The windload on a piece of tubing of a given height is proportional to the radius, but the stiffness of a piece of tubing is proportional to the fourth power of radius. So, as you make the tubing bigger, the stiffness goes up much much faster than the windload, so bigger tubing will always be stronger unless you make the wall very, very thin compared to that of the smaller tubing. Now, the weight of the piece goes up too, and the price is proportional to the weight, so you don't see a lot of antennas made of 5 inch aluminum tubing when they don't need to be. For a freestanding vertical, you're going to get the best results with a taper. It's good for the tubing to get thinner as you go up, because the big problem with a freestanding pole is that the wind is trying to tip it over. The mount at the base has to be strong enough to take this torque. The wind has more leverage when it's acting on the tip of the vertical than when it's acting further down, so having the vertical thin at the top helps reduce the load on the base. Cecil's suggestion about the Texas Towers calculator is a good one. Also, after you put up a vertical you'll have more intuition about this. I wouldn't make it a 1 inch vertical all the way up :-). I had a 40m vertical, 4 elevated radials at 15 feet and 1 inch tubing >from that point up to about 25 feet, with smaller tapered tubing and rod above that. It worked OK, but had to be guyed in two places! It also snapped in half in a windstorm. Bad mechanical design, but I made do because I had the tubing. It would have been a much nicer antenna if I'd purchased the proper materials. 73, Dan Article: 226896 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Date: 21 Jul 2006 06:22:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1153488148.249192.142240@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Sorry, that should have been that my vertical had 25 feet of 1 inch tubing topped with smaller stuff... so 1 inch tubing from the 15 foot level to the 40 foot level with respect to the ground. The feedpoint was at the top of 15 feet of radio shack TV mast. Flimsy bugger, anyway... pretty good antenna though! 73, Dan Article: 226897 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:17:52 +0100 Message-ID: > > NEC4 engine can accommodate on the ground or buried radials in > modeling and > > calculating vertical antenna parameters and performance. > > > ======================================= > How many weeks of user training does NEC4 require? > > Hour many hours of work and imagination are required to enter input > data? > > What is the purchase price of the latest version? > > Is it legally available to non-USA citizens? > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ. > ====================================== What! - after 2 days - no reply? The silence is deafening! ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 226898 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 21 Jul 2006 06:26:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1153488382.572180.110380@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1152903904.823970.155070@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com wrote: may the lord bless and grant you pecae from the mental illness that traps you Article: 226899 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Kelly" Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Date: 21 Jul 2006 07:16:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1153491405.001806.106990@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Jeff wrote: > >I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods > > 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the > > roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. > > Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the > > shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes > > of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here > > is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. > > > > What's wrong with putting them on the roof? They are only 8' long, so they > won't overhang. Even without a roof rack it would be a simple matter to > protect the roof and tie the rods down. You're right. I gotta go looking for a general-purpose rack. Which would greatly simplify hauling lumber and 12' lengths of aluminum tubing too. > Regards > Jeff Brian w3rv Article: 226900 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 09:31:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Hi Tom, I understand there are measurement issues (and certainly assumption issues for Rrad). Isn't is fairly certain that increasing the number of radials (of proper length) until the feedpoint R (at resonance, at the antenna) no longer drops, is a reasonable approximation of "high efficiency"? The only issue I see, is determining the target Rrad to compare it to when trying to "estimate" efficiency. Are you saying (for example), that the feedpoint R of a 1/4 w vertical against perfect ground cannot be reliably estimated at 37 ohms? If it can, then isn't 37/R a measure of efficiency? Again, I'm thinking of the efficiency of the ground system... I have no way to look at field strength. Is it really possible to reduce ground losses to the absolute minimum and not have a corresponding increase in field strength? This is starting to turn into "black magic" for me. I can understand questioning a particular "number" for efficiency based on the simplistic Rrad/R formula. If the implications go further...indicating there is no meaning to Rrad/R, then I'm lost. Perhaps the issue is that it's known how to maximize efficiency, it's just completely unknown what that efficiency really is, and there is no simple way to measure it. If that's what your saying, then I understand. That position does seem to muddy up the "how many radials and of what length" efficiency info presented in ON4UN's book and referenced in other texts. They all seem to acccept some sort of accuracy for the Rrad/R formula with 1/4 w verticals. If I understand you correctly, the formula is rejected outright as hopelessly simplistic, and of no particular value. Do I have it now? If so, I'll refrain from using it in the future. Thanks for the comments. 73, ...hasan, N0AN wrote in message news:1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > hasan schiers wrote: >> Not vouching for "degree of accuracy", but here's how I estimate >> efficiency: >> >> (Known Rrad/Measured R at X=0) at the feedpoint. >> >> If my Inverted L has a predicted Rrad of 25.9 ohms and I measure the R at >> resonance as 29 ohms, the 3.1 ohms is return loss. This would indicate an >> approximate efficiency of 89%. > > Hi Hasan, > > Roy Lewallen and I just measured some ground systems. Actual > measurements using good instruments, not guesses or models. > > In one case we had an antenna with four elevated radials that within > measurement error (using lab type gear) had equal signal strength level > as the very same vertical element over 16 buried radials. As I recall > the buried radials had over 60 ohms of base impedance, the six foot > high elevated radials was down around 40 ohms or less. > > Over the years I have measured many antenna with very low base > impedance and terrible efficiency, I have measured verticals where > changing the ground system did not change impedance but improved field > strength, and it is very easy to find cases where changes in a ground > system can have MORE efficiency with higher feed impedance without > changing anything but the ground system. > > Over simplification of a complex system will often not produce reliable > results. Just look at the results of Reg's progam where it predicts > highest efficiency with very short radials. We all know that doesn't > happen, but the oversimplified program says it does. > > 73 Tom > Article: 226901 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: <2E5wg.115454$A8.53759@clgrps12> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:36:46 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:P_CdnZ4JvsmgSF3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com... > >> > NEC4 engine can accommodate on the ground or buried radials in >> modeling and >> > calculating vertical antenna parameters and performance. >> > >> ======================================= > >> How many weeks of user training does NEC4 require? >> >> Hour many hours of work and imagination are required to enter input >> data? >> >> What is the purchase price of the latest version? >> >> Is it legally available to non-USA citizens? >> ---- >> Reg, G4FGQ. >> > ====================================== > > What! - after 2 days - no reply? > > The silence is deafening! > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ NEC 4 can be easily used in a few hours with some reading. To really understand the program would probably require the equivalent a 3rd year university semester. The program can, however model an infinite number of antenna designs. Inputting data is relatively trivial. NEC 4.1 is free, but does require the purchase of a license from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The cost of a license for non-commercial use is $500.00, and is available to those living outside the USA. For US residents the license is $300. For much easier data entry, and error checking etc., GNEC, from Nittany Scientific makes life a lot simpler -- cost $795. Frank Article: 226902 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:48:25 GMT > I understand there are measurement issues (and certainly assumption issues > for Rrad). Isn't is fairly certain that increasing the number of radials > (of proper length) until the feedpoint R (at resonance, at the antenna) > no longer drops, is a reasonable approximation of "high efficiency"? The > only issue I see, is determining the target Rrad to compare it to when > trying to "estimate" efficiency. > > Are you saying (for example), that the feedpoint R of a 1/4 w vertical > against perfect ground cannot be reliably estimated at 37 ohms? If it can, > then isn't 37/R a measure of efficiency? > > Again, I'm thinking of the efficiency of the ground system... I have no > way to look at field strength. > > Is it really possible to reduce ground losses to the absolute minimum and > not have a corresponding increase in field strength? > > This is starting to turn into "black magic" for me. I can understand > questioning a particular "number" for efficiency based on the simplistic > Rrad/R formula. If the implications go further...indicating there is no > meaning to Rrad/R, then I'm lost. > > Perhaps the issue is that it's known how to maximize efficiency, it's just > completely unknown what that efficiency really is, and there is no simple > way to measure it. If that's what your saying, then I understand. > > That position does seem to muddy up the "how many radials and of what > length" efficiency info presented in ON4UN's book and referenced in other > texts. They all seem to acccept some sort of accuracy for the Rrad/R > formula with 1/4 w verticals. If I understand you correctly, the formula > is rejected outright as hopelessly simplistic, and of no particular value. > > Do I have it now? If so, I'll refrain from using it in the future. I had always assumed that a NEC model of a perfectly conducting monopole above a perfect ground would provide the radiation resistance. For example, considering your antenna of 18.3 m at 3.62 MHz, the input impedance is 27.5 - j 64.7. The radiation resistance would therefore be 27.5 ohms. This appears to be fairly close to your estimate of 25.4 ohms. Frank Article: 226903 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Length & number of radials References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:06:16 GMT Frank's wrote: > I had always assumed that a NEC model of a perfectly conducting > monopole above a perfect ground would provide the radiation > resistance. For example, considering your antenna of 18.3 m > at 3.62 MHz, the input impedance is 27.5 - j 64.7. The radiation > resistance would therefore be 27.5 ohms. This appears to be > fairly close to your estimate of 25.4 ohms. If the field strength coordinates were the same for a perfect antenna model and a real-world antenna model, would the ratio of the areas under the curves yield the simulated efficiency of the real-world model? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226904 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:26:53 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Hi Frank, I think the general question became "can one use this Rrad value in calculating efficiency". I'm waiting for Tom's response to my last posting. On the other issue, radial length vs. usefulness, (I tried a diect mail to you and it didn't make it cuz I forgot to take out the nospam part), here is what I want to know from NEC-4: Radial wire is #14 THHN inslulated wire. I approximated it at 2mm. The antenna wire is 4 mm. For these purposes, you can probably forget that the wire is insulated. Now...looking at radial length (assuming 26 radials), and given the constants I previously provided, how long does a radial in this configuration have to be, before it is no longer valuable to increase its length. Tom says he measured significant current in a radial well beyond where Reg's program says the current had diminished to insignifcant levels. I would be MOST interested if you can confirm Tom's measurements. If NEC-4 says there is substantial radial current where Reg's program says there isn't, then that is an important contradiction, putting Reg's model into question. I'm giving more credibility to NEC-4 (properly used) than I am to Reg's own design. If, however, we have two sources (one measurement based: Tom, one model based: NEC-4), that say Reg's theory that radials quickly approach maximum effectiveness over a MUCH shorter run than has been previously understood (in moderate to very good soils), that contradict Reg's algorithim. Having only looked at conclusions from BL&E, I can't say what their measurements indicated in terms of radial current vs. length. Ian has suggested that they did measure the radial current vs length and they concur with Tom. So, if BL&E and Tom (both empirical), as well as NEC-4 (model based), all say that important levels of current are present in radials well beyond where Reg's program predicts, then there's only one conclusion left. (Unless I'm missing something). This, to me, is much more interesting stuff than a month long peeing contest over precipitation static.(which may be rearing its ugly head yet again in the "double bazooka" thread. God help us! 73, and thanks for your comments and efforts to help me understand what is going on. ...hasan, N0AN "Frank's" wrote in message news:ZO5wg.115459$A8.61548@clgrps12... > > I understand there are measurement issues (and certainly assumption > issues >> for Rrad). Isn't is fairly certain that increasing the number of radials >> (of proper length) until the feedpoint R (at resonance, at the antenna) >> no longer drops, is a reasonable approximation of "high efficiency"? The >> only issue I see, is determining the target Rrad to compare it to when >> trying to "estimate" efficiency. >> >> Are you saying (for example), that the feedpoint R of a 1/4 w vertical >> against perfect ground cannot be reliably estimated at 37 ohms? If it >> can, then isn't 37/R a measure of efficiency? >> >> Again, I'm thinking of the efficiency of the ground system... I have no >> way to look at field strength. >> >> Is it really possible to reduce ground losses to the absolute minimum and >> not have a corresponding increase in field strength? >> >> This is starting to turn into "black magic" for me. I can understand >> questioning a particular "number" for efficiency based on the simplistic >> Rrad/R formula. If the implications go further...indicating there is no >> meaning to Rrad/R, then I'm lost. >> >> Perhaps the issue is that it's known how to maximize efficiency, it's >> just completely unknown what that efficiency really is, and there is no >> simple way to measure it. If that's what your saying, then I understand. >> >> That position does seem to muddy up the "how many radials and of what >> length" efficiency info presented in ON4UN's book and referenced in other >> texts. They all seem to acccept some sort of accuracy for the Rrad/R >> formula with 1/4 w verticals. If I understand you correctly, the formula >> is rejected outright as hopelessly simplistic, and of no particular >> value. >> >> Do I have it now? If so, I'll refrain from using it in the future. > > I had always assumed that a NEC model of a perfectly conducting > monopole above a perfect ground would provide the radiation > resistance. For example, considering your antenna of 18.3 m > at 3.62 MHz, the input impedance is 27.5 - j 64.7. The radiation > resistance would therefore be 27.5 ohms. This appears to be > fairly close to your estimate of 25.4 ohms. > > Frank > Article: 226905 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:24:49 +0100 Message-ID: "hasan schiers" wrote in message news:e9o3e2$qne$1@news.netins.net... > Not vouching for "degree of accuracy", but here's how I estimate efficiency: > > (Known Rrad/Measured R at X=0) at the feedpoint. > > If my Inverted L has a predicted Rrad of 25.9 ohms and I measure the R at > resonance as 29 ohms, the 3.1 ohms is return loss. This would indicate an > approximate efficiency of 89%. > > It seems to me to be a fair approximation. When you have added as many > radials as possible and watched the input R at the feedpoint (at resonance) > drop asymptotically toward the predicted or "known" Rrad, your final "R" > value is used in: Rrad/R. For a perfect ground Rrad = R > > I use an MFJ-269 antenna analyzer for the measurements. > > Have I gone astray? (aside from my starting value of Rrad, which I took from > two sources: your rule of thumb formula for Inverted L's, and ON4UN's Low > Band DX'ing Handbook). Both your formula and ON4UN agree as to the value of > Rrad for my antenna. > > I'll replay to other aspects of your response in another post. > > 73 and thanks for the new program. As you can tell, I've been playing with > it. As you can also tell, the implications with respect to length of radials > required for good efficiency are causing my brain to cramp. > > ...hasan, N0AN > > "Reg Edwards" wrote in message > news:ZuydnULP8LzUfyPZRVnyrA@bt.com... > > ========================================= > > Yes Hasan, good agreement. How did you determine > > efficiency to THAT degree of accuracy? > > ========================================= To Hassan et al, In all my programs, where antennas are involved, accuracy of results is usually better than than that needed for the purpose of the program. In the case of RADIAL_3 the obvious purpose of the program is to assist with choosing an economic length and number of radials to be used with a given test antenna height. It is also educational in that after reading the introductory notes and using it, the user will have a better understanding of how radials work. To summarise, the program tells the user the maximum economic radial length occurs when the attenuation along it is about 18 to 20dB at the lowest frequency of use. But where his back yard is not big enough, even shorter lengths can be quite satisfactory. At HF, where small standing waves may occur with normal soils, radial lengths can sometimes be judiciously adjusted to minimise loss. To increase efficiency when the 20dB limit has been reached it is necessary to increase the number of radials. And that is subject to rapidly diminishing returns. As is easily and adequately demonstrated by the program. Prediction accuracy can be no better than that of the input data. And nobody knows what the soil resistivity is in the near field, ie., under the antenna, to better than + or - 40 or 50 percent. That's why NEC4 and the like (or B,L&E) can be no better at predicting results than RADIAL_3. NEC4 may be highly accurate at predicting radiation patterns in a hoped-for ideal environment but that is NOT the purpose of RADIAL_3 which is essentially practical. If I published the source code hardly anybody would be capable of making any sense out of it. Some of you old-wives, who imagine you know more about modelling and programming than I do, would attempt to ridicule it, thus degrading its usefulness to the ordinary amateur user. Mud-throwing always sticks. In the meantime, WW3 is escalating with even greater rapidity! ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 226906 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:32:55 GMT > Frank's wrote: >> I had always assumed that a NEC model of a perfectly conducting >> monopole above a perfect ground would provide the radiation >> resistance. For example, considering your antenna of 18.3 m >> at 3.62 MHz, the input impedance is 27.5 - j 64.7. The radiation >> resistance would therefore be 27.5 ohms. This appears to be >> fairly close to your estimate of 25.4 ohms. > > If the field strength coordinates were the same for > a perfect antenna model and a real-world antenna > model, would the ratio of the areas under the curves > yield the simulated efficiency of the real-world model? > -- > 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp I don't see why not, and have used the technique in the past using an Excel spread sheet. Frank Article: 226907 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tam/WB2TT" References: <1153428201.081171.242200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Antenna installed below ridge line? Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:16:35 -0400 Message-ID: "Chris" wrote in message news:1153428201.081171.242200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > What kind of loss will I have if I install this antenna on our 2nd > story roof, but below the ridge line? We live in a neighborhood where > no one has an antenna and wife is worried about the ascetics of it. > > Channel Master 4228 with a rotor of course. > http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Fzc9uoNaIKU/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=15920&I=6594228 > I have a corner reflector Yagy/w UHF amp with a short mast mounted on a vent pipe. The antenna is lower than the peak of the roof. Oddly, I am picking up HD stations 65 miles away when the antenna is pointed at the attic. Tam Article: 226908 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:28:02 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:Ya6dnbw3prxab13ZRVnyug@bt.com... > In the case of RADIAL_3 the obvious purpose of the program is to assist with choosing an economic length and number of radials to be used with a given test antenna height. It is also educational in that after reading the introductory notes and using it, the user will have a better understanding of how radials work. > I understand that Reg, but somewhere in all this an important consideration is being lost. The issue isn't +/- some questionable percentage of accuracy, it is the underlying assumption in the model you are using to arrive at the "much shorter than everyone else's radial length". You have to admit, predicting 90% efficiency with 5 metre long radials (26 in my example) is stunning...given BL&E, Tom's measurements, and the yet to be run NEC-4 analysis. We aren't talking small differences here, we are talking NIGHT and DAY in terms of length. It really is this simple: Your program predicts neglible current at distances greater than 5 metres in the example being discussed. Your program says that any further lengthing is borderline useless. Tom's measurements completely disagree. BL&E, I am told (I haven't read that section) also completely disagree. I'm waiting to see what NEC-4 says. They key is this: are their ANY soil conditions wherein your model of 5 metre long radials (26 of them) will agree with the existing experimental data, or NEC-4 modeled data? If not, then the "radial as transmission line" model fails, and should not be used. If one doesn't get the 20 to 25 dB of attenuation within the radial length limits your program predicts, then the program is in error and will lead to false conclusions...not just "inaccuracies", outright major errors. I would love to put in 66 radials 5 metres long and know that they work every bit as well as 66 radials 18 metres long. It would save a lot of money in copper and extra lawn staples. If, on the other hand, your model is wrong, then a lot of work has been done for next to nothing. If the purpose of the program is to help in this process, the program must be trustworthy in its MAJOR assertions. ======================================================= We need to know: does the predicted attenuation of current along a radial wire happen as quickly as you predict? This can be measured. This can be modeled. That's what makes this fun. Let's find out. Let's see what agrees with what and what doesn't. Then we can conjecture as to why, and which approach is to be "believed". ======================================================== I'm not denigrating your work. I have all your programs and play with many. I have found several to be wonderfully useful. However, when something is called into question, I'm just not religious in scientific matters. Even the Qur'an says, "Bring your proof, if ye are truthful." (sorry, I couldn't resist) 73, ...hasan, N0AN Article: 226909 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44C105E7.49DEBB63@shaw.ca> From: Irv Finkleman Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:50:32 GMT Dave wrote: > > open the windows and stick them out for the drive. this works best if you > open both the driver and passenger windows on the front doors and put the > rods sideways across the car, this way they won't rub against any upholstery > and you can keep a close eye on them the whole way.' > > "Brian Kelly" wrote in message > news:1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods > > 35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the ... Roller skates and a tow line. Seriously though, Into the car through the driver side rear window and across the car to the floor on thepassenger side. You'll always have a nagging doubt if you cut them. Irv VE6BP -- -------------------------------------- Diagnosed Type II Diabetes March 5 2001 Beating it with diet and exercise! 297/215/210 (to be revised lower) 58"/43"(!)/44" (already lower too!) -------------------------------------- Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/index.html Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/index.htm Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/index.htm -------------------- Irv Finkleman, Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP Calgary, Alberta, Canada Article: 226910 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:13:21 -0700 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:24:49 +0100, "Reg Edwards" wrote: >If I published the source code hardly anybody would be capable of >making any sense out of it. Hi Reggie, This posted foolishness was too hard to pass up. It is a superlative example of the scope of your trolling skills when you troll yourself. Imagine, writing code so poorly to blame the readers' comprehension when you yourself are the source of that shoddy effort? This is classic playing both sides against the middle. I have to ask, is it written in sonnet form in middle English? This blighted artwork of yours must come from the bottom of a bottle in comparison to other code you've written. Of course, lacking that source, we must accept your own dismal appraisal. >Some of you old-wives, who imagine you >know more about modelling and programming than I do, And this from someone who claims wholesale ignorance with modeling and has just admitted to the worst of programming skills. ;-) >would attempt to >ridicule it, thus degrading its usefulness to the ordinary amateur >user. Reggie, your ridicule has already surpassed all imagined critics. >Mud-throwing always sticks. Wash your hands before opening that next bottle. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226911 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2E5wg.115454$A8.53759@clgrps12> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:38:35 +0100 Message-ID: > NEC 4 can be easily used in a few hours with some reading. To > really understand the program would probably require > the equivalent a 3rd year university semester. The program can, > however model an infinite number of antenna designs. > > Inputting data is relatively trivial. NEC 4.1 is free, but does require > the purchase of a license from the Lawrence Livermore > National Laboratory. The cost of a license for non-commercial > use is $500.00, and is available to those living outside the USA. > For US residents the license is $300. > > For much easier data entry, and error checking etc., GNEC, from > Nittany Scientific makes life a lot simpler -- cost $795. > > Frank ====================================== Thank you very much Frank. ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 226912 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:18:39 +0100 Message-ID: Hasan et al, Tom says current can be detected in radials well beyond the 20dB attenuation limit. This is easily explained. The total current flowing in the system at a distance is in the soil due to its far greater cross-sectional area. Especially when soil resistivity is low. Nothing in particular happens in the soil at the end of the 20dB limit. The small current in a radial is INDUCED in it by the relatively larger total current flowing in the soil in parallel with it. The radial current is NOT generated by the voltage at its input. Its high attenuation isolates it from its input. What current flows in a radial has a progressively less effect on the total current (which is what matters) as distance increases. Eventually, it doesn't matter whether the radial is there or not. The limit is reached when the radial input impedance converges on Zo, the radial's characteristic impedance. This occurs when radial attenuation is around 18 or 20dB. Beyond that distance the current flowing in the ground carries on, as usual, unaffected whether the radial is there or not. Resonant effects, small peaks and troughs in the impedance-frequency curve, also die away at the 20dB or even lower limit. There's not much left even at 14dB. Radial attenuation increases rapidly with frequency. So shorter radials can be used at 14 MHz than at 1.9 MHz. When 30 MHz is the lowest frequency of use, and soil resistivity is high, a dipole, without radials, is more likely to be used than a vertical. (Comment: I guessed correctly I would be accused of trolling when I introduced the subject of radials as transmission lines.) ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 226913 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1153428201.081171.242200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Antenna installed below ridge line? Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:31:51 +0100 Message-ID: <-_qdneF3Z7LkjVzZRVny2w@bt.com> If the antenna is mounted just level with the obstructing ridge, then the refraction over the ridge is only about 6 dB less than when the antenna is in the clear. But below that level the refraction loss increases very rapidly. ========================================== Article: 226914 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Kelley Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 10:11:03 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >> I A B tested a regular low dipole made from number 8 AWG bare wire >> against a double bazooka. Even during severe weather there never was a >> difference in measureable noise levels. > > > Did you A B test them under precipitation static conditions? > If not, the test was incomplete. There is obviously a charged > particle difference between a bare wire dipole and a double > bazooka. If you weren't testing using charged particles, the > test was just as obviously incomplete. Cecil, There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less responsive to charged particle noise than the other. Whether or not the antenna can accumulate a static charge is a separate issue. 73, ac6xg Article: 226915 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:56:28 +0100 Message-ID: > Wash your hands before opening that next bottle. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC ====================================== Like Bob Hope, when in your company, I always drink out of a dirty glass. ---- Reg. Article: 226916 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:22:42 GMT Jim Kelley wrote: > There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less > responsive to charged particle noise than the other. What about all the web references that say precipitation static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from the charged particles in the air? Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending upon the insulation. After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226917 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Length & number of radials References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <5Z8wg.70804$Lm5.20550@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:24:01 GMT Richard Clark wrote: > I have to ask, is it written in sonnet form in middle English? Almost as bad, it is written in PASCAL. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226918 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:39:26 -0500 Message-ID: <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:SX8wg.70802$Lm5.48261@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > Jim Kelley wrote: >> There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less >> responsive to charged particle noise than the other. > > What about all the web references that say precipitation > static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from > the charged particles in the air? > > Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire > will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting > an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending > upon the insulation. > > After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing > the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp I once had a ladder line fed doublet. It was disconnected at the feedthroughs because a thunderstorm was about ten miles North. I could pull 1 inch arcs off the feedthroughs to a grounded wire. Made me think of Ben Franklin. 73 H. NQ5H Article: 226919 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: lloyd_n0vfp@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers If Necesssary. Date: 21 Jul 2006 12:11:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1153509094.921017.149800@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1152976976.776663.120710@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> an old freind wrote: >I forgive him his hate and may he find his dick in my mouth Poor Markie. Article: 226920 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Length & number of radials again Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:44:15 +0100 Message-ID: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> Radials Continued. Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) - - when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1 inch), of length 10 metres - - in soil of typical resistivity = 150 ohm-metres and permittivity = 16. But first I should like to ask, can NEC4 complete such a calculation without human intervention or assistance? If yes then please continue, perhaps keeping a record of the time involved. Using program RADIAL_3 the answer is - Radiating Efficiency = 86.0 percent. If several of you participate, perhaps using different tools, it would be interesting to compare results. By all means, join in! Thank you for your assistance. ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 226921 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: ricknj10@hotmail.com (Rick) Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Message-ID: <44c13394.25596671@news.optonline.net> References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:10:50 GMT How are you planning on mounting the alum. tubing at ground level? And what, if any, means are you considering to provide for tipping it over? I wonder if it is practical to install say, 4X4 posts in the ground about 5 inches apart, with another 4X4 as the vertical support for the aluminum pole. The aluminum pole bolted to the 8 foot long 4X4 at about the 6 foot level. Would the wood detune the antenna? Rick K2XT Article: 226922 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 21 Jul 2006 13:21:15 -0700 Message-ID: <1153513275.419453.70100@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> hasan schiers wrote: > Are you saying (for example), that the feedpoint R of a 1/4 w vertical > against perfect ground cannot be reliably estimated at 37 ohms? No. I'm not saying that. If it can, > then isn't 37/R a measure of efficiency? No. A ground can have transmission line effects. As such, it can modify impedances. > Is it really possible to reduce ground losses to the absolute minimum and > not have a corresponding increase in field strength? You are assuming a reduction of ground loss or an increase of ground loss always indicates a certain resistance change at the feedpoint. That assumption is not correct Hans. For example, I can measure feed resistance of a mobile antenna on my truck. By moving the antenna around I can vary the "apparent" ground resistance from a few ohms to perhaps 30 ohms with very little change in ground loss. All I'm saying is the feedpoint reistance change when using a 1/4 wl series fed radiator does not correspond to change in field strength. I know that to be absolutely true, because I and others have seen that happen. 73 Tom Article: 226923 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: ricknj10@hotmail.com (Rick) Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus Message-ID: <44c13977.27103609@news.optonline.net> References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153444847.573012.239470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153487142.834227.113080@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:36:20 GMT >Back to finding a pair of cartop cargo carriers which work with these >new-fangled aircraft-style flush doors . . That will work, and you will get lots of use out of them, and when you get your pick-up sell them on eBay. You don't have a sunroof, huh? We carry two by fours, PVC pipe, etc. all the time in a Honda Civic with a sunroof. We wrap the things with rags, and we take the back roads home. For your 35 miles, it would be a bit expensive but consider Home Depot rents trucks for $18 per hour. Probably more now with gas prices. While there get some other stuff you are sure to need for the inevitable renovation work going on there at the new QTH. But don't cut the ground rods. Come on now! Rick K2XT Article: 226924 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:49:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Reg, I certainly don't think you are trolling. You have aroused a very interesting discussion. I'm absolutely fascinated. The issue isn't whether Tom can detect the current at a point beyond your description. The point is will that current be quite a bit larger than the 20 dB down your approach predicts. This is getting pretty simple...either the current is or isn't substantial beyond the wire lengths you describe. If it isn't, you have hit on something big. If it is, then the model you are using or the application of that model is in error. I'm just trying to learn which of these two cases is true. I find your analysis breathtakingly interesting. It's just hard to resolve the apparent contradictions....fun nevertheless! Thanks again. ...hasan, N0AN "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:XsWdneu5r-j3kFzZnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@bt.com... > Hasan et al, > > Tom says current can be detected in radials well beyond the 20dB > attenuation limit. This is easily explained. > > The total current flowing in the system at a distance is in the soil > due to its far greater cross-sectional area. Especially when soil > resistivity is low. Nothing in particular happens in the soil at the > end of the 20dB limit. > > The small current in a radial is INDUCED in it by the relatively > larger total current flowing in the soil in parallel with it. The > radial current is NOT generated by the voltage at its input. Its high > attenuation isolates it from its input. > > What current flows in a radial has a progressively less effect on the > total current (which is what matters) as distance increases. > Eventually, it doesn't matter whether the radial is there or not. > > The limit is reached when the radial input impedance converges on Zo, > the radial's characteristic impedance. This occurs when radial > attenuation is around 18 or 20dB. Beyond that distance the current > flowing in the ground carries on, as usual, unaffected whether the > radial is there or not. > > Resonant effects, small peaks and troughs in the impedance-frequency > curve, also die away at the 20dB or even lower limit. There's not much > left even at 14dB. > > Radial attenuation increases rapidly with frequency. So shorter > radials can be used at 14 MHz than at 1.9 MHz. When 30 MHz is the > lowest frequency of use, and soil resistivity is high, a dipole, > without radials, is more likely to be used than a vertical. > > (Comment: I guessed correctly I would be accused of trolling when I > introduced the subject of radials as transmission lines.) > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ. > > Article: 226925 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Walter Maxwell Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:52:57 -0400 On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 11:28:02 -0500, "hasan schiers" wrote: > >"Reg Edwards" wrote in message >news:Ya6dnbw3prxab13ZRVnyug@bt.com... >> >In the case of RADIAL_3 the obvious purpose of the program is to >assist with choosing an economic length and number of radials to be >used with a given test antenna height. It is also educational in that >after reading the introductory notes and using it, the user will have >a better understanding of how radials work. snip > >======================================================= >We need to know: does the predicted attenuation of current along a radial >wire happen as quickly as you predict? This can be measured. This can be >modeled. That's what makes this fun. Let's find out. Let's see what agrees >with what and what doesn't. Then we can conjecture as to why, and which >approach is to be "believed". >======================================================== snip >...hasan, N0AN > I've been reading this thread, and sent the following msg to hasan. I then decided to post it here for others to see. Walt, W2DU Hi Hasan, I've been reading the radials thread on the rraa, with the works of BLE bandied about. I have a copy of BLE in PDF that I can put on a CD and mail it to you if you don't have a copy, which I'd be pleased to do. Incidentally, I worked for many years with Jess Epstein, the 'E' of BLE, in Brown's antenna laboratory at the RCA Labs in Princeton, where Brown is the 'B' in BLE. I also know Bob Lewis, the 'L' in BLE, as we've spent many hours together as hams. Bob is W2EBS. Bob and I were attending a ham meeting in NJ in the 1960s where Jerry Sevick was demonstating how radials worked with verticals. He had annular rings of wire connecting all the radials at various radial distances from the center. He even had a wire connecting the ends of all the radials together. I asked him what the annular rings were for, and he replied that they kept the currents in each radial equal. I asked him if he was acquainted with the BLE paper, and he said he had heard of it but was not familiar with it. So I asked him if he'd like one of it's co-authors to explain it He agreed, but was totally shocked to know that Bob Lewis was in his audience. Bob then proceded to straighten Sevick out on how radials worked. A fun night, indeed. The graphs reporting BLE's measurements are pretty conclusive. In addition, the BLE paper is the basis on which the FCC set the requirements for the ground systems on all AM BC stations since 1939. So there's thousands of empirical proofs of the correctness of their measurements in every situation where field strengh measurements were required for proof of performance.As I'm sure you already know, for every AM BC station that uses a directional antenna system the FCC requires field strength measurements. There has never been any such measurements that disagreed with those of BLE. Even Tom's (W8JI) Please let me know if you'd like me to burn you a copy of BLE. Walt,W2DU PS--If any others reading this would like a copy of BLE let me know and I'll burn it for you. Article: 226926 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:02:58 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153513275.419453.70100@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> wrote in message > No. A ground can have transmission line effects. As such, it can modify > impedances. Bummer! I had no idea. > >> Hasan: Is it really possible to reduce ground losses to the absolute >> minimum and >> not have a corresponding increase in field strength? > > Tom: You are assuming a reduction of ground loss or an increase of ground > loss always indicates a certain resistance change at the feedpoint. > That assumption is not correct Hans. (Hasan) Bummer again! The field strength does change, but you are saying the feedpoint Z may not track it. > > All I'm saying is the feedpoint reistance change when using a 1/4 wl > series fed radiator does not correspond to change in field strength. I > know that to be absolutely true, because I and others have seen that > happen. Then we are left with no use for monitoring feedpoint resistance (other than matching). Bummer. All we can do is keep adding radials and watch the R drop until it gets boring. (Or is that not possible now, either?). Every vertical antenna (1/4 w), I've ever made and played the radial game with has behaved predictably with increasing numbers of radials...the feedpoint Z has always dropped asymptotically towards the Rrad of the vertical. Now I have to discard all that...or are you quoting the exception that doesn't invalidate the general nature of things? I'm getting that "too many variables to deal with" black magic feeling again. Things looked so reasonable for a while there...now it appears for all but the brave, it becomes nothing more than cramming a lot of wire into or onto the ground and hoping for the best. Not what I was hoping for at all. Bummer. Thanks for taking the time to explain parts of this, Tom. (even though it wasn't what I wanted to hear) 73, ...hasan, N0AN > > 73 Tom > Article: 226927 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:34:24 GMT H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: > "Cecil Moore" wrote in message > news:SX8wg.70802$Lm5.48261@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > >>Jim Kelley wrote: >> >>>There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less >>>responsive to charged particle noise than the other. >> >>What about all the web references that say precipitation >>static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from >>the charged particles in the air? >> >>Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire >>will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting >>an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending >>upon the insulation. >> >>After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing >>the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator. >>-- >>73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp > > > I once had a ladder line fed doublet. > It was disconnected at the feedthroughs because a thunderstorm was about ten > miles North. > I could pull 1 inch arcs off the feedthroughs to a grounded wire. > Made me think of Ben Franklin. > > 73 > H. > NQ5H > > A man could get killed fooling with that kind of stuff. It's a wonder Ben lived as long as he did. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 226928 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:04:54 +0100 Message-ID: <4bOdnZjKdoDhzVzZRVnygg@bt.com> "Walter Maxwell" wrote > The graphs reporting BLE's measurements are pretty conclusive. In addition, the > BLE paper is the basis on which the FCC set the requirements for the ground > systems on all AM BC stations since 1939 ========================================== Walt, where've you been lately? I have no doubt that BLE measurements are good and valid at LF and below. But to extrapolate conclusions up to HF, where amateurs reside, and where funny things happen to radials, is somewhat dangerous. I understand BLE forgot to measure ground resistivity and permittivity of the site. Perhaps because they thought it didn't matter very much. But such things certainly matter above about 3.5 MHz. At HF radials behave very differently from behaviour at LF if only because the ground 'constants' have changed from their DC and LF values (which are the values usually inserted in HF computer programs.) ---- Reg. Article: 226929 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:09:40 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com... > Radials Continued. > > Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue > of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical > antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) - > > - when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial > wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1 > inch), of length 10 metres - > > - in soil of typical resistivity = 150 ohm-metres and permittivity = > 16. > > But first I should like to ask, can NEC4 complete such a calculation > without human intervention or assistance? If yes then please > continue, perhaps keeping a record of the time involved. > > Using program RADIAL_3 the answer is - Radiating Efficiency = 86.0 > percent. > > If several of you participate, perhaps using different tools, it would > be interesting to compare results. By all means, join in! > > Thank you for your assistance. > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ. Reg, I made some changes to the antenna, but should not effect the result too much. The maximum number of junctions without a workaround is 36, so I reduced the number of radials to 36. Ok, I know that give 37 junctions, but doubt it will effect the result. I changed the vertical diameter to #14, since I had a warning with the 25 mm diameter. Again there are workarounds, but I did not want to spend all day figuring out segmentation and length tapering. You did not specify the frequency, but assume from the dimensions it is 7 MHz. I used 7.000 MHz. The input impedance is 27.33 - j 109 ohms. Since I am only learning how to use the program I don't know if NEC can provide the total radiated power. I computed the total radiated power by summing power density over a hemispherical region. For 100 W input I get a total radiated power of 30.5 W. It took me 90 minutes. Regards, Frank Article: 226930 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Richard Fry" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:29:37 -0500 Message-ID: <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> "Walter Maxwell" wrote (in part): >I've been reading the radials thread on the rraa, with the works of BLE >bandied >about. I have a copy of BLE in PDF that I can put on a CD and mail it to >you if >you don't have a copy, which I'd be pleased to do. ___________ All, Not to minimize the fine offer of Mr. Maxwell, any of you who might prefer to download a PDF of this BL&E "benchmark" paper with empirical data on buried radial ground systems vs radiation system efficiency can do so from the link following the text below, which I posted last December to some broadcast-oriented websites. N. B. for/to REG EDWARDS (G4FQP): I hope that you will be motivated to follow through on one or the other of these offers, and that you will post a comparison of the results of your ready-to-run, "radial_3" DOS program as compared to the BL&E datum, for equivalent conditions. RF +++ Link: Brown, Lewis & Epstein Paper on MW Ground Systems Richard Fry (rfry at adams.net ) Fri Dec 9 14:54:23 CST 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After some "back and forth," IEEE just gave me permission to post the benchmark 1937 paper by Brown, Lewis and Epstein about MW ground systems. Quite a few on RT and BC asked me earlier for this, but I had to hold off until it was possible. Now I hope all those who asked will see this posting, eventually, and view/download it from the link below. There are some restrictions on its use, as shown in the PDF. The file size is about 3.3 megs, so a fast connection will help. http://rfry.org/Software%20&%20Misc%20Papers.htm RF Article: 226931 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Re: Question for You Grounding Gurus References: <1153437176.242544.67620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1d40c21u5posa4ur8q0klqqj9ev63970e2@4ax.com> Message-ID: <3adwg.70876$Lm5.48683@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:10:56 GMT If not on the roof, then go UNDER the vehicle! secure them with many 1/2 hitches, around the bundle, and then tie off to the vehicle frame, on the front , and back bumpers (I'm assumeing that the roads you are paved (nothing to snag these on). IF light enough load, have also laid antennad, grounds, ect, in the saddle of the rear view mirror, attaching the other end to the rear bumper. Jim NN7K Bob Miller wrote: > On 20 Jul 2006 16:12:56 -0700, "Brian Kelly" wrote: > > >>I have to transport four U.S. standard 5/8" dia x 8' long ground rods >>35 miles in my four door compact car. Do not want to carry them on the >>roof. If I cut them to six feet long I can load them inside the car. >>Ignoring any code compliance issues would there be any reason the >>shortened rods would not work as well as full-length rods for purposes >>of ligtning protection and the usual HF station RF grounding? Soil here >>is probably very conductive (damp heavy loam). Thanks. >> >>Brian w3rv Article: 226932 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Kelley Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:48:21 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> >> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message >> news:SX8wg.70802$Lm5.48261@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >> >>> Jim Kelley wrote: >>> >>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less >>>> responsive to charged particle noise than the other. >>> >>> >>> What about all the web references that say precipitation >>> static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from >>> the charged particles in the air? I refuse to take responsibility for the things other people say. :-) >>> Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire >>> will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting >>> an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending >>> upon the insulation. Consider the nature of dielectric materials. I could be wrong, but I bet if you stuck a negative oxygen ion on the outside of a jacketed conductor, you could make the conductor inside think you had put an electron directly on it. >>> After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing >>> the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator. And air, which is an insulator, is also in contact with a bare wire antenna - presumably 'insulating' it. The difference is one of density (and dielectric constant). I suppose if you set up a big electric or magnetic field in the proper orientation, you could make a lot of the ions go away from an antenna. But controlling plasmas is kinda like herding cats. 73, ac6xg Article: 226933 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:52:18 -0500 Message-ID: <12c2q5h91128g45@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> "Jim Kelley" wrote in message news:e9rnau$f4t$1@news.service.uci.edu... >>> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message >>> news:SX8wg.70802$Lm5.48261@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... >>> >>>> Jim Kelley wrote: >>>> >>>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that one antenna is less >>>>> responsive to charged particle noise than the other. >>>> >>>> >>>> What about all the web references that say precipitation >>>> static can be decreased by insulating the antenna from >>>> the charged particles in the air? > > I refuse to take responsibility for the things other people say. :-) > >>>> Think about it. A charged particle hitting a bare wire >>>> will likely transfer a charge. A charged particle hitting >>>> an insulated wire may or may not transfer a charge depending >>>> upon the insulation. > > Consider the nature of dielectric materials. I could be wrong, but I bet > if you stuck a negative oxygen ion on the outside of a jacketed conductor, > you could make the conductor inside think you had put an electron directly > on it. > >>>> After all, air is an insulator. A charged particle missing >>>> the antenna entirely is in contact with that air insulator. > > And air, which is an insulator, is also in contact with a bare wire > antenna - presumably 'insulating' it. The difference is one of density > (and dielectric constant). > > I suppose if you set up a big electric or magnetic field in the proper > orientation, you could make a lot of the ions go away from an antenna. But > controlling plasmas is kinda like herding cats. > > 73, ac6xg > My first physics job was in fusion. Herding cats is trivial. 73 H. NQ5H PS I like my SteppIR. Now THAT's broadband and insulated. Article: 226934 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:27:50 GMT Hi Hasan, I have not forgotten your model. I am very interested in verifying the findings of Reg's program, so will get around to it. I will be very busy this weekend, so may not have a chance until the beginning of next week. I have been investigating some of the limitations of NEC, and 1 mm below ground is one of them (Not necessarily because of the depth, but segmentation issues). I will try and get as close to your model parameters as possible. This afternoon I was sidetracked by a challenge >from Reg, and spent about 90 minutes running a model similar to yours. Interestingly enough there appears to be a very large discrepancy between the programs. NEC 4.1 indicated only 30.5 % efficiency. (See later thread). Frank "hasan schiers" wrote in message news:e9qrnu$efd$1@news.netins.net... > Hi Frank, > > I think the general question became "can one use this Rrad value in > calculating efficiency". I'm waiting for Tom's response to my last > posting. > > On the other issue, radial length vs. usefulness, (I tried a diect mail > to you and it didn't make it cuz I forgot to take out the nospam part), > > here is what I want to know from NEC-4: > > Radial wire is #14 THHN inslulated wire. I approximated it at 2mm. The > antenna wire is 4 mm. For these purposes, you can probably forget that the > wire is insulated. > > Now...looking at radial length (assuming 26 radials), and given the > constants I previously provided, how long does a radial in this > configuration have to be, before it is no longer valuable to increase its > length. Tom says he measured significant current in a radial well beyond > where Reg's program says the current had diminished to insignifcant > levels. > > I would be MOST interested if you can confirm Tom's measurements. If NEC-4 > says there is substantial radial current where Reg's program says there > isn't, then that is an important contradiction, putting Reg's model into > question. I'm giving more credibility to NEC-4 (properly used) than I am > to Reg's own design. If, however, we have two sources (one measurement > based: Tom, one model based: NEC-4), that say Reg's theory that radials > quickly approach maximum effectiveness over a MUCH shorter run than has > been previously understood (in moderate to very good soils), that > contradict Reg's algorithim. > > Having only looked at conclusions from BL&E, I can't say what their > measurements indicated in terms of radial current vs. length. Ian has > suggested that they did measure the radial current vs length and they > concur with Tom. So, if BL&E and Tom (both empirical), as well as NEC-4 > (model based), all say that important levels of current are present in > radials well beyond where Reg's program predicts, then there's only one > conclusion left. (Unless I'm missing something). > > This, to me, is much more interesting stuff than a month long peeing > contest over precipitation static.(which may be rearing its ugly head yet > again in the "double bazooka" thread. God help us! > > 73, and thanks for your comments and efforts to help me understand what is > going on. > > ...hasan, N0AN > "Frank's" wrote in message > news:ZO5wg.115459$A8.61548@clgrps12... >> > I understand there are measurement issues (and certainly assumption >> issues >>> for Rrad). Isn't is fairly certain that increasing the number of radials >>> (of proper length) until the feedpoint R (at resonance, at the antenna) >>> no longer drops, is a reasonable approximation of "high efficiency"? The >>> only issue I see, is determining the target Rrad to compare it to when >>> trying to "estimate" efficiency. >>> >>> Are you saying (for example), that the feedpoint R of a 1/4 w vertical >>> against perfect ground cannot be reliably estimated at 37 ohms? If it >>> can, then isn't 37/R a measure of efficiency? >>> >>> Again, I'm thinking of the efficiency of the ground system... I have no >>> way to look at field strength. >>> >>> Is it really possible to reduce ground losses to the absolute minimum >>> and not have a corresponding increase in field strength? >>> >>> This is starting to turn into "black magic" for me. I can understand >>> questioning a particular "number" for efficiency based on the simplistic >>> Rrad/R formula. If the implications go further...indicating there is no >>> meaning to Rrad/R, then I'm lost. >>> >>> Perhaps the issue is that it's known how to maximize efficiency, it's >>> just completely unknown what that efficiency really is, and there is no >>> simple way to measure it. If that's what your saying, then I understand. >>> >>> That position does seem to muddy up the "how many radials and of what >>> length" efficiency info presented in ON4UN's book and referenced in >>> other texts. They all seem to acccept some sort of accuracy for the >>> Rrad/R formula with 1/4 w verticals. If I understand you correctly, the >>> formula is rejected outright as hopelessly simplistic, and of no >>> particular value. >>> >>> Do I have it now? If so, I'll refrain from using it in the future. >> >> I had always assumed that a NEC model of a perfectly conducting >> monopole above a perfect ground would provide the radiation >> resistance. For example, considering your antenna of 18.3 m >> at 3.62 MHz, the input impedance is 27.5 - j 64.7. The radiation >> resistance would therefore be 27.5 ohms. This appears to be >> fairly close to your estimate of 25.4 ohms. >> >> Frank >> > > Article: 226935 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153445966.021896.168260@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 01:27:52 GMT Hi Hasan, I have not forgotten your model. I am very interested in verifying the findings of Reg's program, so will get around to it. I will be very busy this weekend, so may not have a chance until the beginning of next week. I have been investigating some of the limitations of NEC, and 1 mm below ground is one of them (Not necessarily because of the depth, but segmentation issues). I will try and get as close to your model parameters as possible. This afternoon I was sidetracked by a challenge >from Reg, and spent about 90 minutes running a model similar to yours. Interestingly enough there appears to be a very large discrepancy between the programs. NEC 4.1 indicated only 30.5 % efficiency. (See later thread). Frank "hasan schiers" wrote in message news:e9qrnu$efd$1@news.netins.net... > Hi Frank, > > I think the general question became "can one use this Rrad value in > calculating efficiency". I'm waiting for Tom's response to my last > posting. > > On the other issue, radial length vs. usefulness, (I tried a diect mail > to you and it didn't make it cuz I forgot to take out the nospam part), > > here is what I want to know from NEC-4: > > Radial wire is #14 THHN inslulated wire. I approximated it at 2mm. The > antenna wire is 4 mm. For these purposes, you can probably forget that the > wire is insulated. > > Now...looking at radial length (assuming 26 radials), and given the > constants I previously provided, how long does a radial in this > configuration have to be, before it is no longer valuable to increase its > length. Tom says he measured significant current in a radial well beyond > where Reg's program says the current had diminished to insignifcant > levels. > > I would be MOST interested if you can confirm Tom's measurements. If NEC-4 > says there is substantial radial current where Reg's program says there > isn't, then that is an important contradiction, putting Reg's model into > question. I'm giving more credibility to NEC-4 (properly used) than I am > to Reg's own design. If, however, we have two sources (one measurement > based: Tom, one model based: NEC-4), that say Reg's theory that radials > quickly approach maximum effectiveness over a MUCH shorter run than has > been previously understood (in moderate to very good soils), that > contradict Reg's algorithim. > > Having only looked at conclusions from BL&E, I can't say what their > measurements indicated in terms of radial current vs. length. Ian has > suggested that they did measure the radial current vs length and they > concur with Tom. So, if BL&E and Tom (both empirical), as well as NEC-4 > (model based), all say that important levels of current are present in > radials well beyond where Reg's program predicts, then there's only one > conclusion left. (Unless I'm missing something). > > This, to me, is much more interesting stuff than a month long peeing > contest over precipitation static.(which may be rearing its ugly head yet > again in the "double bazooka" thread. God help us! > > 73, and thanks for your comments and efforts to help me understand what is > going on. > > ...hasan, N0AN > "Frank's" wrote in message > news:ZO5wg.115459$A8.61548@clgrps12... >> > I understand there are measurement issues (and certainly assumption >> issues >>> for Rrad). Isn't is fairly certain that increasing the number of radials >>> (of proper length) until the feedpoint R (at resonance, at the antenna) >>> no longer drops, is a reasonable approximation of "high efficiency"? The >>> only issue I see, is determining the target Rrad to compare it to when >>> trying to "estimate" efficiency. >>> >>> Are you saying (for example), that the feedpoint R of a 1/4 w vertical >>> against perfect ground cannot be reliably estimated at 37 ohms? If it >>> can, then isn't 37/R a measure of efficiency? >>> >>> Again, I'm thinking of the efficiency of the ground system... I have no >>> way to look at field strength. >>> >>> Is it really possible to reduce ground losses to the absolute minimum >>> and not have a corresponding increase in field strength? >>> >>> This is starting to turn into "black magic" for me. I can understand >>> questioning a particular "number" for efficiency based on the simplistic >>> Rrad/R formula. If the implications go further...indicating there is no >>> meaning to Rrad/R, then I'm lost. >>> >>> Perhaps the issue is that it's known how to maximize efficiency, it's >>> just completely unknown what that efficiency really is, and there is no >>> simple way to measure it. If that's what your saying, then I understand. >>> >>> That position does seem to muddy up the "how many radials and of what >>> length" efficiency info presented in ON4UN's book and referenced in >>> other texts. They all seem to acccept some sort of accuracy for the >>> Rrad/R formula with 1/4 w verticals. If I understand you correctly, the >>> formula is rejected outright as hopelessly simplistic, and of no >>> particular value. >>> >>> Do I have it now? If so, I'll refrain from using it in the future. >> >> I had always assumed that a NEC model of a perfectly conducting >> monopole above a perfect ground would provide the radiation >> resistance. For example, considering your antenna of 18.3 m >> at 3.62 MHz, the input impedance is 27.5 - j 64.7. The radiation >> resistance would therefore be 27.5 ohms. This appears to be >> fairly close to your estimate of 25.4 ohms. >> >> Frank >> > > Article: 226936 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:25:49 GMT H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: > I once had a ladder line fed doublet. > It was disconnected at the feedthroughs because a thunderstorm was about ten > miles North. > I could pull 1 inch arcs off the feedthroughs to a grounded wire. > Made me think of Ben Franklin. For sure, a gradient is established by thunderstorms resulting in all sorts of electrical and magnetic phenomena. But the particular type of noise I am talking about is precipitation static caused by charged particles hitting a bare wire dipole when one element of the dipole is floating. In particular, this type of noise can occur in the Arizona desert when there is not a cloud in the sky. Here is how "precipitation static" is defined: http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html "ATIS is a United States based body that is committed to rapidly developing and promoting technical and operations standards for the communications and related information technologies industry worldwide using a pragmatic, flexible and open approach. ATIS is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226937 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <44c13394.25596671@news.optonline.net> Message-ID: <_4gwg.177021$F_3.106731@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:30:18 GMT Rick wrote: > How are you planning on mounting the alum. tubing at ground level? > And what, if any, means are you considering to provide for tipping it > over? > I wonder if it is practical to install say, 4X4 posts in the ground > about 5 inches apart, with another 4X4 as the vertical support for > the aluminum pole. The aluminum pole bolted to the 8 foot long 4X4 at > about the 6 foot level. Would the wood detune the antenna? I have mine with the bottom mounted at 20 ft using 2x4s. The tubing is isolated from the 2x4s by a sleeve of PVC pipe. There is no noticeable detuning by the wood support. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226938 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:46:37 GMT Jim Kelley wrote: > Consider the nature of dielectric materials. I could be wrong, but I > bet if you stuck a negative oxygen ion on the outside of a jacketed > conductor, you could make the conductor inside think you had put an > electron directly on it. The question is whether the electron stays on the insulation or migrates through it to the conductor. The size of the charge Vs the dielectric determines how much of the charge actually reaches the conductor. When I went from bare wire to 600v insulation, my precipitation static problems decreased considerably. Then when I went to 1000v insulation and a full wave loop, most of my precipitation static problems disappeared. The worst case of precipitation static seems to be for airplane antennas. Insulation is the recommended cure although folding is also mentioned. Please do a web search for "precipitation static" and see for yourself. http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226939 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 02:52:30 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue > of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical > antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) - > - when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial > wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1 > inch), of length 10 metres - Would it help to model this in EZNEC with the radials 1/1000 of a wavelength above ground? Just heard a funny line on Stargate SG-1 on TV: "This planet is as dead as a Texas salad bar." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226940 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:28:20 -0600 From: Hank Zoeller Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Message-ID: <44c19aed$0$9929$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > When I bought my aluminum tubing from Texas Towers, they had > a computer program that calculated and specified all of the above. > > http://www.texastowers.com Cool! Does it calculate the size to use based on expected wind speed? I looked around on their web site and didn't find a calculator so it must be something they do with you on the phone? I'll call 'em Monday and see what they have to say. Thanks for the tip! -- 73, Hank Article: 226941 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:29:12 -0600 From: Hank Zoeller Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <1153487941.423112.110110@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44c19b1f$0$9929$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> n3ox.dan@gmail.com wrote: > The windload on a piece of tubing of a given height is proportional to > the radius, but the stiffness of a piece of tubing is proportional to > the fourth power of radius. Thanks, Dan, this is really useful info -- just what I was looking for. What do you think of having the bottom 12 feet be 2" diameter by 0.25" thick tubing? If I went up another say 16 feet with 0.059 thick tubing properly telescoped do you think I'll need guy ropes? I've been thinking of overlapping the thin tubing in such a way that there would always be two layers of it for the entire length of the antenna. It would seem to me it would be much stronger without increasing the wind loading at all. Thank you for your insights. -- 73, Hank Article: 226942 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:30:01 -0600 From: Hank Zoeller Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <44c13394.25596671@news.optonline.net> Message-ID: <44c19b4f$0$9929$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Rick wrote: > How are you planning on mounting the alum. tubing at ground level? > And what, if any, means are you considering to provide for tipping it > over? I haven't yet decided how I'm going to mount this thing. Now, I'm leaning toward (pun intended) a larger size of tubing than I initially thought. Once I make a final determination on the tubing size then I'll turn my attention to the mount. Fortunately, I have a machine shop so I ought to be able to fabricate something worthy. As to the detuning, I'm not concerned at all about resonance as I'll have a 1-kw antenna coupler mounted at the base of the vertical. I would be concerned about other effects so I'll likely make the mount with as small an electrical footprint as possible. The fold-over idea is good. I think I'll probably make two of these things, one about 30 feet high and another about 16 feet high for the upper HF bands. It would be cool to be able to switch them out easily.. -- 73, Hank Article: 226943 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:54:17 -0700 Message-ID: <12c38bfbououk00@corp.supernews.com> References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> For about 20 - 25 years I've had four verticals of about 33 foot height in my back yard. They're free standing, no guys. They went through one wind storm with gusts in the 80 mph range, and all other weather, without damage. Each is made of three pieces of telescoping 6061-T6 tubing, 1-1/4, 1-1/8, and 1 inch diameter. The support is an 8 foot chain link fence line pole (about 1-1/2 inch diameter, steel), driven 4 feet into the clay ground. The antenna element is clamped to it with muffler clamps, insulated with a couple of slices of thick wall plastic conduit about 1/4 inch thick. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Hank Zoeller wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm contemplating putting up a vertical antenna for HF use. I'm looking > at an approximate height of 30 feet or so. I am thinking of using > aluminum tubing (0.058" wall) in a 'telescoping' manner. Here are my > questions (so far): > > 1) Diameter. For wind resistance, should I start with something like 1 > inch diameter and work down to 3/8 inch? Would the antenna be stronger > if I started with 2 inch diameter and worked down to 1-3/8 inch? > > It would seem to me that the larger diameter might be better able to > withstand wind but it would also offer more resistance to wind possibly > negating the additional strength. But, I have no experience to draw > from. So, fat or slim? > > 2) I am planning a set of guy ropes at about the 12 foot level, a bit > over 1/3 height. Is there a better height for guy ropes? I can put as > much concrete in the ground as I like, and a very robust mount system is > possible. Is there any way to make an unguyed 30 footer that isn't a > tower form factor? Something like making the bottom 12 feet or so from > 2 inch diameter, 1/4 inch wall tubing and then light weight tubing from > there up to full height? Article: 226944 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 04:15:31 GMT "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:Opgwg.177026$F_3.116781@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Reg Edwards wrote: >> Perhaps some kind person who has been able to afford the latest issue >> of NEC4 could calculate the radiating efficiency of a typical vertical >> antenna of height 9 metres (29.5 feet) and diameter 50mm (2 inches) - >> - when fed against a ground system of 50 uniformly distributed radial >> wires, each 1.64mm in diameter (14 AWG) buried to a depth of 25mm (1 >> inch), of length 10 metres - > > Would it help to model this in EZNEC with the radials 1/1000 > of a wavelength above ground? > > Just heard a funny line on Stargate SG-1 on TV: > "This planet is as dead as a Texas salad bar." > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Ground planes above ground can approximate the results >from buried radials. The wires should be several wire diameters above the ground, and not < 10^(-6) wavelengths -- providing that a finite ground, Sommerfeld/Norton method, is used. The reflection coefficient approximation will produce large errors. 73, Frank Article: 226945 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:39:41 +0100 Message-ID: <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Frank, Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have - Number of radials = 36 Length of radials = 10 m Diameter of radials = 2 mm Frequency = 7 MHz Antenna height = 9 m Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres Ground permittivity = 16 IMPORTANT: If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be very pleased to know what it is. Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation. Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known formula - Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials ) provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out. Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance. Altogether different. ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 226946 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "ferrymanr" References: Subject: Re: Diamond X-300 poor SWR on 2M OK on 70cm Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:20:21 +0100 Message-ID: Problem solved! After removing the grub screw in the base I extracted the complete element. Checked capacitors and soldered joints - all OK. Cleaned mild tarnish off all element sections and matching sections. Took apart joints where grub screws are fitted and cleaned mating surfaces. All the grub screws were tight so had not worked loose. Also cleaned mating surface between feed and aradial/mount boss. Reassembled and re-erected. Now working fine. Seems probable that there can be come minor corrosion in joints with grub screws and og the element itself. A good clean up every two or three years would be a good move to prevent losses creeping in. 73 de Richard (Dick) G4BBH Article: 226947 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 22 Jul 2006 03:38:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> an old friend wrote: > hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: > > Dirk wrote: > > > Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. > > > > > > :-( > > > > Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors. > > > > That trumps CW at any speed. > lol thank you for that I guess saving lives is saving lives only when it uses CW. Those firemen are way out of their league when compared to this bunch. Article: 226948 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: FA: 1-Day-Left: 5 Books: HAM RADIO, Electronics, IEEE, Extra Class, etc. Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 07:00:30 -0400 From: Cliff Message-ID: <220720060700301439%cliff@clsijososoa.com> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320007867054 Article: 226949 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <44c19aed$0$9929$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:33:35 GMT Hank Zoeller wrote: > Cool! Does it calculate the size to use based on expected wind speed? As I remember, you give them the wind speed and they give you back the specifications. They ran the program for me while I was standing there in the lobby wondering what size to buy. I requested a self-supporting 33 ft monopole rated at 75 mph but changed my mind when I found out what that required - more than double the cost of a guyed monopole. Also building it out of six foot sections instead of 12 foot sections reduced the cost considerably. ME's probably understand why but, as a EE, I was surprised. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226950 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:40:21 GMT Frank wrote: > Ground planes above ground can approximate the results > from buried radials. The wires should be several wire diameters > above the ground, and not < 10^(-6) wavelengths -- providing > that a finite ground, Sommerfeld/Norton method, is used. > The reflection coefficient approximation will produce large errors. Here's what the EZNEC manual says: "Horizontal wires should not be placed exactly on the ground, but should be at least 1/1000 wavelength above (and in the case of EZNEC/4, also below) the ground." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226951 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff Dieterle" Subject: AM car radio reception Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:08:25 -0500 Message-ID: <8829a$44c214d9$4249808e$18884@COMTECK.COM> I posted a few months back about this problem and have narrowed down the root cause. The symptom are an overpowering hum at the low end of the am band. It's being caused by a 3-phase distribution line. I can follow this line in any direction for several miles any time of day with any of my vehicles and get the interference. I contacted the power company and supposedly they're going to look for the cause. Has anybody else dealt with this type of problem? Article: 226952 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff Dieterle" Subject: AM Car Radio Reception Problem Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:13:18 -0500 Message-ID: <614c9$44c215fe$4249808e$19378@COMTECK.COM> I posted regarding this a few months ago and since then have found the root cause of the reception. The symptoms are an overpowering hum at the low end of the am band. It is being caused by 3-phase power lines. I can follow the line for several miles in any direction with any of my vehicles and get the interference. I contacted the power company and they are supposedly looking for the cause. Has anybody had success getting this type of problem resolved? Do I have recourse if the power company doesn't fix the problem? Article: 226953 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: AM Car Radio Reception Problem References: <614c9$44c215fe$4249808e$19378@COMTECK.COM> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:29:39 GMT Jeff Dieterle wrote: > I posted regarding this a few months ago and since then have found the root > cause of the reception. The symptoms are an overpowering hum at the low end > of the am band. It is being caused by 3-phase power lines. BPL? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226954 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jozef" References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:41:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1153575632.821027@xwing.vermontel.net> I took scrap pieces of aluminum tubing lying around, not being particularly careful of sizes as along they fit snugly into adjacent pieces when they were slotted. I used hose clamps. I made it 33ft and 3 inches tall (1/4 wave on 40). It has 32 radials of various lengths for the non-WARC ham bands 40 meters and higher. 16 of them are 34 feet long for 40. SWR on 40 meters is 1.2 to 1 without any adjustment at 7100. The vertical covers the entire band. I use a Palstar AT1500CV transmatch on other bands and run 700 watts when needed. I can work anything I can hear and I work tons of DX. The antenna is very quiet for a vertical. The Palstar has no problem matching this vertical on all bands 40 through 6 meters including WARC though 12 meters is the trickiest. Works much DX on all bands whenever I try Peter I Island, Kiribati, etc., though I use other antennas on bands other than 40 cut appropriately. Cost of the antenna was $0.00. I used scrap tubing, scrap #12 or thicker radial wire, leftover rope for 3 guys at 18 feet, leftover 4BTV base. This antenna has been up for months on a hill at 1100 feet and survived 80 mph plus gusts. "Hank Zoeller" wrote in message news:44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > Hello everyone, > > I'm contemplating putting up a vertical antenna for HF use. I'm looking > at an approximate height of 30 feet or so. I am thinking of using > aluminum tubing (0.058" wall) in a 'telescoping' manner. Here are my > questions (so far): > > 1) Diameter. For wind resistance, should I start with something like 1 > inch diameter and work down to 3/8 inch? Would the antenna be stronger if > I started with 2 inch diameter and worked down to 1-3/8 inch? > > It would seem to me that the larger diameter might be better able to > withstand wind but it would also offer more resistance to wind possibly > negating the additional strength. But, I have no experience to draw from. > So, fat or slim? > > 2) I am planning a set of guy ropes at about the 12 foot level, a bit over > 1/3 height. Is there a better height for guy ropes? I can put as much > concrete in the ground as I like, and a very robust mount system is > possible. Is there any way to make an unguyed 30 footer that isn't a > tower form factor? Something like making the bottom 12 feet or so from 2 > inch diameter, 1/4 inch wall tubing and then light weight tubing from > there up to full height? > -- > 73, Hank Article: 226955 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jozef" References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:46:44 -0400 Message-ID: <1153575872.162681@r2d2.vermontel.net> I neglected to provide the following links: http://www.metaphoria.us/hamradio/40monoband.htm for the 40 meter monobander vertical http://www.metaphoria.us/hamradio/4BTV.htm for the base with radials. The radials are now covered by grass that I mow with a hand manual non-powered Scott's push mower. 73, Jozef WB2MIC "Hank Zoeller" wrote in message news:44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > Hello everyone, > > I'm contemplating putting up a vertical antenna for HF use. I'm looking > at an approximate height of 30 feet or so. I am thinking of using > aluminum tubing (0.058" wall) in a 'telescoping' manner. Here are my > questions (so far): > > 1) Diameter. For wind resistance, should I start with something like 1 > inch diameter and work down to 3/8 inch? Would the antenna be stronger if > I started with 2 inch diameter and worked down to 1-3/8 inch? > > It would seem to me that the larger diameter might be better able to > withstand wind but it would also offer more resistance to wind possibly > negating the additional strength. But, I have no experience to draw from. > So, fat or slim? > > 2) I am planning a set of guy ropes at about the 12 foot level, a bit over > 1/3 height. Is there a better height for guy ropes? I can put as much > concrete in the ground as I like, and a very robust mount system is > possible. Is there any way to make an unguyed 30 footer that isn't a > tower form factor? Something like making the bottom 12 feet or so from 2 > inch diameter, 1/4 inch wall tubing and then light weight tubing from > there up to full height? > -- > 73, Hank Article: 226956 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dale Parfitt" References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> <74Lvg.15453$A8.9001@trnddc02> Subject: Re: A/B Switching Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:54:34 GMT "Win" wrote in message news:vv50c2t7qjb1tunbpvid94sbuluc9osi46@4ax.com... > On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:56:35 GMT, "Dale Parfitt" > wrote: > >> >>"Win" wrote in message >>news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >>>I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to >>> make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this >>> A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the >>> other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end >>> (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B >>> switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage >>> the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. >>> >>> I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some >>> point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same >>> frequency. >>> >>> Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from >>> 200 watts, will survive without damage? >>> >>> Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? >>> >>> Win, W0LZ >> >>My concern would be the port- port isolation of the A/B switch. Depending >>on >>the mfg, they're all over the map. >> >>Dale W4OP >> > > Dale, the one I have is a XS201, cast iron, much like the MFJ. I > would consider buying a better switch, though, if you could recommend > one. > > Win, w0lz Hi Win, I have little expereience with the different manufactures of HF switches. My experience is in relays for 1296 MHz LNA protection- and the port-port isolation is all over the board. Ask the manufacturers if they have this spec. Dale W4OP Article: 226957 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <4bo9p3-d44.ln1@mail.specsol.com> From: jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <1153575632.821027@xwing.vermontel.net> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:15:02 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Jozef wrote: > > I took scrap pieces of aluminum tubing lying around, not being particularly > > careful of sizes as along they fit snugly into adjacent pieces when they > > were slotted. I used hose clamps. I made it 33ft and 3 inches tall (1/4 > > wave on 40)... The Palstar has no problem > > matching this vertical on all bands 40 through 6 meters including WARC > > though 12 meters is the trickiest. > That antenna is 5/8 wavelength on ~17.5 MHz. Above 21 MHz, > most of the radiation is lost at a high elevation angle. > Such an antenna is a poor performer on 15m, 12m, 10m, and > 6m. Matching doesn't mean much for a monopole appreciably > longer than 5/8 wavelength. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp I have an almost identical vertical with a relay controlled loading coil I switch in for 160 and 80M and a SGC tuner. Works great 160 to 30M. Marginal at 20M and goes to poor from there up. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Article: 226958 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Galen, W8LNA" Subject: Re: AM Car Radio Reception Problem References: <614c9$44c215fe$4249808e$19378@COMTECK.COM> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:28:41 GMT Jeff Dieterle wrote: > ...Do I have recourse if the power company doesn't fix the problem? > > You should also contact the station managers at the AM stations you listen to. Tell them where their signal is being interfered with, what it sounds like, that it seems to be following power lines (if it does), etc. If it is BPL having broadcasters not so happy about it could be a very good thing. If it's not BPL it should be fixed anyway and broadcasters have a little more pull with utility companies than individuals. Lawyers on retainer, ya know. Article: 226959 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jozef" References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <1153575632.821027@xwing.vermontel.net> Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:46:58 -0400 Message-ID: <1153579486.960236@r2d2.vermontel.net> I understand that which is why in my original post I said, "Works much DX on all bands whenever I try Peter I Island, Kiribati, etc., though I use other antennas on bands other than 40 cut appropriately." Perhaps, you missed that? Theory granted, you're also make a case against success. It works. Though as you suggest, with handicaps. "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:Ebqwg.133521$dW3.43774@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > Jozef wrote: >> I took scrap pieces of aluminum tubing lying around, not being >> particularly careful of sizes as along they fit snugly into adjacent >> pieces when they were slotted. I used hose clamps. I made it 33ft and 3 >> inches tall (1/4 wave on 40)... The Palstar has no problem >> matching this vertical on all bands 40 through 6 meters including WARC >> though 12 meters is the trickiest. > > That antenna is 5/8 wavelength on ~17.5 MHz. Above 21 MHz, > most of the radiation is lost at a high elevation angle. > Such an antenna is a poor performer on 15m, 12m, 10m, and > 6m. Matching doesn't mean much for a monopole appreciably > longer than 5/8 wavelength. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226960 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: <0Uqwg.124465$I61.76247@clgrps13> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:47:24 GMT > Here's what the EZNEC manual says: "Horizontal wires should not > be placed exactly on the ground, but should be at least 1/1000 > wavelength above (and in the case of EZNEC/4, also below) the > ground." Cecil, Probably the 1/1000 WL limit contains a safety margin. This does not appear to be addressed by either the NEC 2, or NEC 4 user manual. Cebik's book "Intermediate Antenna Modeling", p 1-12, states: "The minimum height for wires above a Sommerfeld-Norton ground has two dimensions. The first relates the height above ground limit to the wire radius. The wire height (h) should be several times the wire radius (a), that is, h>~a. As well, the minimum height is related to the wavelength for the frequency in use: (h^2 + a^2)^(1/2)>10^(-6)Lambda. If a is very small compared to h, the wires may approach 10^(-6) Lambda toward ground. ......reflection Coefficient approximation.... ... the general recommendation is that ...... horizontal wires should be (>) 0.4 Lambda above ground". Obviously, from the manual quote, EZNEC can invoke a Sommerfeld-Norton ground. Since I do not have GNEC I usually test my NEC 4 models with NEC-Win Pro. Interestingly NEC-Win Pro actually runs, with no errors, on below ground wires. The results are usually pretty weird though. 73, Frank Article: 226961 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:56:25 -0600 From: Hank Zoeller Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <12c38bfbououk00@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <44c23d21$0$4898$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Roy Lewallen wrote: > For about 20 - 25 years I've had four verticals of about 33 foot height > in my back yard. They're free standing, no guys. They went through one > wind storm with gusts in the 80 mph range, and all other weather, > without damage. Each is made of three pieces of telescoping 6061-T6 > tubing, 1-1/4, 1-1/8, and 1 inch diameter. [trimmed] Roy, Thank you very much. There's nothing like tapping the experience of others. I'm really happy to hear I can build a freestanding vertical! (But, I'll buy some spare aluminum anyway..) -- 73, Hank Article: 226962 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:56:31 -0600 From: Hank Zoeller Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <1153575872.162681@r2d2.vermontel.net> Message-ID: <44c23d25$0$4898$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Jozef wrote: > I neglected to provide the following links: > > http://www.metaphoria.us/hamradio/40monoband.htm for the 40 meter > monobander vertical > http://www.metaphoria.us/hamradio/4BTV.htm for the base with radials. The > radials are now covered by grass that I mow with a hand manual non-powered > Scott's push mower. Jozef, What did you use for staples for the radials? Thanks, -- 73, Hank Article: 226963 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: AM car radio reception References: <8829a$44c214d9$4249808e$18884@COMTECK.COM> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:11:06 GMT Jeff Dieterle wrote: > I posted a few months back about this problem and have narrowed down the > root cause. The symptom are an overpowering hum at the low end of the am > band. It's being caused by a 3-phase distribution line. I can follow this > line in any direction for several miles any time of day with any of my > vehicles and get the interference. I contacted the power company and > supposedly they're going to look for the cause. Has anybody else dealt with > this type of problem? > > Jeff, This sounds like simple overload of the receiver by 60 Hz fields rather than any sort of "interference", BPL or otherwise. I have certainly observed this hum at times, and I suspect most people have. For the most part power companies in the US are permitted to use 60 Hz rather freely. There may be no chance for recourse. It is possible that the 3 phases are not well balanced along this stretch of line. One phase could be overloaded or close to overload. That could lead to stronger 60 Hz fields. Power companies usually try to maintain some degree of balance between phases, along with power factor correction, but there are probably exceptions. 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 226964 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers If Necesssary. Date: 22 Jul 2006 08:21:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1153581694.723384.301720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1152976976.776663.120710@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> lloyd_n0vfp@yahoo.com wrote: bless you and may you find peace Article: 226965 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: Re: A/B Switching Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 10:28:12 -0500 Message-ID: <7pg4c2lqljt8at8ejauvsfufm1tho5ashb@4ax.com> References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> <74Lvg.15453$A8.9001@trnddc02> Thanks, Dale. I will do that. So far, I have found, as you said, the claims are all over the board. In the data sheets I have been able to locate, I have seen numbers from 20db to 80db down. Something in the area of 80db would sure do the trick, if I can believe them, HI. Win, W0LZl On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:54:34 GMT, "Dale Parfitt" wrote: > >"Win" wrote in message >news:vv50c2t7qjb1tunbpvid94sbuluc9osi46@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:56:35 GMT, "Dale Parfitt" >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Win" wrote in message >>>news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >>>>I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to >>>> make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this >>>> A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the >>>> other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end >>>> (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B >>>> switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage >>>> the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. >>>> >>>> I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some >>>> point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same >>>> frequency. >>>> >>>> Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from >>>> 200 watts, will survive without damage? >>>> >>>> Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? >>>> >>>> Win, W0LZ >>> >>>My concern would be the port- port isolation of the A/B switch. Depending >>>on >>>the mfg, they're all over the map. >>> >>>Dale W4OP >>> >> >> Dale, the one I have is a XS201, cast iron, much like the MFJ. I >> would consider buying a better switch, though, if you could recommend >> one. >> >> Win, w0lz > > >Hi Win, >I have little expereience with the different manufactures of HF switches. My >experience is in relays for 1296 MHz LNA protection- and the port-port >isolation is all over the board. >Ask the manufacturers if they have this spec. >Dale W4OP > Article: 226966 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: AM car radio reception Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:37:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <8829a$44c214d9$4249808e$18884@COMTECK.COM> >> I posted a few months back about this problem and have narrowed down the >> root cause. The symptom are an overpowering hum at the low end of the am >> band. It's being caused by a 3-phase distribution line. I can follow this >> line in any direction for several miles any time of day with any of my >> vehicles and get the interference. I contacted the power company and >> supposedly they're going to look for the cause. Has anybody else dealt >> with this type of problem? Surely this is normal on AM near power lines, particularly high voltage ones. Jeff Article: 226967 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:48:41 GMT > Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have - > > Number of radials = 36 > Length of radials = 10 m > Diameter of radials = 2 mm > Frequency = 7 MHz > Antenna height = 9 m > Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG > Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres > Ground permittivity = 16 > > IMPORTANT: > > If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be > very pleased to know what it is. > > Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the > radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation. > > Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known > formula - > > Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials ) > > provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out. > > Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a > hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance. > Altogether different. Correct Reg, Those are the parameters I used, with the exception that the radials were also # 14 AWG (1.64 mm). You raise some interesting points -- How do I measure the radial impedance? I have to think; given a vector network analyzer, how would I measure a radial system under laboratory conditions? this is what I need to replicate with NEC. Since I have never made such a measurement, I am not sure where to begin. Would it be valid to consider one radial wire as an "End fed zepp", and feed one end with an ideal transmission line? As long as I know the current, and voltage at the measurement point, I can determine the input impedance -- problem is; voltage input with reference to what? As for the reactive input; this is of little concern to NEC since it drives the load from a complex conjugate source. So far as I have been able to determine NEC does not provide the total radiated power, only the normalized far field in peak "Volts" -- i.e. V/m at 1 meter, at every angular increment. Usually every degree. I take these data to determine the power density at each increment, and sum over a hemispherical region; where I take the elemental area to be: (r^2)*sin(theta)*d(theta)*d(phi). Since the pattern is symmetrical I only need 91 points. Frank Article: 226968 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700 Message-ID: <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: > an old friend wrote: > > hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: > > > Dirk wrote: > > > > Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. > > > > > > > > :-( > > > > > > Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors. > > > > > > That trumps CW at any speed. > > > lol thank you for that > > I guess saving lives is saving lives only when it uses CW. Those > firemen are way out of their league when compared to this bunch. the only thing that counts to them is CW not even the people using or r or the ARS or the nation not even the Ham Code matter to them only CW Article: 226969 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna Date: 22 Jul 2006 10:04:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1153587840.612199.312420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> Hank, Just wanted to add that you don't need 1/4 inch wall stuff anywhere in a 33 foot vertical. If you have it lying around you could use it, but the extra weight really isn't worth it. Same for reinforcing by thickening the tubing on the inside. A hollow tube 2" in diameter with 0.058" walls is about 3 times stiffer than a SOLID 1" rod. Now, strength and stiffness are two different things, but you're better taking the aluminum and making a fairly thin wall tube of large diameter if you're trying to make a strong, stiff element. For the price of one 12 foot 1/4" wall 2" tube you can buy the whole vertical in 2" 0.058 wall tubing and the next telescoping size for joints. 1/4" wall would be good if you're going to guy it and put a tribander on top! I'd go with Roy's vertical design, in fact. My antenna was a mess of found aluminum, tent poles, etc. Might have even been 7/8" now that I think of it. This means that Roy's bottom section, if 0.058 wall 1.25" diameter 6061 was at LEAST 3 times as stiff as my 7/8" OD 3/4" ID 1/16" wall stuff, and that's assuming I was using a good, stiff grade of aluminum, which I wasn't. Incidentally, Cecil, I think the 12 footers are more expensive because you can UPS ship 6 footers anywhere and can't do that with 12 footers... it may be that it's just cheaper to keep the 6 footers in stock because the market is bigger. Could also be that it's cheaper for TX Towers to get them in .... dunno. It's too bad though, 12 foot continuous sections would be good for this sort of thing. 73, Dan Article: 226970 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:42:21 -0400 On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: >not even the Ham Code matter to them only CW Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? Article: 226971 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:08:46 GMT Al Klein wrote: > How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? How honest is it to memorize Morse code? Or should Morse code be derived from first principles? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226972 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:27:39 +0100 Message-ID: Frank, So NEC4 cannot calculate input impedance of the radial system and we have almost reached a dead end. Would it be possible to insert a loading coil ( 2.48 uH ) at the bottom of the antenna to tune out its input reactance ( which is what my program does.) Then repeat the efficiency calculation and tell me what you get. ---- Reg. Article: 226973 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 14:36:43 -0500 Message-ID: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:OQtwg.177124$F_3.62543@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Al Klein wrote: >> How honest is it to memorize answers to a test? > > How honest is it to memorize Morse code? Or should > Morse code be derived from first principles? > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Lets face it folks to be a well rounded Ham one should learn CW. You never know when it will come in handy. I am not that good at it, maybe a step or less above a Novice, but I like to fool around with it. One ought to think about learning it in do time even though it is not required. My 2 cents worth. Article: 226974 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Al Klein wrote: > On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" > wrote: > > >not even the Ham Code matter to them only CW > > Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to > a test? absolutely and conpletely honest how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? How progressive is it? how freindly is it to advocate keeping the bands for yourself based on your own self interest? how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more operators to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf by focusing on CW? how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community? Article: 226975 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Guy Atkins" Subject: Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:34:39 -0700 Message-ID: Those with an interest in building a Wellbrook ALA 100 setup for use on an antenna rotator may want to check out my most recent blog entry (July 22nd). I have pictures and construction details that describe the way I approached the project. I believe the ALA 100 is the most flexible and useful Wellbrook model for the do-it-yourselfer. You can construct the loop in whatever manner suits your abilities and requirements. My use of the ALA 100 is primarily for DXing foreign medium wave signals, with a secondary use of hearing third-world broadcasters on the tropical bands. I've heard of some amateur radio operators using Wellbrook antennas for a receive-only solution, too. 73, Guy Atkins Puyallup, WA USA blog: www.sdr-1000.blogspot.com Article: 226976 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:49:49 -0400 From: jawod Subject: QST's Louisiana Loop Message-ID: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's QST. It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can model it on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a dipole or two). I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in a sort of temporary fashion. Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over Alaska. Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first antenna build? I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to use RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an UNUN or Balun in the article. What do youse think? Thinks? John AB8WH PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) Article: 226977 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 22 Jul 2006 13:56:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1153601805.792891.317790@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Slow Code wrote: > hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote in > news:1153435123.460895.216170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com: > > > > > CW kills. > > > Survival of the fittest. > > The fit get a ham license. guess you have not been a hamfest lately Article: 226978 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: GerryG Subject: Re: Antenna optimization Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:44:09 -0600 Message-ID: References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> Sound like why I bought a copy of MultiNEC. The Excel interface allows me to "sweep" the values of any parameters. I start coarse, and 2-3 sweeps allow me to narrow down and optimize f/b and swr. By writing some Excel extensions, you could have this done semi-automatically. I've done this for some circuit design programs, where they look up and use standard component values. Howsoever you do it, remember to check your final figures for sensitivities by putting in reasonable measurement tolerances, or you may end up with a theoretical result that just won't happen. Gerry K7ATS On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:37:32 +0200, "JC" wrote: >Thanks for help, I think I wrongly explained my problem, here is the >question: >1/ I design an antenna, for instance a 3 el 20m beam. >2/ I enter into EZNEC wires dimensions, spacing, height, source..... >3/ EZNEC calculates gain, F/B, SWR....and results are acceptable. >4/ Now let's suppose my objectives are max F/B as I have a QRM source >opposed to my favourite transmitting direction and SWR< 1.5 on a given >frequency range as my transceiver is very SWR sensitive and I can't use an >antenna tuner. >I accept changing wire lengths and spacing but not boom length. >Is there a way to have EZNEC, or another software, doing automatic >iterations until it reaches the best F/B-SWR compromise ? > >JC - F8ND Article: 226979 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: jgboyles@aol.com Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop Date: 22 Jul 2006 14:45:15 -0700 Message-ID: <1153604715.292035.274210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> jawod wrote: > I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's QST. > It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can model > it on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a dipole > or two). > > I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in a > sort of temporary fashion. > > Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over > Alaska. > > Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first > antenna build? > > I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to use > RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an UNUN or > Balun in the article. > > What do youse think? Thinks? > > John > AB8WH > > PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) Hi John, The model does not account for the metal tower right in the middle of the delta loop. It will have some effect on the feedpoint impedance, as well as the pattern. If I were to string it up among trees, I would go with a standard (not inverted) delta loop configuration. According to the article, it gives about 1 db more forward gain at an elevation angle that might favor dx. You won't have to worry about a tower messing things up either. As for feeding the loop, consult the ARRL Antenna book for the various methods. For a single band Quad or delta loop, I would use a series transmission line matching transformer. Thats what I think. Gary N4AST Article: 226980 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Walter Maxwell Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: <1s45c2lbdapuni21gfs28hckqbfgc34rb8@4ax.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4bOdnZjKdoDhzVzZRVnygg@bt.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:04:52 -0400 On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:04:54 +0100, "Reg Edwards" wrote: > >"Walter Maxwell" wrote >> The graphs reporting BLE's measurements are pretty conclusive. In >addition, the >> BLE paper is the basis on which the FCC set the requirements for the >ground >> systems on all AM BC stations since 1939 > >========================================== > >Walt, where've you been lately? > >I have no doubt that BLE measurements are good and valid at LF and >below. But to extrapolate conclusions up to HF, where amateurs reside, >and where funny things happen to radials, is somewhat dangerous. > >I understand BLE forgot to measure ground resistivity and permittivity >of the site. Perhaps because they thought it didn't matter very much. >But such things certainly matter above about 3.5 MHz. At HF radials >behave very differently from behaviour at LF if only because the >ground 'constants' have changed from their DC and LF values (which are >the values usually inserted in HF computer programs.) >---- >Reg. > Hi Reg, I'll admit to being away from rraa for quite a while. A good bit of the time away was while finishing the writings for Reflections 3, which includes several new chapters, some of which archive a portion of my escapades in designing antennas for various spacecraft, including those that flew on the World's first weather satellite, TIROS 1. I was fortunate in being at the right place at the right time when the space age began. Those were the years I spent with Jess Epstein, the 'E' of the BLE team. Some of the additional material that went into Reflections 3 is available on my web page at www.w2du.com. I think you might find Chapters 19A and 21A of interest. >From eavesdropping on the banter between you and Richard C it's easy to see that your winery has kept your mental physique it top shape. I hope that your physical physique continues at least in its present condition. Getting now to BLE, I agree with you concerning the changes in ground characteristics at HF compared with MF and LF. I don't know if you have a copy of BLE, but you should know that the BLE experiments were performed at 3 MHz. Please let me know if you have BLE, because I'd like to email you a copy if you don't. It will demonstrate the hundreds of measurements taken meticulously to arrive at the conclusions reported in their paper of 1937. Of the many results of various combinations of radial lengths and numbers of radials, the one that that stands out in my mind is the combination of the longest radial, 0.412 lambda, with the maximum number or radials, 113. This combination achieved near-perfect ground, yielding a field strength of 192 mv/m, as compared to the theoretical maximum of 196 mv/m, achieved with perfect ground. The reference for these numbers is 1000 watts delivered to the antenna and measured at 1 mile. Notice that the difference between the ideal and actual field strengths is only 2 percent. Reg, concerning the difference in ground characteristics with frequencies above 3.5 MHz, please consider this. When the radials are long enough, and enough of them spaced sufficiently close, the effect is that of nearly perfect ground, regardless of the actual ground characteristics beneath the radials. Let's consider a comparison. First, few radials widely spaced. Displacement currents reach the ground everywhere surrounding the vertical radiator. Currents entering the ground between the radials diffract toward the nearest radial of higher conductivity. During its travel toward the radial it naturally encounters the resistance of the ground. However, with many radials more closely spaced, currents now entering the ground have a shorter resistance path in reaching the nearest radial, approaching a negligible value. My point is that when there is a sufficient number of radials of sufficient length to approach a nearly-perfect ground, the ground characteristics beneath the radials are irrelevant within the area they cover in determining the terminal impedance and efficiency of the radiator. Therefore, the different gr ound characteristics that prevail as the frequency increases above 3.5 MHz are also irrelevant. This is not to say that the ground characteristics away from the immediate area are not important. You might get a chuckle concerning the number of radials being 113. The original plan was to plow in 100 radials. When the grunts Jess Epstein and Bob Lewis had plowed in the intended 100 there was wire left over on the spool. They asked Brown what they should do with the remaining wire, he said, "Plow it in." The remainder of the wire allowed just 13 more radials to be plowed in. On a personal note, I engineered and built WCEN in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 500 w on 1150 Kc (it was 'Kc' then), with a 300' Blau-Knox tower. I plowed in 120 radials. My Dad manufactured the plow, which I rode, while he drove the tractor. Hope this keeps ya busy fer a while, Walt, W2DU Article: 226981 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Re: AM Car Radio Reception Problem References: <614c9$44c215fe$4249808e$19378@COMTECK.COM> Message-ID: <0sxwg.11231$2v.2451@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:15:24 GMT Galen, W8LNA wrote: > Jeff Dieterle wrote: > >> ...Do I have recourse if the power company doesn't fix the problem? >> >> Keep in mind, also that the high tension lines are NOT necessarily owned (or even controlled by utilities! Further, some of these are feeders for the interstate power grids, in the U.S./Canada. For example, B.P.A. , or Bonneville Power Administration, is a Federal agency, generateing , and selling their power to various utilities. One, that I have had experience with is the 500KV line they ran to Malin, Oregon, from the Columbia River dams! A telephone line paralleling it for about 4 miles, could measure 400 Volts of Escape (induction) at a office 25 miles away! Also, many of these are D.C. (not A.C), to avoid the situation just described (power loss via radiation/induction)- these can run hundreds of miles! There can be other things also, can cause problems with open wire circuits paralleling broadcast stations (yeh, I Know, it ain't supposed to happen, especially in transposed circuits)! In sum total, you may have to investigate just WHO owns this line, and contact THEM- Your local utility may have little to do with them- except use the energy they supply! Jim NN7K Article: 226982 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Dan Richardson Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:16:29 -0700 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4bOdnZjKdoDhzVzZRVnygg@bt.com> <1s45c2lbdapuni21gfs28hckqbfgc34rb8@4ax.com> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:04:52 -0400, Walter Maxwell wrote: [snip] > >Getting now to BLE, I agree with you concerning the changes in ground >characteristics at HF compared with MF and LF. I don't know if you have a copy >of BLE, but you should know that the BLE experiments were performed at 3 MHz. >Please let me know if you have BLE, because I'd like to email you a copy if you >don't. It will demonstrate the hundreds of measurements taken meticulously to >arrive at the conclusions reported in their paper of 1937. > Hi Walter, nice to see you back. For Reg, or anyone else for that matter, the BLE paper is available at http://k6mhe.com/BLE.html 73, Danny, K6MHE Article: 226983 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:34:00 -0400 On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" >> wrote: >> Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to >> a test? >absolutely and conpletely honest By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions and know the answers. By memorizing the answers you're not learning enough to understand the questions. But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. >how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is putting the law "over all ham knowledge". >How progressive is it? How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. >how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more >operators What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) > to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a radio. >how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be >ready for service to conutry and community? How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be ready for service to conutry and community"? Or any skill, other than getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something that requires no skill. And you, particularly, don't acquire knowledge by demanding something for nothing. Article: 226984 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1153435123.460895.216170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:34:56 -0400 On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote: >The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and shortwave >listening. No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the loud get anything they want. Article: 226985 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 03:53:54 +0100 Message-ID: > Frank, > > So NEC4 cannot calculate input impedance of the radial system and we > have almost reached a dead end. > > Would it be possible to insert a loading coil ( 2.48 uH ) at the > bottom of the antenna to tune out its input reactance ( which is what > my program does.) > > Then repeat the efficiency calculation and tell me what you get. > ---- > Reg. > =================================== Frank, Alternatively, or in addition to, you could shift frequency nearer to 8.3 MHz where the antenna is resonant and its input reactance is zero. And again do the efficiency calculation. Tell me what the efficiency is and the frequency. Also the antenna input resistance. You will see I am desperately trying to localise the discrepancy in efficiency. It is either in the radials or in the antenna. You should also learn something about NEC4. ---- Reg. Article: 226986 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 22 Jul 2006 20:06:09 -0700 Message-ID: <1153623969.274562.324210@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Al Klein wrote: > On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" > wrote: > > >Al Klein wrote: > >> On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" > >> wrote: > > >> Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to > >> a test? > > >absolutely and conpletely honest > > By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions > and know the answers. By memorizing the answers you're not learning > enough to understand the questions. no, one is claiming they can pass the test which is the only requirement > > But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. I do know what honesty means and you don't employ it > > >how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? > > No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is > putting the law "over all ham knowledge" you certainly are but no one is required to know the law at all merely happpening to obey it is enough the current system place CW over all over modes combined any statement to the contary is dishonest . > > >How progressive is it? > > How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, > that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses > because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. try that agin is english if you please best I can make out is another of your snide (and unfreindly and illcosidered) slaps at newer ops that have obeyed the rules > > >how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more > >operators > > What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who > don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) you statement makes no sense since obviously anyone that has a radio and can turn it on knows at least the first thing ,if he/she can get on the air he know a few more > > > to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf > > You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a > radio. knowledge is needed why? It is helpfull I grant you but needed vs experence well that is Bullshit I know more I supect about radio and RF than you having studied EM waves and their proerty at the College level and yet this knowledge is only mildly usefull if I am on the HF bands as I often am for Feild day or something to be a more effective operator I need expernce at HF not knowledge of circuts > > >how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be > >ready for service to conutry and community? > > How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be > ready for service to conutry and community"? what is playing CB mean? other than then pejoritive >Or any skill, other than > getting what you want? babble all you like > You don't acquire skill by doing something > that requires no skill. so you are claiming this is NO skill in passing traffic at HF I think I could find people that woluld disagree with you > And you, particularly, don't acquire > knowledge by demanding something for nothing. no knowledge is aquired by learning Morse Code certainly no secert of the unverse is derived for it No one is suggesting that ANYONE be given something for nothing but it is a requirement of law that restictions in access to PUBLIC reasources must be reasonable in nature knowledge of Morse code is not realected to prevelegdes it brings ask the Armmy how many CW opperators it uses in routine affairs, the answer is zero (intel is not for this prupose routine nor is specail ops) Article: 226987 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: miso@sushi.com Subject: Re: Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details Date: 22 Jul 2006 20:41:41 -0700 Message-ID: <1153626101.333721.76850@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: Guy Atkins wrote: > Those with an interest in building a Wellbrook ALA 100 setup for use on an > antenna rotator may want to check out my most recent blog entry (July 22nd). > I have pictures and construction details that describe the way I approached > the project. > > I believe the ALA 100 is the most flexible and useful Wellbrook model for > the do-it-yourselfer. You can construct the loop in whatever manner suits > your abilities and requirements. > > My use of the ALA 100 is primarily for DXing foreign medium wave signals, > with a secondary use of hearing third-world broadcasters on the tropical > bands. I've heard of some amateur radio operators using Wellbrook antennas > for a receive-only solution, too. > > 73, > > Guy Atkins > Puyallup, WA USA > blog: www.sdr-1000.blogspot.com Ah, so your loops are concentric. I ran my parallel. Did you discuss this with Andy? Article: 226988 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Cutting cable length to match 1/4 wave 162 MHz antenna? Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 21:11:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: <59ywg.3365$bP5.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:03:29 GMT, "Robert Haston" wrote: >I'm moving a 162 MHz (marine band ship tracker - AIS) receiver to within a >couple feet of its quarter wave ground plane antenna. >Is there a certain cable length I should use to tune for maximum gain? Hi Robert, The shortest line would have the most gain. However, in all practicality, if you are not talking a great distance, it doesn't really matter much for receive from an antenna suited for the band you are listening to. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226989 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Guy Atkins" References: <1153626101.333721.76850@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:09:58 -0700 Message-ID: I did mention the spiral configuration to him, but he didn't comment on it. The construction seemed to be easier, so it's the only style I considered >from the start. Guy wrote in message news:1153626101.333721.76850@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Ah, so your loops are concentric. I ran my parallel. Did you discuss > this with Andy? > Article: 226990 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4bOdnZjKdoDhzVzZRVnygg@bt.com> <1s45c2lbdapuni21gfs28hckqbfgc34rb8@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:24:02 +0100 Message-ID: > >"Walter Maxwell" wrote > >> The graphs reporting BLE's measurements are pretty conclusive. In > >addition, the > >> BLE paper is the basis on which the FCC set the requirements for the > >ground > >> systems on all AM BC stations since 1939 > > > >========================================== > My point is that when there is a sufficient number of radials of sufficient > length to approach a nearly-perfect ground, the ground characteristics beneath > the radials are irrelevant within the area they cover in determining the > terminal impedance and efficiency of the radiator. Therefore, the different gr > ound characteristics that prevail as the frequency increases above 3.5 MHz are > also irrelevant. > > Walt, W2DU ============================================ Dear Walt, At risk of upsetting a great number of patriotic USA citizens, all BLE hero-worshippers, I admit to having speed-read BLE's lengthy paper some years back. Their conclusion, that with a sufficiant number and length of radials the ground characteristics are irrelevant, is so glaringly apparent they could have stayed in their offices and saved a great deal of expense and copper wire. I am reminded of John Cleese's remark "They must have had first-class honors degrees in stating the bleeding obvious". Because BL&E omitted to measure ground conductivity and permittivity on the site their conclusion amounted to making a virtue out of a vice and Marzipan the Magician's magic number of 120 came into existence. Their sponsors should have made them go back to finish the job. In the absence of any other information at the time, the fact of irrelevance was of interest to LF and MF broadcasters with money to burn, but it was, and still is, of no use to radio amateurs, confined to the HF bands with limited purses, small back yards and XYL's to keep happy. My small program Radial_3 has been singled out and I have been accused of disagreeing in a disruptive, almost criminal manner with BL&E's conclusions. This is patently untrue! The program has nothing to do with BL&E except that it deals with a similar subject in terms appropriate to amateurs and draws its own independent conclusions. Your absence caused a little worry. Glad to hear you were only working. ---- Reg. Article: 226991 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44c31238$0$31800$626a54ce@news.free.fr> From: F8BOE Subject: Re: Cutting cable length to match 1/4 wave 162 MHz antenna? Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:07:52 +0200 References: <59ywg.3365$bP5.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> No. Robert Haston wrote: > I'm moving a 162 MHz (marine band ship tracker - AIS) receiver to within a > couple feet of its quarter wave ground plane antenna. > > > Is there a certain cable length I should use to tune for maximum gain? > Article: 226992 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details Date: 22 Jul 2006 23:27:19 -0700 Message-ID: <1153636039.570195.170200@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: GA, Nice design and execution of the Wellbrook ALA 100 Loop Antenna as a portable and point-able (rotate) Antenna. A Close-Up Look : The Wellbrook ALA 100 Antenna with Rotor http://www.sdr-1000.blogspot.com/ The most flexible Wellbrook Antenna for the Radio Antenna Experimenter. ~ RHF . . . . Guy Atkins wrote: > Those with an interest in building a Wellbrook ALA 100 setup for use on an > antenna rotator may want to check out my most recent blog entry (July 22nd). > I have pictures and construction details that describe the way I approached > the project. > > I believe the ALA 100 is the most flexible and useful Wellbrook model for > the do-it-yourselfer. You can construct the loop in whatever manner suits > your abilities and requirements. > > My use of the ALA 100 is primarily for DXing foreign medium wave signals, > with a secondary use of hearing third-world broadcasters on the tropical > bands. I've heard of some amateur radio operators using Wellbrook antennas > for a receive-only solution, too. > > 73, > > Guy Atkins > Puyallup, WA USA > blog: www.sdr-1000.blogspot.com Article: 226993 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:04:30 +0100 Message-ID: "Richard Fry" wrote > N. B. for/to REG EDWARDS (G4FQP): I hope that you will be motivated to > follow through on one or the other of these offers, and that you will post a > comparison of the results of your ready-to-run, "radial_3" DOS program as > compared to the BL&E datum, for equivalent conditions. > ========================================= What equivalent conditions? Where can they be found? What was the ground resistivity and permittivity on BL&E's site? I am not motivated to do anything except reply to your remarks. You are making a song and dance about it. If anybody wishes to confirm or deny the usefulness of program Radial_3 then all they have to do is do what I have done and bury a few ( not 120 ) wires in their back yard and get on the HF bands. Proof of the pudding lies in the eating! ---- Reg. Article: 226994 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff Dieterle" References: <8829a$44c214d9$4249808e$18884@COMTECK.COM> Subject: Re: AM car radio reception Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 09:10:20 -0500 Message-ID: sorry about the double post I live in a rural area that is full of 3-phase transmission lines and only this particular 2 mile square section has noticeable interference. The power lines are owned by a small rural coop utility company so I think they are motivated to resolve the problem if it is theirs. What are the references to BPL? thanks "Jeff" wrote in message news:e9tgml$db1$1@nntp.aioe.org... >>> I posted a few months back about this problem and have narrowed down the >>> root cause. The symptom are an overpowering hum at the low end of the am >>> band. It's being caused by a 3-phase distribution line. I can follow >>> this line in any direction for several miles any time of day with any of >>> my vehicles and get the interference. I contacted the power company and >>> supposedly they're going to look for the cause. Has anybody else dealt >>> with this type of problem? > > Surely this is normal on AM near power lines, particularly high voltage > ones. > > Jeff > Article: 226995 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:29:41 -0500 Message-ID: <12c6ue4q97ojt10@corp.supernews.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4bOdnZjKdoDhzVzZRVnygg@bt.com> <1s45c2lbdapuni21gfs28hckqbfgc34rb8@4ax.com> Hi Walt Reading the words "plow it in" made me chuckle. I always had the same attitude building AM broadcast antennas. If there was wire left over, I'd "plow it in". 73 H. NQ5H "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message news:1s45c2lbdapuni21gfs28hckqbfgc34rb8@4ax.com... > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:04:54 +0100, "Reg Edwards" > > wrote: > >> >>"Walter Maxwell" wrote >>> The graphs reporting BLE's measurements are pretty conclusive. In >>addition, the >>> BLE paper is the basis on which the FCC set the requirements for the >>ground >>> systems on all AM BC stations since 1939 >> >>========================================== >> >>Walt, where've you been lately? >> >>I have no doubt that BLE measurements are good and valid at LF and >>below. But to extrapolate conclusions up to HF, where amateurs reside, >>and where funny things happen to radials, is somewhat dangerous. >> >>I understand BLE forgot to measure ground resistivity and permittivity >>of the site. Perhaps because they thought it didn't matter very much. >>But such things certainly matter above about 3.5 MHz. At HF radials >>behave very differently from behaviour at LF if only because the >>ground 'constants' have changed from their DC and LF values (which are >>the values usually inserted in HF computer programs.) >>---- >>Reg. >> > Hi Reg, > > I'll admit to being away from rraa for quite a while. A good bit of the > time > away was while finishing the writings for Reflections 3, which includes > several > new chapters, some of which archive a portion of my escapades in designing > antennas for various spacecraft, including those that flew on the World's > first > weather satellite, TIROS 1. I was fortunate in being at the right place at > the > right time when the space age began. Those were the years I spent with > Jess > Epstein, the 'E' of the BLE team. Some of the additional material that > went into > Reflections 3 is available on my web page at www.w2du.com. I think you > might > find Chapters 19A and 21A of interest. > > From eavesdropping on the banter between you and Richard C it's easy to > see that > your winery has kept your mental physique it top shape. I hope that your > physical physique continues at least in its present condition. > > Getting now to BLE, I agree with you concerning the changes in ground > characteristics at HF compared with MF and LF. I don't know if you have a > copy > of BLE, but you should know that the BLE experiments were performed at 3 > MHz. > Please let me know if you have BLE, because I'd like to email you a copy > if you > don't. It will demonstrate the hundreds of measurements taken meticulously > to > arrive at the conclusions reported in their paper of 1937. > > Of the many results of various combinations of radial lengths and numbers > of > radials, the one that that stands out in my mind is the combination of the > longest radial, 0.412 lambda, with the maximum number or radials, 113. > This > combination achieved near-perfect ground, yielding a field strength of 192 > mv/m, > as compared to the theoretical maximum of 196 mv/m, achieved with perfect > ground. The reference for these numbers is 1000 watts delivered to the > antenna > and measured at 1 mile. Notice that the difference between the ideal and > actual > field strengths is only 2 percent. > > Reg, concerning the difference in ground characteristics with frequencies > above > 3.5 MHz, please consider this. When the radials are long enough, and > enough of > them spaced sufficiently close, the effect is that of nearly perfect > ground, > regardless of the actual ground characteristics beneath the radials. Let's > consider a comparison. First, few radials widely spaced. Displacement > currents > reach the ground everywhere surrounding the vertical radiator. Currents > entering > the ground between the radials diffract toward the nearest radial of > higher > conductivity. During its travel toward the radial it naturally encounters > the > resistance of the ground. However, with many radials more closely spaced, > currents now entering the ground have a shorter resistance path in > reaching the > nearest radial, approaching a negligible value. > > My point is that when there is a sufficient number of radials of > sufficient > length to approach a nearly-perfect ground, the ground characteristics > beneath > the radials are irrelevant within the area they cover in determining the > terminal impedance and efficiency of the radiator. Therefore, the > different gr > ound characteristics that prevail as the frequency increases above 3.5 > MHz are > also irrelevant. This is not to say that the ground characteristics away > from > the immediate area are not important. > > You might get a chuckle concerning the number of radials being 113. The > original > plan was to plow in 100 radials. When the grunts Jess Epstein and Bob > Lewis had > plowed in the intended 100 there was wire left over on the spool. They > asked > Brown what they should do with the remaining wire, he said, "Plow it in." > The > remainder of the wire allowed just 13 more radials to be plowed in. > > On a personal note, I engineered and built WCEN in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, > 500 w > on 1150 Kc (it was 'Kc' then), with a 300' Blau-Knox tower. I plowed in > 120 > radials. My Dad manufactured the plow, which I rode, while he drove the > tractor. > > Hope this keeps ya busy fer a while, > > Walt, W2DU > > > Article: 226996 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:38:51 -0500 Message-ID: <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only get a handle on upper and lower bounds. Lower bound: I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a plane) and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions). Upper (infinite sheet of copper) As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from Reg's post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting plane" of our elementary physics books. Cheers and beers H. 73, NQ5H Article: 226997 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700 Message-ID: <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Al Klein wrote: > On 22 Jul 2006 12:45:02 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" > wrote: > > >Al Klein wrote: > >> On 22 Jul 2006 09:02:12 -0700, "an old friend" > >> wrote: > > >> Part of that code is honesty. How honest is it to memorize answers to > >> a test? > > >absolutely and conpletely honest > > By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions > and know the answers. By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must memorize the answers. No one is claiming any such thing. > By memorizing the answers you're not learning > enough to understand the questions. > > But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. Why not? > >how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? > > No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is > putting the law "over all ham knowledge". CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska). > >How progressive is it? > > How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, > that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses > because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se guys want to "beef up" the written exams? > >how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more > >operators > > What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who > don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already assembled. (and Get a context clue: deny). > > to aquire the expence needed to truely work on hf > > You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a > radio. Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years "training" radio operators. > >how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be > >ready for service to conutry and community? > > How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be > ready for service to conutry and community"? Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it? > Or any skill, other than > getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something > that requires no skill. So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all? > And you, particularly, don't acquire > knowledge by demanding something for nothing. The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means of communicating. Get over it. Everyone else is moving on. Article: 226998 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:33:27 +0100 Message-ID: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote > I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only get a > handle on upper and lower bounds. > Lower bound: > I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a plane) > and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions). > > Upper (infinite sheet of copper) > As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from Reg's > post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting plane" of > our elementary physics books. > Cheers and beers ========================================== Yes Adam, a logical way of looking at it. Associated with any number there is always another number which is sometimes, but not often enough, used to describe its uncertainty. But nearly always it takes much longer to determine the uncertainty than it does to arrive at the first number, especially if the first number is the result of a measurement. ---- Reg. Article: 226999 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Walter Maxwell Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: <1n47c2lfn2pjvjobvlmbd7qe5n42c85sns@4ax.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4bOdnZjKdoDhzVzZRVnygg@bt.com> <1s45c2lbdapuni21gfs28hckqbfgc34rb8@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:55:17 -0400 On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:24:02 +0100, "Reg Edwards" wrote: > >> >"Walter Maxwell" wrote >> >> The graphs reporting BLE's measurements are pretty conclusive. In >> >addition, the >> >> BLE paper is the basis on which the FCC set the requirements for >the >> >ground >> >> systems on all AM BC stations since 1939 >> > >> >========================================== >> My point is that when there is a sufficient number of radials of >sufficient >> length to approach a nearly-perfect ground, the ground >characteristics beneath >> the radials are irrelevant within the area they cover in determining >the >> terminal impedance and efficiency of the radiator. Therefore, the >different gr >> ound characteristics that prevail as the frequency increases above >3.5 MHz are >> also irrelevant. > >> Walt, W2DU >============================================ > >Dear Walt, > >At risk of upsetting a great number of patriotic USA citizens, all BLE >hero-worshippers, I admit to having speed-read BLE's lengthy paper >some years back. Their conclusion, that with a sufficiant number and >length of radials the ground characteristics are irrelevant, is so >glaringly apparent they could have stayed in their offices and saved a >great deal of expense and copper wire. I am reminded of John Cleese's >remark "They must have had first-class honors degrees in stating the >bleeding obvious". > >Because BL&E omitted to measure ground conductivity and permittivity >on the site their conclusion amounted to making a virtue out of a vice >and Marzipan the Magician's magic number of 120 came into existence. >Their sponsors should have made them go back to finish the job. > >In the absence of any other information at the time, the fact of >irrelevance was of interest to LF and MF broadcasters with money to >burn, but it was, and still is, of no use to radio amateurs, confined >to the HF bands with limited purses, small back yards and XYL's to >keep happy. > >My small program Radial_3 has been singled out and I have been accused >of disagreeing in a disruptive, almost criminal manner with BL&E's >conclusions. This is patently untrue! The program has nothing to do >with BL&E except that it deals with a similar subject in terms >appropriate to amateurs and draws its own independent conclusions. > >Your absence caused a little worry. Glad to hear you were only >working. >---- >Reg. > Reg, I appreciate your worry about my absence. However, concerning the 'obviousness' of the conditions when there are enough radials to simulate perfect ground, you must remember that it was not 'obvious' in 1937. Prior to that time most BC 'aerials' were in the form of a 'T', a horizontal wire (top-hat loading) supported by two towers, dangling a vertical wire (the radiator) from the center, down to the antenna tuner. The 'ground' system was a wire counterpoise, because very little was known about any other type of 'ground' to work the vertical against. Brown originated the concept of radials to improve the conductivity (meaning reducing the resistance) of the ground, simply to avoid the construction of a messy arrangement of wires to get tangled up in. But before presenting the suggestion of radials to the world he proved it would work by performing the BLE experiment. Brown also is responsible for the tower antennas being of uniform shape over its entire length, where before it was customary to use the diamond shape. With the diamond shape the field strength measurements didn't follow the theory. Using models for measurements he determined that the current on the diamond shape does not flow uniformly, which resulted in undesirable radiation patterns. He then demonstated that when the tower construction was of uniform cross section the current became uniform and the radiation patterns became uniform and more predictable and useful. After proving the concept with models, he worked with John Leitch, chief engineer of WCAU Philadelphia, in proving that it worked with full-size towers. The WCAU tower was diamond shaped. The experiments with WCAU, and subsequently with a tower of uniform cross section, proved the concept to be correct. The result of Brown's experiment with the shape of the tower is that as of 1940, the FCC mandated use of towers with uniform cross section for all new installations. In addtion, no changes of any kind in the transmitting system were permitted in stations that didn't already have a tower with uniform cross section until the present antenna system was changed to one having uniform cross section. Brown's influence on BC antenna systems is legendary. He also patented the concept of using loading coils to shorten the physical length of towers. Some towers that followed his lead have insulators between sections and an inductance connecting them. Brown's article, "Directional Antennas," appearing in a 1937 issue of the IRE, formed the theoretical basis for all directional BC antennas Brown also invented and patented the ground plane antenna for VHF and UHF. All of his antenna experimentation was as an engineer with RCA. It was a great experience for me to have worked in Brown's antenna lab along with guys like Jess Epstein, O.M. Woodward, and Donald Peterson. Walt,W2DU Article: 227000 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Wayne" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:58:35 GMT These are very good points. I am reading these postings to try to understand the behavior of actual implementations that lie somewhere between the extremes you pointed out. In other words, what gets you the most bang for the buck.... How fast does performance change with increased radial length and number of radials. "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote in message news:12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com... > I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only get a > handle on upper and lower bounds. > Lower bound: > I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a > plane) and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions). > > Upper (infinite sheet of copper) > As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from Reg's > post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting plane" of > our elementary physics books. > Cheers and beers > H. > > 73, NQ5H > Article: 227001 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Richard Fry" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:14:40 -0500 Message-ID: <44c39fb5_3@newsfeed.slurp.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_011C_01C6AE49.30F66EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Reg Edwards" wrote > "Richard Fry" wrote >> N. B. for/to REG EDWARDS (G4FQP): I hope that you will be > >motivated to follow through on one or the other of these offers, >>and that you will post a comparison of the results of your >> ready-to-run, "radial_3" DOS program as compared to the >> BL&E datum, for equivalent conditions. > = = = > What equivalent conditions? Where can they be found? What was the > ground resistivity and permittivity on BL&E's site? > > I am not motivated to do anything except reply to your remarks. > ... > Reg. _______________ OK, I'll do it then. Attached is a plot of BL&E's numbers versus yours, for the conditions stated there. Ground resistivity and permittivity were estimated using the FCC's M-3 chart to select values of R and K at the BL&E test site from those shown in your program. Other parameters for radial_3 calculations were taken from the physical and electrical descriptions in the BL&E paper. The OD and depth of the radials were estimated. You and BL&E agree fairly well for a 90 degree vertical, but not well at all for a 20 degree vertical. I'll be glad to explain how I generated my plots, and even send you the spreadsheet, if you want. RF ------=_NextPart_000_011C_01C6AE49.30F66EA0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="BL&E vs radial_3.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BL&E vs radial_3.gif" R0lGODdhegL2AXcAACwAAAAAegL2AYcAAACAAAAAgACAgAAAAICAAIAAgIDAwMDA3MCmyvAAAAAQ EBAgICAwMDBAQEBQUFBgYGBwcHAzZv//AACAgICPj4+fn5+vr6+/v7/Pz8/f39////8AAACUDIgR CLAAAIQAAACEAk4AAAAAAAAAAAAVbSgS8szUxmX/B6MRCLAAAIQAAACEAk4AAAAS8ugKg7H/B6MR CLAAAIQAAACEAk4S80QS8vgKhcQS9FwS80QKhZQS9FwKhZwRCLBmdpgS8yzUiyZmdpj//+wAAAER CLAAAYQS82TUlIhmdpj//+zUlJERCLAAAYQAAAAS80ARCLAS9CTXBGfUlJj////UlJELD3gRCLD/ /+wS87wM9s8RCLARCLAVbSgAAAAAAAgAAHIAAFIAAAABN8PxkkCorhAS9gQS9eAAARIAABEAAAES 89gM/0QVxtARCLAAAAAAAAEAAAAS9DQS8+gKhcQS9FwS9DQKhZQS9FwKhZwRCLAVbSgAAAAM/pUA AAAVxtAAAAES9FzUuWsRCLAVbSgAAAALFeUS9Bz///8S9HjXBGfUuXD////UuWsKhisKhlkS9PAK hc0AAAAAAAIAAAAS+gwKhc0AAAES9FBAaIgS9QwLFeUKhmj///8KhlnUhzQRCLAAAIQAAACEAk4K hc26q80AAAAS9PAKhc0S9RzUi9n94AAS9RzUiFoS9NzUiCoAAAARCLAAAAEAABQAAAEAAAAAAAAA ABAAAAAAABQAAAEAAAAAAAES9NAAAAAS9WDXBGfUiDD////UiCrUtMAAAAAKhc0RCLAAAIQAAACE Ak5mdqzUtMsS9ggAAAAAAAEAAAEAAAES9UQAACAS97AAAEKfN+xAL2SerkyerkwAAAMS9bzxjykA ABgAAAAAAADxf6XxhDEFM44AAFQS+WAS+GzxjKEFM44AAFQS+WAS+aDxjKsAAAAAACgAAAAAAAAS 9giorjgS+aDxk7gAAAAAAAAAAACgoKSAgID/AAAA/wD//wAAAP//AP8A//////9YqUYI/wA3CBxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaPHjyBDihxJsqTJkyhTqlzJsqXLlzBjypxJs6bN mzhz6tzJs6fPn0CDCh1KtKjRo0iTKl3KtKnTp1CjSp1KtarVq1izat3KtavXr2DDih1LtqzZs2jT ql3Ltq3bt3Djyp1Lt67du3jz6t3Lt6/fv4ADCx5MuLDhw4gTK17MuLHjx5AjS55MubLly5gza97M ubPnz6BDix5NurTp06hTq17NurXr17Bjy04KoLZtBhQI1lYIYQGABREK2h6+G6Fvghga1IZA0IJy ALgFErdtsPh0AA1yS78OoDrxBhYaYv9wEBEDAPLct6d0Xju6wAwPaj/IINABAAwyrXdXWDwhe+ja zSYYdwH2Z5B9wzE3EHf7GRRfg+YN14BAFUwXXHrC7cegdgx6N52C/DXokH0XbIChgSRVSFxwG/hm 2wICXXBefhqKeBCKBak4HIsCAmZghTCqh1Bt+EWom40IJUedQPGxGF8FG9gH5QZGFsQAAOFlKORA EEC3ZYgEqYgfmA9p4KWJSLIkpUBGUgDAA0wCoN2VGsSEY0J3DrQmlXn2mBeK/fV5ZXgWnPklnlgG KuKMORoqUAQATKklmt4dOqSNbsIpEAUuzofmkpzKR1+jLObZ3wVXOpCBfkduZ8ECDMT/eCUDJSpU Yaz2jWkeeRtAKmmMbw4UX629/Qbika/GukGob466AarQyVjjQMx6SqlDt/rpo4huTmjpQNIqt0Ct 3xrUAH6KtqpnbQs4u4GZylZ6rUAadOltn+oOZGaQbg6H3nDLEscrQcOWW1yE7bG6YI21kYcwkQgh 2O6818qoKUHHSRckgrYdu13DAfvL5nVC9msbr/iu+5u72u7FnaR9YuDixEeSfOm6CnYp4sxjPhrp zZ9OV2uHk6rrW4mrTivQ0RskbRCdHwMsZHwKPvilfsHVGV+RwR7EM8XFwWtQl4QCoGBtdUrrXdYt AoB0cVQLpLOQTDtNcUJft9wXdzTn/2kecLVBGUGWRN8Ioc0E2YsxAHUaHrVtETQeNHHy5vtsBM8d egHmOCpKuZBo06sw6IwP5OKLvGEHdoM4WrxBwRvMOvilksfIeY2Nm6m07Znfnbq3erssogaQ3pvm Bsrhp7N9yqZcNJX2gbdAkEXLCLy8xb2q+sINobhvjKePfkH4SKbr+OpX7z55yrsZaH5Bvn3/3pXs Zmn5+J+7rzT+UjtvefB46Zz68qUzLJULaAYxE3kcsADJ9QdSAcJeg6R1Mf+hqFCaulIEMKC7LWmQ gwLk3vlC967RdRB9CWGgA7uTq5EN7E5dimFBMkCB+FBPhAL54AnjJzql6XB0B1EhDv8BGEBMnSlP V9KOjjTlPxyS6F32CU98NNWli7UQaAbq19CO9zztjak29FHRlsC4ATEWRDmjMtV+4hYl/eRGA1aj WNxkFK84UTFYmYqTdsx0vYEgjFy1eVv5FgWAMMLNbHJTGBnNiK8pJvJiRLwLg6aEoUIRh37/Qlzl ICWh94SPZm0jE4rsE6TCLexDKmNX6TrVxheVjmBuM9h+Hta7B+VPRA+LJUEy8MlRfRJcXXvab2CZ oMq1UpV1yqXCOPab0uGLl8MBZSTtcp0GwAxxF3hOdCzQPAyd71G+cc97HmStA17Le76Bkykfhx37 xWkBEFgVc7THKxvGE5FhAkCpjnf/qiups0E6OxcQn3WlBfxqIPARlb7I6SxfIQRSHisWPL/5znsq CFq0Gp095em7GTJ0miDNitgeArEyOqolUAupSlVzxYYwszYRZIl5ICmUda70plTZFUQgQD8G8Mgl LR2KTXFK1KIa9ahITapSl8rUpjr1qVCNqlSnStWqWvWqWM0qVTQZFQoUNKYfy9AAm6jVst6Eq08x WW1++jH7WXKsXDSrXHFCVqU8sUpHWsDAGDjQus71ry25U20KpSxuRitM07PkGBtkWFotDFoNcJb2 FAS1kbIzZidFU5fqZKa53U0/UgOsaF8ynVMGS1q2GRNql2S+1d6Hnd5abW7ItoFC/x3LmwUhJcvQ JCMoVUht62Pt50ZL3JWUdjvMqVPy+KQp5TCHk4sVyHJnitxnFSd5q4oVBl9nwImwi1zcU51yzolb k3qsuOgliWBfub5Slu6E5puOe0XovWFmzLShNQgdK7W1YPVVRLZNr4BNst6a9e+9owPtgemLJOUU qo/lZeAQ1UNYA/53IAEesIZFUuCBLPeM+uRujUrk2Q/n67puW1WQIKVBicSNsBJUGqD2k+EN29gj HQaWyGp73OdIzbUoY91+VntR24DXIbl0p5DsE+RDFeelN45yRnJMoYIei1MLUGzTlMMALZfRyjjs z2RrRhGMHllIFaIkXNkp5TbTyP8kyhmYm+ecFr9WxMF0zjNa7Ozdier5z4AOtKAHTehCG/rQiE60 ohfN6EY7eijZrE12GDLQ9YkzIsc1M7hmdeYurqwi94UWcB7d5rdCbiGVJpBElMmn4XDN1WTisTQj EkfXspXUA/bNmIBE0kHm84bYwieXECnDYgv7fIWa9UOU9GQ5yRrXN/YNWGV1WNIZ87Nc7VJBp1RZ L3W7jpVK9m6DO0gt22fC0E4vJ4FTO9du0VI/OmmEiVOidL3PcJa89WUbjC4kbTfdG1YriJy7AcWR 10PEUbJLY9mtebVPyCH6jW/GjWkbQZPiAC8us84G8YOL9TZnLq+W7N3xS7WrQnL/xu+SKApNhWd8 wP2KrsfVpb1bz5t7344dgsGdoSzh+eP5LVrLX65h30zpb9Il9vZSLaIW0xqReTQ2c6Qea6RbpD9G J7qG1TpYHafW2s+LEMaTRJxXfz2XX/T1sPXd60QOV+vEpcBzGgBeTYP9f5BKeUPsTtBq992x8LbR xCtSHPLFFe6I70gGeJ74xjfFAT1z6so7cnhUO/7yhF+QTSqP+c7rxnAaCpp0HG4dE5n+U6eMmnDO qXnPu/70nx99+2Qfetax3va4bz3oYM/512e8fJoPveltL3riByr4uue97H3veuAv//Tdyf3zYQ99 5I9e97VnfvOtP/zrRz/7lJJ+//enT8jrU1/7mF85a70/fIhHv/XqL7352x97Uk/n0pQe4EcqMHd3 EmcB0+YQCRVi8NN702SAH4GAgqZqDlFpyKF3EVFAHaNyx1Ym4fNTnpVUCsgRGxho8QZssYZqHYhh v5El2kM4EJJ1EQFRfDIwCIN+6TVj74EgkTUQFZBYCpMBNEgfn8N3g3VSUdQcjGIgMpJy5TVeB8EA 9INvsJIByZJGWNKETwiDSBVvyuJjZ2JqCoOFsUI57hY1NBVC2AZ0k2ci8PQbPOImXmZg2HEbj+Nj jEeFKsUdSmY3yhEc0HU3dtMfBGdwy/Euz3N35nQpxaQBsNJRgaM7FbCHkaKIdv8jh0R1f+CFAbez HZw1OpTYO++jH7WDbhfGhmXYdcnGXfWWJookY/oHiSGVPb7BI4USAYzYQ0LyirEoc3myJxQyhCJi PWSIIlcSXselLqcoiJXRe2+HJ+qFawbidGAEXH14ihkAXHyodMaDEMk2JSe4JRmgHAfVEF2SG/uF VsPocXxWGJwHKJSWjPaHS2REP83kdcKVQ660NPJhXbDWUW5XTJfVRw5hiMMRUx02jg7IGO9HHQUJ f+rxfqiXkGHVfp7zcalXhouGInnXNKnCUbWFg0qzeOfBUfREbYCHjwLxH+DBhvgHEdsIINcGdgI5 gn9xfKz3fNOikOM3e7RXfcT/Z340SZOqaH+xtyg4iZDFB38GyX6+g3sA45I9mWdASX0KuZPkp3zS J3zzJ5Wrt5Q+KZTYB31PyZDh55Xg55Tcx5NYyWhNaSPG932tMpMMKXwMM5YNWY5liWhNeZVzeZcY MUjHiJd82Zd++ZeAGZiCOZiEWZiGWYwPeSOKGXGp15ALeZhZOX7nV5WUWX9QKX5KCZl6hpaKmXs5 uXqYOZmaqYzoFpVQ2ZlwGXSj2WjOB5rWR5ZaeZnJt5oTuZjsN5WimZOyWZm0aWh1eZZcqXzVYZlW yZu9OWi3pHZf+ZmP45jxl5nHCW3QGZ3UWZ3WeZ3YmZ3aqRN66SFiVX/bCXfo/zh/uqmV4al1PMmZ 50eVVHmeL9ee6hmf3Oee4gme1feT80mfRFeXRol98qef6Gmf7Zmbjgl6tkEBCJqgCrqgDNqgDvqg EBqhEjqhFFqhFnqhGJqhGrqhHNqhHvqhIBqiIjqiJFqiDCoV/HmfsxmV3WMnLvqipAWjLjGdeZkf MtoSAagUKTqgzsecyAgTNHoRQSqkN8oSQ5p5QGqjSQoTOUobAlqVPbqiQ1KkxqWkMbqkV5qlWhpY MdGkSKGeYkmZ5dmiWDqjVmqmZcqlaaqmW8oSXnoU3fmdw9mYZPoSEnCneJqnejoSR4qkbVqlawqo gaoSfToRbypJMaGnirqojP+apxRRqN5FpYQqqSkBqRJhqRCBqQ9xqNREqQTRqKAaqnM6qJXqqSeh qQ14pmzqEpxaF6jKEKGKpwgRq7RKq5NKqijxqumIq7lqqibRqnShqwlRqxIwq7Z6EMRKrBzoqyUh rPzBrM0KrSMBrHPhrD+KErW6Acmarbv6p7fqraUqrRzWpYNhrVPKqwOxrep6p+IaEuZqm2iKrtHK pOXariChqevaqPMKrr0qr/sar6xar/7KpzChrMh6rHUKsKu6sAwrqAE7IPaagKp6rNyasA37rQp7 seH6EtQqF+86qhlrpAuBsA9Rsf3Kr6eqqiJLrxA7sOParrEKqyb7qSSLaRH/i2Mq67A4KrAoS2A5 CxExa7HDWrOZerOU97Mb+7BXIZGh6D42CxMTELU967MbQbTGWbVWi7Eam7RbexIdaxSfOaYqSlIx EbVm27UpGxLHiq/5qqj/irZUO7Uk8bVEIZ/42Z9km6RmK7VaC7dYK6orYbAE67IvK7fTurRXabeS WbRYurcTwLV+CxJZe68UsahXZ7RHS7ggQbdClbieO32Mu6WOm7aaK7HaGrSUKxGC260hq7Mry7GI e7f+OaCpGqijq46li7MHC7gaQaOMaqx6+rF2abiFq7RV0XFg+pP4wiDM27zO+7zM67jQO73UW73W e73Ym73NG6va273YS6ze/xu+4ju+5Fu+5kscnFu3Npm8cCm0rlsQt2u6uZu5qsu7tesSv7u7jroR wju8kSsS6QunUDqnPnquUxu/y4q5/JsRk3u1pKsQq/u085vAsGsViiumOnm/rXsQCDxlSHuyHFGz /SulDZG/karAvUuusRumkym2lke4HXy5KOzBJNHADyy5NnzDr2u8xytApkhmGvy/AxHDJzzBC6wS OSy/OJzEb7vDO9uyxAu/e0ukM1yjBYu6xcsS+7vBIPzEgTHCDswQRBzEQpy6W8rEEqzFblvGSuzF PjLDY/zCRpzCvIrGz3rFW9y376sSAcwWYCyaFBHHBhzFZszF+mvCacyla/8MuXucEn28Fn98pILs v2ysu4RcEFh8x1m6yHFryL/Ks548EZMcxp1cyfTLwJlMwknLybgbynMLyqYsxlOsyZdsya5cuUEb yQaRx60cyxvxyGqhyyIRx38MyIysx2qbyl2crsWqw42MEsBcZ1W8EERczMJcyxphx1Y8xzRcwV88 zbJ8tvbpy3SMzQmszYlcws1MwbcMwLDsxCQRv9YMzn7auuhMyw7By1Rszr/8zs8cEqM7z9y8za6s zKGbz6xcz+ScEdHsE0w7YynKugsdyLM80Pvczu6Ky6Cazuqsz0WM0ZuLFWG7lXhLxv8cz+LMz+UM 0m2s0RuNz0C7pzKs0gz/vcIlzZ6kTMknXRIVDc873cs+jREifBEJnbc0jRENvRMXrKKw6b7IXKmj nNEWPdMsXb/269Ls+tETfRFJrdQkHZvGDNM/PbhRbctbTdVnXbKI7NKPSs8U0dVK7bSW+Z8HndZt PcQ93cRjncVBnRJFHdN3fdRcXRIY8ADHAYFxy5w//JgGer6O/djOK72QPdmUXdmWfdnZq6iYvdmc jb1wXRCrZSLnZRAcuZeJzKOomdPX3LplfdF2rdV9DcJ/XcivLRGfTRBXYiTDtBDuqJqnPcCfG9bj vNdSjRCtHdhVfcq1nc6zDdhi/dTQrF5q6TyDd8Tm2cIZ7NTHvN14ndJm/x3bzgzd4X26smoRHp3T g+vNIZHbRJJZBlEo3bjPvzmqBQyvy13XCXHcRp3c7Hzf+33I6xzTMq3T4v3JI6GFP7MQKWnal+rD 8CqR18rf1t0Q+i3R4F3KF67XuzzgAs7Lq+3GIRFp2NFpwhSMQPHhGS7F3u3aKZ7eEr7SMnveELzI KL4St30RPCTAU63QD1Hh9t3ifE3ctN3R5d3hslrjfIwT8P2lbg3bEOHjw13gGs7d4x3jWW3kEoDk jkwSOmjihMjgXr3jyE3RK47fQt7SZ/7dEdHc+qvl0T0SL+U8ItcTbl7lT57XJi3lQJ3myo3VAa7O dW7gHKZLWhHoUy7KeP8uxy/ezYtO0ELN4RbO5xxx4/VRzJI+4Xbd2oa+53ru4tkM6REuEFeO4TbO 5Qww2hEH5tzZ5JcKElG96Z4O5MXtEaAOsqJe5Jy+5ffKvPnn5Q7N6hy9EZMM60He6cX+t7juv5ab 62+egLy+U90VFMQ+666e6Oh97Mt86TC+xMlemWzO6CCeE+7NE9M+5NVe5sJN6sZO7bJO1BzORd+O 1m4q3QSD2AkBXNIO7GYO0Hld7mi+7uY+Emt8ePHu5EnOp+Ungt/RuWJu8MNc0f6u5gD/7yURvFY+ 6pg+7yER5+zS67ZRg1dn4k0b0Yru33mO0mcb8X2u7eCOxLWOyd3e8qX/HhLKVIJlKra0G+kTL/Em AeUrv/M/T+Um8e0Yv+0zP+ibN5s4ne623u4UfxKO6/M8zvKO7vQSW/D9rfFZsaMZ3IEqn/UsEfVi z7fsTvUsbvb7jPUyf/A2Udq+jdyK29Q6L/SHvsxjL/ZgD/R5T/dNHO8xf/LNXhO9DeFaDabr1+oN j/jyevd47/DZrvcZH9TNrfaqHPg0Ud3Kzb7et7yd3fme3/mMH/WfP/qkX/qUHbzMi/qmP72ULkf2 ToLx7eiaL5nGqO//fdahj+dfH/mQz/swL+PkXfShrvXumvAKseBvr/jALbu1n/jB3vvUnPtk3+hn D/1rD+Az/vcErusg/8Hxu60Qgy+X46z5Sz/3j8/3zH7uuW/91Y/+sX7xf06z2n/tIXHjNZ9lDJHj YO+jLvzc7g8QGwQOJFjQ4MGCABAuZNjQoUKHESUunFDR4kWMEzUShLjR48OPIRl2FFmSY0gJKVUu XDnS5EuBFGA2BEBSogUAFWaePFjTpkCSPif+3KmRaFGJR5FGVLrUZUGMUS8WbeoUYVWrBrFmTWhS ZUqRW7nGHLuBwQMNG32uFVtWrVuQcJ/KXdiW61apeSeEtJu1r9W/gGF+BfuWLkKZY2t6ZCv0MMzA SyMjnUz5cc+QeqUyvay1c9fPPAcTNhp6YGKuOCGkNX258s7XM2PLbv+9YfZAzRlBm75tsrfvpYQl sBxuuzZqv41/154bejlf5s8/SieYe2pr6oaxWxV+8Gt2jcgBK6+rUDl4v7XRJ42u/rH1iq7dz89K emD31uKxmyfPvPR2AAN0rjb43FqPM/q4wm+Dr47z70GqEvzsQAR5kxC+vSwTcEC4FizMNP2WYiCC DDYqsSAMIGRvw84ojMtCFqEqELgY5TusOxcZCpGymhiA4IKkkIMgR9gkbLG9Gg/7a8b/YExyrAVD 27EoDSp4wKcFHnBoAQAawKACLhlQsUIOnTRzQiM9YrKuNG38rCUQ5dJgyMUcooBLABiwYEwy0XyS LiKvarMkDHcr88z/I/Mri4IH8DxLJ4csYKAmB/bkk6ZBAUUSUTezKvRPuQLFTFHFKE1RojAvADNP yOrkyFWgYO1LVM9AhYtWQ/08bM1QNz30syl3snJSALIMFqgICBrypY6CGqjZZ4FiLNNeqb3VWrd4 FQzbsnAl6Fgq6cTqRIJODQs0myCC1jjtfk3U1m65VUxG6yTzVVcpy8qgAgew1NIjCGisNVp2jQvM W4I57RRfht9F6NOSEE7Y3cvAZbbHHyXKgNi1gHNMWp6gPVjeu+51uOGFI9L2RYWVdHCsEcmVqAG2 FpB5unULBtm2OkeGd16S0/u5ZJNWzhXlxyTewGLXAMiggQwuAMAB/4FBTnfUj3s6b2uuu/b6a7DD Fntssss2+2y001Z7bba/xrBtuOOWe+6umU5aoQhIhHU6dI82eOLmkHY56G1b1nQsiA2vNs4x+90A A5/EjLhv0QjOGdOhhc68cIqTviwvwp1S2u7DnhYIJwZunjbko9UFnM3NRTc5Zdo9b+06wQ9nfCwM GlWI6ned3TnhywM/+XjkbVf8Wuxwr33w3bOSWigAAm5xb56JCgp72Jc3cHblO4eeQ+d1F58u0kOa FHLzFihv60uNf6/88c9f3H7mnaT/+9iXSh9nngXwKlyLX/c6k5v65e5+CszfrywSPga65X8eWV9N ICc5rS0gYwXsU/+iNMO//mnIe/Fi0f40hz8JlgUnbIEUQizQr5o8wFIcFFSMdAO0EEYoh0Wy4QMb GMFFueUCNOsSkBxSJSJOrYU0fN3zzIdCEo4Qh+LzYRShOJYJ0gUDHGOi3yA4kRueK3T22iFtnmRC HUqRK1ksCxJ94oAldlFpgfkg38YowisSTXFoNKMas8LGhxBwIS/0iQy7OCo/HkQvTUqk7MoIGWzx sWpAxGJy4DdADRrxkIjMo0PCyLJOco6SeoSiJMXYSP9BqGubHN4oYXJDpenMlaJMXgIZUsU0htIp gBSdIDc5R7og8JHMumMuXWnKds1yl8nJHltYeUpdzqSOTlxgLZ//aM2H4ZKYwzQJL0fCn8Zcr2PP 2lvWZlVM2HzymtT8ITbbKRFkdpCdKXwmdBCZM9cl050gRCUelUnGfsYTc/0sijcPqT3KsesvwLSV OvsYTX/u04of0aYdCboTgw7wkraUZT7/trqLPjSboONhSCHJzckVraKM/CdSMqq1jQJqnK30qHks ClFjepKkKTXpNns6ycysdEU/LclLtVKsDTLFl/bc2dVi5VGWSnSKG3GoPuc5UamSUqUZAilOMZoa GALAkDRZ6kmdii7ukZNua2VrW9eCEbfGVa5zpWtdt3YRu+Z1rUZFiBspFcdEnfUkxTNgS3O6E2FW zrAl9apIXyLQ/1Zm9Y9y2WLWJmI9HgrWak3k5GIda5U6MpSo0PSsIoXaWclaha8H8asSHbKxcPJ0 s4pVKGcH1tiT7uo6osWtT3trkHjyFlhgLeQMHZLEmtjMp8KTZcEIW8PRMjU0VX3nF686VaSclrbX XWNyMskYp0FNasDzDfYsO7zzFja1jpzuNKvLUfiusyiSFG5nVqvW8wRyA3nLQFoLWF/uEs29Jyyt bwt8S+0C+DH3fWp+G+I49rGKlQqO7zqpe1jrZrjCiBUqhdHHJ9NtAHWqo6GHq7legP5WtgfWaXxu y2KRMLie7FUxaf954aHWWLowbvGLUezSGTPRxO/dsGl3alUNy/+3yNnF5ZDpOSYKSE6D9XQyVn+M myOD8sqM5bHKqljlSo6JTrHC7EHR+dkANwTHXlwydtPM4QyBubtjqsmJ+htLJLdZq11G8JfPnFsd awSvf36JjE3CpVNJzX0TJjRQt0zVAb85xXwGo3ZPvGBLOpghK1yLceXY6BVTusWbkXRESz1fS1sZ 01bBk6YZMsSaNECTvwS1jR8NmTXT8tRc/gxkJ21frlzJ00G+qaiHAj49E/jWBkZTqpVdsbHQzFz+ SVc5ZZVnJWdb20TGsrO7auwck8/bpl51ViDXgKGA05myYS4+I6vlXaM5yZeuziLlvW1+lsnXgB7u gxbj6skVr6b/7x5ooL8Nbnn2OSqOnje3Fzjue8vF0HRuakJtevB48xvh8IbnvtmMb1V/0eM7Bjad SfIA8qZU4BX3WXSLvfGCw1x+DX/nyDFeblVub7mAa1bPXp5xZi+b4dLko5yf/TybH5tUDwprzaq2 8lqlF796pXrVrX71xuQG61vn+tjw2nW6TVyAAkE5QyK8lgUMm6VQ78pzUQv0oSdb1075oNHn3nCI 3/wwYpcVVvyLs9hqtrYE9zHcQy30w5cl0iB38zyTPvO9c6XpaI9I77i0gZTnVvADT7jcaWxwbGdr 8Xs2fOKBm/dwl9wqZ8eS2gsyvX+X2beEdXfnGU/60pPcRqMn/7fnP69m1Mdc9czcSAXbZ8z0bq8t dv894m1t3VwHneb5HjWGI/8Y2WstgH+/FPN/7XzdT//0wf84vT1P/rfj3CqwXTdDjH/BZ3q/976f v/kpwnvI3x731Zf+9bmC3GIhsYLgNJ8ArBKrtfATv/3TPyMjNduzPwi8PxczvQ8rlaeJmqmJCFgr IipDwJ/LvQ+kv5GaQI4TQevrOK5KwAq8C7zRGzwLOQZsPhDUuxjcKheTv/rzMhIMPbgQOwiLHIc4 C9YIMhzkNfALwRoUCfxzOCbkPxqUOH1BNxHLEwF8FWIjvCQ8wSw0QgVcCnvrwqOjKNQbHT5RjSHs QJR6PjCUQf8TlI3o+z7D8zUyNLnYorU0VMEtjLgmbDx62UE93MNKS8ESXMGcq0Mzu0MkzEONm0Ee TKy4U8TxE0T1grYrjJ8i/EPqY8SoCrAlFL4j3ABkmsNK5JNLXERNVDqXe0LgQ7/m+kSBoK+XGZMN 9BJ2+wnLMicezMQ1ZENIfERAFMPTiiX0KLpYlIyyOgjY84lZY6p2Ix4shC7Q28RTTL1pfEAbdMBW rMZgLEYeiSmEmBTrGRIMki6oW5eF8kBV/MW760UKZLK8EEa42B9RzAqciAANmBMAcD0rJKc0ciqR SUR15EV2VMOBxENPWThEHMHCUz+nuLxnWTT3qx6BEEfYKMf/aGm5aETFVMxFGIxArsDGXVTCHZxH VgMAe9yAIYHIhUjGmlhGvrg20XAMjJS5SazGQfRIPgQUhAxJkZxAknSKCmgMfSSIWXRJgRE8hfo7 sFtKpmxKp3zKtokKqGSbr9s6sRMxIpI1JEHKi8vGhWxDU+RJLgTL/nuinezIj7SIn/QPy/sdMtq8 irNGXSTLssTJBbTLo2NFjgQtvZyJq/yIZLSN7EsmqGouzrvJgIRDscTEnMTLdSxINZFESuwlbzwI 47MNlQQg9Hqd2kPMuYRMgPxMxxTIxFRM0NwIGVslstq+2Tiv5HuV5UPHvWzM0tTC2hzLPrNN0exB Pnk/CbPD/42UxsUMy9MUTgYESYPczSfjirbEvIggwJowQA4qxbocTdO0zhxUzhH0w9kMQ0K0isCU SIcoSjQMTo3MSGoczurUToXjTrlEy+W0isssllF8T9pkz/uET/3MT/5cxTGUzfDoFv4Yu/qsSbps R+zUzf28y9scv3Rc0MmCGQBgH/hriAyYvBc8T1c0zuLUUJv0RPVcTwhVLRVqDOkkCAzN0PQ8UILs 0BV1Uftk0AYlTigsC/IMJKMETvSMURkdUdLET+90R2ikScTgE8e5Qur0xRkV0f4M0iUdNW1K0qIC MR9BUgD10A/NvwTFzS2NTNyR0hhjJoCDzTE9wITsTicF0v/HfFIE5ctBO9MAHY9mmqmjqkwzNc8X hVHP9NHrZFMv7UsmnbMCVaUrzdMupVE/TU4+FVI8jYi/TDcWtLZqYy5DVdMftdQ+xdTsXNRNbVIS lVO1yI7L6czC5NE11dRO7VFPvdRVZUNA3dMw66VYSQrq8EeLe8b0Y1FF5VQuTdTQ5FUuRE4FjVVj nFWlslOVu9WZ3FAsDdE2BVZERVUtPMthFdRiJdBvQlYxslVpWdYsNVBd/dVWTdU01U5qDdQIlVVs LQ8QOiuZFFdVjVd5PVVoRVd6XdBzbVHeHA9t5b4+4sqnytapHFiCLViDPVisU0uE5ZrUPEZ+nCKA dbuv1FP/EHVWfZVWxpzXe9XYVBpUUIJL56rUelVSjI3WkX3WcSXXjU1Xjx3Sjoo62yo/X33Qk73Y mt1Vjs1UQXNPcK3Rlk0/2nNGU2XVnFVZoi3XlO1VNhXWXP3On20wc+Ie5WtWitXSQ7XXo11Zrd1a KOVZXI3PpyXSpr1arNXZpM1YpD3b9nTPtQxbi8XZtC1apb1ZeI1buwXGimpbt63anp1ZmpVbtOVa o81aQvFDvd1bv+XQxFXcki3bwX1cyJ1bYkXct61bwY3cwCVcswXczN1clqXccP3bu9VczDVZtXXc 0kXdrwLdb3XZ1nXdyhXdy5Xc0yXZyWXdxRXZ2rVdzlXd/85NXd81XWvF3dwdWs8dXeBF2d7l3eVV 3s8lXrqVXdJNXpvd3eptXuedXb+EXr6F3dCV3uOdXtpFXuqF20/l3sZlXu393Wol3/FdX+F13+0l XluU1O2y2vTNXvhVX/Fl3/fdX/3tWNYtJ6EdPMaNXjQF4OuV3/hV4AV24I941PagVAMuVVjFXvOF YPAtX8vtX//9YJiQYACh4IHz1thNYA8OXhXm3/BNYRYGMvpVrBLu4BbmYBq2YRTG4QNG4B0eXsol YbX62okl2wCu4fbV4Bw+YiTu4edFXCCOOqVcWCmeYiquYiu+YrERYV+J2Ji93+9lYgZe4SJWYiMm Yx2eCP8tThCQlViZzd8HXmKqJeI3LuP/peMQht4nZh0hBtMMduExruMz1l3r7WMYxl13HRg29uLu HVs5JmQzfmRADmTjLeQBrlNOkjpGdmNHhmQQFuM5luRJ5uQ7Rl9NvmFRbmA//uRTfmFQrlinJeVU 3uRO9mRZRmU7puVaxmWPSONKhtM4bmRTjmRhnmVWHuZRhmUMDmZi/uNlzuVibmZnZuZjRmY4FuQw 1uUkNmZsBuNqDuXVpeZuvuBrfmZbbmX85WFuvuVuAudxVmVt3uZfLuUNXmVyhmeJ4GXQ5WNlhuZ5 fmdptmdrDueGwOcfLlRv9md35udsVuiFLueCYmeBPuf/QY7mhHZohKboigZoO4HoWN5njRbniO5b eW5oi2ZoNOZodf7nev5oiU7mfjbpeEbnewbnW4TJmJ7ol4bpgy5pnmbplm7nkCBoaitgC3ZlYM7p nl5plV7qjPZp731lQ75VrxRpmd7ppGZqjPZopcZqrZ5SWObWjyLprc7qrm5qrkbqsSZrsfZqUgbr rkxnc6bqqgbpjkbrs7Zrsw7Tr96Nd8VrtYbruH7qo17rvC7ssg5qZAbY7BFYLG5sx35syI5svRJq CUGoRO7i4qXruibsv75pl/brww5tHTXMuNTswM7kkQbsixZtzu7sgN7sT6OtwzTqzKbt2v7pkBbs 28Zt/9j27KcN2tK27bkW7uHm7ZQ2bNBmbdXW6RKTWtj07bBV0R0VMoiWbmZFaezObu3ebu7ubu/+ bvAOb/Eeb/Iub/M+b/ROb/Veb/Zub/d+b/iOb/meb/qub/u+b/zOb/3eb/7ub//+bwAPcAEfcAIv cAM/cARPcAVfcAZvcCSrX+umCvPy1wJ1TQof1EnFZLelUwf/L+055N+emMsexVHF7ApHyqgW4g63 EFvUGQqu8IRS8RlrRkWGcRTP5zZecT8B6yEmwiGN8MK5cRh3cZQGch0nuKO48PhbbJ4bYLZzYjI1 8sE+cjSD8OjuTBknQpvOcmKjVCkvbir/QKX48h0rTP8yLykh99imOPPcDnNpXPOf5fGpjnOa6mXd jm43t8SnZvO1q/MUT3MMN+5K5PMOT3IZpnM9NvEuj/E5D/Qmx+M8/y9odBVCbxIa3/AS5/JFj0nu rfRCd1kNJ/EJ9/SXtPIUf248NsRIX3VWb3VXf3VYj3VZn3Var3Vbv3Vcz3Vd33Ve73Vf/3VgD3Zh H3ZiL3ZjP3ZkT3ZlX3Zmb3Znf3Zov5Wc2MewQI8NTLkoK5arrICsNK6aAZcLmBQGyFGBcEiCMHdq 18xvotW1YADS6Zk1J/Vox3SVVPIBGotW+5elYYtk4Qpx8QnMUo7BHAjWmzZl2Zsr+fCI8TuxOA+7 gff/dZ/3Ay+kh632UjGIfgES9kmNYrEUC+ASS3EVDOCSEx2SgDH5g4gwgk8i7bP41VQqggjKzIx4 /ZJ4A6eUCTVWSleXfFyA1Pn41ImVj1+AJZKUPNGkmkAdgwj3o4dahKjQVwH6DJB6off5qbd6jM9H gsAJ4IGV8VqISUkLDfhNgmAAYiGnFWr5C421E0l6q6d6nhn6JQKTtKuTte8S1bE2gbh7qBkIuk97 AeL7toeIp6GUKrT5+q4zCYN4nV+LJJIcoRQIljyVtdB3yWcLIGk/FA3AOo01IJzTxz8q0cdW/9p5 g6CAfHQVWpRaiEAuyHf8z4/8KVw31x99gQhKyan9/9kfpzrR/TrhmC5B/P5ejAgAAJlgfAGKzrHP iTuLlWQpfimUtscRKzLbgDPcAJo5+eBfV3JaAJdU/uhsfp6pgOWvAPFP98ZPiDHvuYLQAJ9fV9Yv CPEHf+aH9+fffpq5f5s4/6nzCU8DiAwAAGzY0ABAhA0RBhZkWLCgQIIbHA7U8PAixowaN3Ls6PEj yJAiR5IsafIkypQqV7JsedEhAwAaKEqcKJFmw5syN8zUOXDggpwWMzq0mbPjBQAMiOo8avRp0YdR nU6d+rLm1AcALjy9qrEohggHm0LVabGnUJ5gxVr9+ZMB14dhx6ZF23UuToUDG1Bw6fcv4MCCBxMu bP+4sMOkDvKWpUrWrtufTplKJXvRQdDJlR1z7vpwcYWLFQA40Jy0AceYZ5VijFy1ptcNFhBG7JwX skS7syPUbi3RwgKED3f3doi7IHHGFBzELH34OfTo0qdTr76y6GKaXCHk7Q6g70LUBgFgoKzxIIQN 3MVb1Zp+9lLftslanb0gtOzgFiZnOIhfI3fpBehbZPKZN1AGSdG3IHgAiIeeejQl2BZsMSVk04QS Qcjdghlq9qF1IYo4IoklmrhRURoEp6Fr8+XkVlwK/uScVQXJOFB5nhWEQWT7GehdZxhx6FZ6L7ol no48upXja+YZGBNQCzoGo40tbgAlAME5uYGSGVz/+ZOWG9yYF5ZhOjTWQM6duCabbbr55klRUeBQ f0rNJmVZwC3gY0EVxLRAkTpedEFMcG2WEaFKxfUjnoxhZMFYDfBp01t9HTpooYs2aaCBGTQnUHpA 2qTnpKTS+SkAgX64UGmekgYqcgvsmZerDsBqnFavwrkrr736+iuwv3oaLLHFGnsssskqu6xHDuTI LLTRSjsttdVaey222Wq7LbfdevstuOGKOy655Zp7Lrrpqrsuu+26+y688co7L7312nsvvvnquy+/ /fr7L8DIugbbRwS3xlSBKhmMEsFuXVVjwBFLPPFXRLVkMMYmYXUxbB039BLFIYtMccYslXwwSRtf /zcRyFJ97PLIMcu8b8kes8wQVpK93DLKlG6ss8ME6UygwyjyzDLSO7sMdFFC07TwzFFLzWzDML/c tNI3Wby1zVgn7XWcR2tt9aVeN63y1GmrfezAZI+tNMwnt9z13G6nZPPVR2ddt91r+/13rzXznTXQ W6NsJd17Myy24ozH7TjgkUtuouCPW62y3Jb3jDTaSVeWcMV949133qRPfjrq0lVeOuucGz64451D HdLob3veuOump74774GtTtHgwG++c9eY655y7Hp7njjuvTv//N1Wvpg78TjD7fPQRi59ttDKj9Rw 9kVvzvzy0Jt/vrSzo78++6er3z788U/9vvz12/9/P/75678///37/z8AAyjAARKwgAY8IAITqMAF MrCBDnwgBCMowQlSsIIWvCAGM6jBDXKwgx78IAhDKMIRkrCEJjzh2tp2vc8RTXwP61j2jBa219Gu JPQzlu1oiDCoudCFMtRY6L5nQxQma3U9Gx1HyPe+G/7Qe0EEIrVuqD4klq+KSVycDps4RCKyjWs/ pOITbbfEuw2vI0zUIrSkaEblKdEjZ3zi7daIRS4Wy4g8A+PrxPgV62mPhZnLGdZaBEgYgm1XTuvj 9N4mvjPKTY8I+1r4+Ki3QW4vaJ8jZOfoCKyqrfBjnHQj7E4mPNbVCG3Fu5ziyAenQipybKqUY/L/ yFa9VF7qjqIzJS01p0mVSKCXvvwlMIMpzGFK4IVD4yGFpHc5R8aydQvDpS6NB8o4goSYwNyINX8J x1CuMId7fOahqNhGK9oyl8TrJOx2eZJssrOdvWRjNy3HRMkw85ZFA6MpE4Y3b14SnR1xJzbbuc17 hrJwNXxkPVOpT+/lk6CopGYf36hOEtnxnNQTSUKrCE5ZLo2h5eShLld5RHNKEyRjJKc5IXcwfH70 i/6cKJsqurxMNjGjr0RpRzlqRX7etE21y2VPm6dReIZUqJ706EM32jqYGtKLeRwlLC8qSkfm7IrN /BpJ+enTO7aSlFoV6ji5mlWriq6lmoMqU1cp/z0V3tNpyuwnXBEaV0pBNI6LfBgko0LPl1KOQHml 3l7rikiivRBFkuyhJHV4Vz/ONbASTevEHgtByUJ2f3is4GUrW0AfRm5glAUMZzUr2tGStrSmPS1q U6va1bK2ta59LWxjK9vZ0ra2tr0tbnOL0bUm8TVvHWxoy4jRbRZsi9P6qmB9Zli9xpC4BxXuNIWo W8HIFKs6zaNRnWhS52ZxuFHcLlntys2oIq+75gXvdEHrVMNltqzXfS96+Qrf4n6XvjXFLk6h+1z5 8heN6TXZekc639Dh87CR7N7wKOnJAikYkZ9VXVmYi+AGM3KaBUawchmb4Li6NbAZdvB/1VvOiv99 0rviDGfwlCq7yZRUqv0VEStn6eLkateZ7KVqLR+qUWiO88EwnQCQgyzkIRO5yEaegDELidcWNnfE 4o2mUaFp46US2CRHHvJGrixk7uI4wMuN7omhnF8pz/iiMvSxOrWs5jUDmagqpjKYiXq1heq0oQa1 6OwcShI2Z3nNA72zVAEd3SCGec56pqadodpiwtI4xOVNJ55f/NPxxfO6GEa0Wdn74hB9ssvWrfB9 OXpTPF5aqZ92aaMd7V1Iz3TAsiy0mbNb6jAWdaiBu6orWX08uMGap06cNX5jbWtVA/hwYURreMGK 4rPmmdI7HWuqR7TPrgIWuSx1tliHDbHbhdVi08gmdpzWijimYa+54oaYhxF76TIuNpGN5SOanwM+ DDtWw0ts8rmRSe8D1xVjx8Rrg+mKXHCfK94JNDjBSVbjCbY34YALrt88WyKIO7ziFr84xjOu8Y1z vOMe/zjIQ+6vgAAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_011C_01C6AE49.30F66EA0-- Article: 227002 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:28:56 -0500 Message-ID: <12c78u78jrj8o9d@corp.supernews.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:nMidnTE_A-2EF17ZnZ2dnUVZ8qidnZ2d@bt.com... > > "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote >> I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only > get a >> handle on upper and lower bounds. >> Lower bound: >> I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a > plane) >> and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions). >> >> Upper (infinite sheet of copper) >> As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from > Reg's >> post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting > plane" of >> our elementary physics books. >> Cheers and beers > > ========================================== > > Yes Adam, a logical way of looking at it. > > Associated with any number there is always another number which is > sometimes, but not often enough, used to describe its uncertainty. > > But nearly always it takes much longer to determine the uncertainty > than it does to arrive at the first number, especially if the first > number is the result of a measurement. > ---- > Reg. > > That got a chuckle. I'm an EXPERIMENTAL physicist. ;^) Article: 227003 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:35:42 -0500 Message-ID: <12c79astdhj250c@corp.supernews.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> Depends. You could just keep adding radials when you can afford more copper until things stop improving. (Whatever "stop improving" means to you.) Copper's expensive. My SteppIR vertical is on an aluminum roof. (Just my approach to the problem) And Walt's right. What is trivially obvious to us wasn't so in 1937. Maxwell's equations weren't 100 years old yet. It had only been a few years since Gibbs wrote them in the modern form we use. Radio was barely understood by only a few people. 73 H. NQ5H "Wayne" wrote in message news:L0Nwg.5924$yN3.4270@trnddc04... > These are very good points. I am reading these postings to try to > understand the behavior of actual implementations that lie somewhere > between the extremes you pointed out. In other words, what gets you the > most bang for the buck.... How fast does performance change with > increased radial length and number of radials. > > > "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote in message > news:12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com... >> I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only get >> a handle on upper and lower bounds. >> Lower bound: >> I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a >> plane) and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions). >> >> Upper (infinite sheet of copper) >> As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from Reg's >> post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting plane" of >> our elementary physics books. >> Cheers and beers >> H. >> >> 73, NQ5H >> > > Article: 227004 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:35:18 -0700 Message-ID: <8gb7c2lm1i31emninlc84tgsiumonpnhjp@4ax.com> References: <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> <12c79astdhj250c@corp.supernews.com> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 11:35:42 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote: >Depends. >You could just keep adding radials when you can afford more copper until >things stop improving. >(Whatever "stop improving" means to you.) >Copper's expensive. > >My SteppIR vertical is on an aluminum roof. >(Just my approach to the problem) > >And Walt's right. >What is trivially obvious to us wasn't so in 1937. >Maxwell's equations weren't 100 years old yet. >It had only been a few years since Gibbs wrote them in the modern form we >use. >Radio was barely understood by only a few people. > Hi OM, In fact, how "many" people knew is immaterial to what was known a good twenty five years before the BLE paper. >From my "Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers," 1912, Sec. 21, Radiotelegraphy, Method of Exciting the Antenna, part 283 Antenna Ground Connections: "The outward and inward movement of the lines of electric force during the oscillations in the antenna give rise to earth currents. These earth currents are most intense in the immediate neighborhood of the antenna, and if the earth is a poor conductor a large waste of energy ensues. To guard against this loss, a radiating network of wire is place beneath and around the antenna. In the case of a flat-top antenna, the radius of this wire net should not be less than the length of the horizontal portion of the antenna." I shouldn't have to point out that a handbook is not the place where new science appears, but where tested science is aggregated. Earth currents, screens, and lost power were not unfamiliar a century ago. What is "Bleeding obvious" about the BLE paper, is that it puts numbers to the quoted paragraph above in the face of its mocking: >>At risk of upsetting a great number of patriotic USA citizens, all BLE >>hero-worshippers It is quite evident that the merit of the BLE paper serves the true spirit of Lord Kelvin, and that in the context of this group, it is USA citizens who honor his precepts in the face of this last piece of British trolling of Reggie's who is more interested in juvenile posturing than celebrating his heritage's expression in a fine work. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 227005 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:25:46 GMT hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: > The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the > map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio > license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means > of communicating. Therein lies the solution to the problem. Make A1 the only mode allowed within amateur radio - solves all the problems, doesn't it? No more mode arguments, no more band crowding, no more expensive equipment, ... The list of advantages is virtually endless. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227006 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <1rPwg.55334$VE1.34155@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:43:09 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote > >>I'm often confronted with problems as a physicist where one can only > > get a > >>handle on upper and lower bounds. >>Lower bound: >>I'd say the minimum number and length of radials is 3 (must define a > > plane) > >>and 1/4 wavelength (satisfies boundary conditions). >> >>Upper (infinite sheet of copper) >>As Walt and Reg have debated, the "Cleese extreme" (to steal from > > Reg's > >>post) is trying to duplicate the "infinite perfectly conducting > > plane" of > >>our elementary physics books. >>Cheers and beers > > > ========================================== > > Yes Adam, a logical way of looking at it. > > Associated with any number there is always another number which is > sometimes, but not often enough, used to describe its uncertainty. > > But nearly always it takes much longer to determine the uncertainty > than it does to arrive at the first number, especially if the first > number is the result of a measurement. > ---- > Reg. > > What is the uncertainty of the uncertainty? If the uncertainty is a number, then, "Associated with any number there is always another number which is sometimes, but not often enough, used to describe its uncertainty." You're going to end up with an infinite string of uncertainties if you keep this up, Reg. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH (Who never could understand Sartre.) Article: 227007 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Telamon Subject: Re: Wellbrook ALA 100 with Rotator - Construction Details References: <1153626101.333721.76850@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:49:03 GMT In article , "Guy Atkins" wrote: > I did mention the spiral configuration to him, but he didn't comment on it. > The construction seemed to be easier, so it's the only style I considered > from the start. > > Guy > > wrote in message > news:1153626101.333721.76850@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > Ah, so your loops are concentric. I ran my parallel. Did you discuss > > this with Andy? > > Spiral concentric or coil will change the pattern but since the antenna is so electrically small it won't make much difference unless you want to use the nulls. I would expect that a coil wound would be best. I you are concerned about using a null in the antenna pattern then go one turn. -- Telamon Ventura, California Article: 227008 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:21:12 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:YcydndyZIPK-8l_ZnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@bt.com... > Frank, > > So NEC4 cannot calculate input impedance of the radial system and we > have almost reached a dead end. > > Would it be possible to insert a loading coil ( 2.48 uH ) at the > bottom of the antenna to tune out its input reactance ( which is what > my program does.) > > Then repeat the efficiency calculation and tell me what you get. > ---- > Reg. Reg, According to NEC 4.1 the input impedance is near 40 ohms (39.9373 + j 0.394926 ohms) at resonance (8.07 MHz). With 100 W input the total radiated power computes to 31.8 W. I am continuing with checking the program to be certain I have not made an error, and also working on a NEC solution to the input impedance of one radial. Note that the computation also includes copper loss, which should be insignificant. I have also included a copy of my code below. Frank CM Reg's test Vertical CE GW 1 36 0 0 9 0 0 0.05 GC 0 0 .9 0.00082 0.00082 GW 38 3 0 0 0.05 0 0 -0.025 0.00082 GW 2 40 0 0 -0.025 0 10 -0.025 GC 0 0 1.11 0.00082 0.00082 GM 1 35 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 1 2 40 GE -1 GN 2 0 0 0 16 0.0067 FR 0 1 0 0 8.07 0.01 EX 0 38 2 00 89.37696044 0 LD 5 1 1 36 5.8001E7....... ....................... ........................ LD 5 36 1 60 5.8001E7 RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 EN Article: 227009 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 20:46:27 +0100 Message-ID: "Wayne" wrote > understand the behavior of actual implementations that lie somewhere between > the extremes you pointed out. In other words, what gets you the most bang > for the buck.... How fast does performance change with increased radial > length and number of radials. =================================== That's exactly what program RADIAL_3 is intended to help you with. All the user has to do is convert radiating efficiency into bucks. The higher the radiating efficiency the more bucks it will cost, the greater the length of wire, and the more painful the back ache. It's a matter of diminishing returns. ---- ........................................................... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp ........................................................... Article: 227010 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:04:16 -0500 Message-ID: <12c7lhurd6k6cb6@corp.supernews.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:wKKdnd21g_yDTl7ZRVny2w@bt.com... > > "Wayne" wrote >> understand the behavior of actual implementations that lie somewhere > between >> the extremes you pointed out. In other words, what gets you the > most bang >> for the buck.... How fast does performance change with increased > radial >> length and number of radials. > =================================== > > That's exactly what program RADIAL_3 is intended to help you with. > > All the user has to do is convert radiating efficiency into bucks. The > higher the radiating efficiency the more bucks it will cost, the > greater the length of wire, and the more painful the back ache. > > It's a matter of diminishing returns. > ---- > ........................................................... > Regards from Reg, G4FGQ > For Free Radio Design Software go to > http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp > ........................................................... > > So if you calculate it in Pounds, is the back ache worse? ;^) 73 H. Article: 227011 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 23 Jul 2006 13:10:59 -0700 Message-ID: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> been trying EME with a staion that should just make it to the "big guns" on 144.111 eraticly getting what seems to be sent in CW a response of course I can't read it it is runing my wife guesses faster the 15wpm morse on the off chance someone was simply confused I switched programs and sent at 15 wpm a signal to the party unknown infrom any that could read cw what I was doing and still I get back half the time a cwsignal that breaks in over top of my eme contact are any morse code operators that stupid or should honestly assume this is someone jamming anntenna is included becuase I know cecil has been hanging out there and I would like his opinion Article: 227012 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 14:39:58 -0600 From: Hank Zoeller Subject: Re: Aluminum tubing for vertical antenna References: <44c07393$0$10058$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <1153575872.162681@r2d2.vermontel.net> <44c23d25$0$4898$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <1153587840.612199.312420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44c3deae$0$1456$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> n3ox.dan@gmail.com wrote: > Hank, > > Just wanted to add that you don't need 1/4 inch wall stuff anywhere in > a 33 foot vertical. > [trimmed] Thanks, Dan. I see that now and I think I'll start with 2" diameter tubing in 6' lengths and taper down accordingly. I do get some serious wind here from time to time. Thanks to all who responded; I'm moving forward with considerably more confidence in the outcome.. -- 73, Hank Article: 227013 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "TheMonger" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 23 Jul 2006 13:48:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1153687680.702887.63220@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> an_old_friend wrote: > been trying EME with a staion that should just make it to the "big > guns" on 144.111 eraticly getting what seems to be sent in CW a > response of course I can't read it it is runing my wife guesses faster > the 15wpm morse > > on the off chance someone was simply confused I switched programs and > sent at 15 wpm a signal to the party unknown infrom any that could read > cw what I was doing and still I get back half the time a cwsignal that > breaks in over top of my eme contact > > are any morse code operators that stupid or should honestly assume this > is someone jamming > > anntenna is included becuase I know cecil has been hanging out there > and I would like his opinion sounds like you're being fag filtered by the moon. now stfu. Article: 227014 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 23 Jul 2006 13:52:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1153687921.488620.217980@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> TheMonger wrote: > an_old_friend wrote: > > been trying EME with a staion that should just make it to the "big > > guns" on 144.111 eraticly getting what seems to be sent in CW a > > response of course I can't read it it is runing my wife guesses faster > > the 15wpm morse > > > > on the off chance someone was simply confused I switched programs and > > sent at 15 wpm a signal to the party unknown infrom any that could read > > cw what I was doing and still I get back half the time a cwsignal that > > breaks in over top of my eme contact > > > > are any morse code operators that stupid or should honestly assume this > > is someone jamming > > > > anntenna is included becuase I know cecil has been hanging out there > > and I would like his opinion > > sounds like you're being fag filtered by the moon. > now stfu. no Article: 227015 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:53:37 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:YcydndyZIPK-8l_ZnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@bt.com... > Frank, > > So NEC4 cannot calculate input impedance of the radial system and we > have almost reached a dead end. > > Would it be possible to insert a loading coil ( 2.48 uH ) at the > bottom of the antenna to tune out its input reactance ( which is what > my program does.) > > Then repeat the efficiency calculation and tell me what you get. > ---- > Reg. Reg, I have completed a "Ball park", preliminary estimate of the radial impedance. Given an antenna with one radial, I computed the input impedance of the monopole alone, over a perfectly conducting ground. The antenna input impedance, at 8.07 MHz, is 36.21 - j 3.1. Adding one radial, 25 mm below ground, with parameters Er = 16, resistivity 150 ohm-m. The input impedance becomes 149.2 + j 17.9. Subtracting the antenna impedance gives a radial impedance of 113 + j 21. These results are not too far removed from "Radials_3", which gives the antenna input impedance of 33.79 - j 24.8, and radial input impedance of 84.2 ohms. Under these conditions, integrating the power density, shows a total radiated power, with 100 W input, of 8.8 W, or 8.8% efficiency. There appears to be a significant difference, in the computed efficiency, between Radials_3 and NEC 4.1. Radials_3 calculates the efficiency as 28%. Note that with one radial the radiation pattern exhibits a slight asymmetry of less than 1 dB. Since I have assumed perfect symmetry of the radiation pattern a small error will be evident in the above computation. Testing my method of integration, on a lossless monopole, over a perfect ground, shows a 1% error; i.e. for 100 W in, the total radiated power = 101 W. Regards, Frank Article: 227016 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: blsherm@comcast.net Subject: neighborhood antenna restrictions Date: 23 Jul 2006 15:11:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? Article: 227017 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:44:25 -0400 On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions >> and know the answers. >By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must >memorize the answers. Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a license is to memorize the answers." >No one is claiming any such thing. >> By memorizing the answers you're not learning >> enough to understand the questions. >> But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. >Why not? Because he's already admitted that he's dishonest. >> >how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? >> No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is >> putting the law "over all ham knowledge". >CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska). Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ... >> >How progressive is it? >> How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, >> that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses >> because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. >Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se >guys want to "beef up" the written exams? We don't. We want to get back the level it used to be before it was dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics. Just by guessing at the answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics. >From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that I've forgotten at the moment. They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. >> >how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more >> >operators >> What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who >> don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) >It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already >assembled. But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally. Today all you need is the time to take the test and the money for the test and the equipment. IOW, a CB "license" with a tiny bit of annoyance up front. How does CB benefit the country? >> You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a >> radio. >Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years >"training" radio operators. I trained operators when I was in the military. We didn't do it by giving recruits radios and telling them to go jam each other. >> >how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be >> >ready for service to conutry and community? >> How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be >> ready for service to conutry and community"? >Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it? That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a "license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio? >> Or any skill, other than >> getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something >> that requires no skill. >So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all? You don't acquire technical skill by doing something that doesn't require technical skill. You don't acquire operating skill by doing something that requires no operating skill. And you don't acquire skill in CW by cursing into a mike. But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators" if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic? >> And you, particularly, don't acquire >> knowledge by demanding something for nothing. >The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the >map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio >license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means >of communicating. So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too obvious to need mentioning. >Get over it. Everyone else is moving on. Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a test should actually test for something. There are actually millions of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing in the world. What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries? Article: 227018 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:46:33 -0400 On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:25:46 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: >> The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the >> map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio >> license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means >> of communicating. >Therein lies the solution to the problem. Make A1 the >only mode allowed within amateur radio - solves all >the problems, doesn't it? No more mode arguments, no >more band crowding, no more expensive equipment, ... >The list of advantages is virtually endless. The disadvantages are too. No playing with digital modes. No innovations. No new inventions by hams. And, I have to admit, my CW has gotten a bit rusty - I doubt I could send readable code at much over 15wpm these days. I can still copy faster than that, though. Article: 227019 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Konstans_with_a_C" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 23 Jul 2006 16:06:30 -0700 Message-ID: <1153695990.509908.240120@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> hey marqueer..........you're not even wanted on the moon! maybe YOU need to get help, you twisted fruit. an_old_friend wrote: > TheMonger wrote: > > an_old_friend wrote: > > > been trying EME with a staion that should just make it to the "big > > > guns" on 144.111 eraticly getting what seems to be sent in CW a > > > response of course I can't read it it is runing my wife guesses faster > > > the 15wpm morse > > > > > > on the off chance someone was simply confused I switched programs and > > > sent at 15 wpm a signal to the party unknown infrom any that could read > > > cw what I was doing and still I get back half the time a cwsignal that > > > breaks in over top of my eme contact > > > > > > are any morse code operators that stupid or should honestly assume this > > > is someone jamming > > > > > > anntenna is included becuase I know cecil has been hanging out there > > > and I would like his opinion > > > > sounds like you're being fag filtered by the moon. > > > now stfu. > no Article: 227020 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 23 Jul 2006 16:06:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1153696012.697813.281860@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Al Klein wrote: > On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: > > >Al Klein wrote: > > >> By taking the test you're claiming that you understand the questions > >> and know the answers. > > >By releasing the Question Pools, the FCC is claiming that you must > >memorize the answers. > > Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent > enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a > license is to memorize the answers." well the only way you are going to lean the rules question is to momorize > > >No one is claiming any such thing. > > >> By memorizing the answers you're not learning > >> enough to understand the questions. > > >> But I wouldn't expect you to understand what "honesty" means. > > >Why not? > > Because he's already admitted that he's dishonest. a admission that of itself proves me more honest than you > > >> >how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge? > > >> No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is > >> putting the law "over all ham knowledge". > > >CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska). > > Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of > correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ... no sigle element of i and besides you content nobody has trouble passig it so it not pass fail but pass/pass > > >> >How progressive is it? > > >> How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah, > >> that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses > >> because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air. > > >Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se > >guys want to "beef up" the written exams? > > We don't. liar as you go on to prove >We want to get back the level it used to be before it was > dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never > heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics. establish the need ofr such testing and I will support you > Just by guessing at the > answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics. so what? > From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A > Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that > I've forgotten at the moment. They're still as relevant today as they > were 50 years ago. and when was the last time you had to assemble one without any notes to help you? > > >> >how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more > >> >operators > > >> What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who > >> don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.) > > >It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already > >assembled. > > But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally. nope you just had to pass the test > Today all you need is the time to take the test and the money for the > test and the equipment. bullshit must you undermine the ars by insutling allnew ops? that is not coutesous either Al > IOW, a CB "license" with a tiny bit of > annoyance up front. How does CB benefit the country? why do you hate CB so bad? did one of pinn your coax? no support for your postion just insults > > >> You don't acquire knowledge (which is what's needed) by playing with a > >> radio. > > >Then the military has wasted billions of dollars over the years > >"training" radio operators. > > I trained operators when I was in the military. We didn't do it by > giving recruits radios and telling them to go jam each other. I am glad to read that neither does the ARS your point ? or were you just ranting? > > >> >how patriotic is it to keep a staion forom aquiing the skill to be > >> >ready for service to conutry and community? > > >> How does playing CB on the ham bands give one "the skill to be > >> ready for service to conutry and community"? > > >Who knows? That's not what Mark is talking about, is it? > > That's exactly what he's talking about. nope that isn't what I am tlaking about > Give someone a radio and a > "license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for > service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up > above. lying again never said anything about giving a license away what was that you said about being dishonest > How does one acquire skill by playing radio? the only to aquire skill at using a radio is by USING a radio > > >> Or any skill, other than > >> getting what you want? You don't acquire skill by doing something > >> that requires no skill. > > >So it really is all about CW. Why have a written Exam at all? > > You don't acquire technical skill by doing something that doesn't > require technical skill. meaning no need for a CW test? > You don't acquire operating skill by doing > something that requires no operating skill. no need for writeen test either thn? > And you don't acquire > skill in CW by cursing into a mike. who siad you did but I for one have no interest in learning CW at all even if that were possible for me (which I do not believe is the case bt that is another arguement) you OTOH seem to think it polite to disparage opertors that you likely have never heard > > But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators" honestly in time if we did give the license away the user would develope skill with it > if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill > or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic? the same way the skill were devloped in the first trail and error would still work althogh I don't advocate reling on it > > >> And you, particularly, don't acquire > >> knowledge by demanding something for nothing. > > >The requirements for an amateur radio license have been all over the > >map over the history of the service. The ORIGINAL amateur radio > >license had no Morse Code Exam, even when Morse Code was the only means > >of communicating. > > So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy > one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too > obvious to need mentioning. > > >Get over it. Everyone else is moving on. > > Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a > test should actually test for something. on here there are perhaps 3 people still advocating a Morse code test OTOH nobody advocates ywe drop testing except occasion the frustrated advocate of Code testing Yes personalyI think some the thing we current test are at best questionable I would prefer to foucs more on rules and safety question I realy don't think any body needs to memorize thatwhat freg is white in SSTV signal he know prehaps where to look it out but to have that knowledge memorized no way and yet there is such a question on the current extra pool > There are actually millions > of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing > in the world. what has that got to do with maintining your frat house game called Morse Code testing? > > What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries? who cares about a DXCC award? I certianly don't realy or does not caring about working "countries that have no people in them and sometimes barely exist at high tide make me not a ham either Article: 227021 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:30:42 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <44c39fb5_3@newsfeed.slurp.net> Thanks Richard...however the info you present doesn't deal with the real issue that has been raised by Reg's program: (you are adressing another area of possible disagreement) Do 26 radials 5 metres long perform substantially as well as 26 radials 16 metres long at 3.62 mhz with the two soil constants = 25 (in my case), with radial wire size #14 and antenna wire size #10 (I think I used 2mm and 4mm in my calculations.) The issue has never been (for me) how closely does Reg's program match a 1/4 wave vertical with standard length radials. The "real" question is does Reg's program accurately reflect the performance of vastly shorter radials than the typical "wives' tale" (Reg's characterization) 1/4 wave length radials. I have always accepted that some shortening of earth based (on or under) radials (below the assumed 1/4 w or longer as in BL&E) was acceptable. The problem is, Reg's program allows incredible shortening, predicting high efficiency at the same time. I have a 1000' of wire left to put down. If Reg is right, I can put down 66 radials 5 metres long and get outstanding surface coverage. If more "orthodox" texts are correct, then I should stick with 16 metre (approx 50') length and then I can only put down 20 more radials than the 26 I have now. Let's not get distracted (although your point for the 20 degree antenna shows yet another departure from BL&E). Here's the fundamental contradiction between Reg's program and the orthodox approaches: ================================================ Reg says (given the values I have stated above), that 5 metre long radials will peform (substantially) as well as 16 metre long radials, all other things being equal. Thinking this makes my head hurt. ================================================ BL&E seems to contradict this (although I haven't found the precise comparison I'm looking for yet). Tom, W8JI's, measurements seem to contradict this. NEC-4 should be able to tell us how much current is in a radial and how that current is distributed along the length of the wire. If it disappears into inconsequential levels within the first 5 metres, then it confirms Reg's assertion. If it does not, i.e., it remains at substantive levels well beyond 5 metres, then it contradicts Reg's program, and agrees with BL&E, as well as W8JI. (I thought NEC-4 could do this problem, maybe my assumption is completely wrong.) ============================================================== If NEC-4 can't do this "current along a radial" analysis (buried or on the surface, take your pick), then we need experimental data that shows us the same thing: how fast does the current along a radial decrease to inconsequential levels. If it is within the first 5 metres, Reg is right. If not, he's wrong. It's as simple as that. =============================================================== Why is it so hard to get this answer? hasan, N0AN "Richard Fry" wrote in message news:44c39fb5_3@newsfeed.slurp.net... > "Reg Edwards" wrote >> "Richard Fry" wrote >>> N. B. for/to REG EDWARDS (G4FQP): I hope that you will be >> >motivated to follow through on one or the other of these offers, >>>and that you will post a comparison of the results of your >>> ready-to-run, "radial_3" DOS program as compared to the >>> BL&E datum, for equivalent conditions. >> = = = >> What equivalent conditions? Where can they be found? What was the >> ground resistivity and permittivity on BL&E's site? >> >> I am not motivated to do anything except reply to your remarks. >> ... >> Reg. > _______________ > > OK, I'll do it then. Attached is a plot of BL&E's numbers versus yours, > for > the conditions stated there. Ground resistivity and permittivity were > estimated using the FCC's M-3 chart to select values of R and K at the > BL&E > test site from those shown in your program. > > Other parameters for radial_3 calculations were taken from the physical > and > electrical descriptions in the BL&E paper. The OD and depth of the > radials > were estimated. > > You and BL&E agree fairly well for a 90 degree vertical, but not well at > all > for a 20 degree vertical. > > I'll be glad to explain how I generated my plots, and even send you the > spreadsheet, if you want. > > RF > Article: 227022 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions From: Ed References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: 23 Jul 2006 23:57:07 GMT > Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for > about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical > antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about > antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house > and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, > any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? > > Sounds to me like you already have a workable idea in mind. Just use small wire, keep it high enough to be out of reach. Use a tuner, and keep your coax as short as possible (lossy with high SWR) and you should be just fine. Ed K7AAT Article: 227023 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 01:02:28 +0100 Message-ID: Frank, Thanks for information so far. I need time to study it. Could you tell me the efficiency, antenna input resistance component and resonant frequency, using our standard set of input data, ie., 36 radials, 10 metres long, when frequency is set exactly to its 1/4-wave resonant value around 8.3 MHz. Input reactance = zero or very few ohms. Thanks. ---- Reg. Article: 227024 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bob Agnew" References: Subject: Re: A KT34A was just listed on eBay for your information only. Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:45:53 -0700 In general, if I remember correctly, Usenet rules prohibit using newgroups for buying and selling. "Ron" wrote in message news:e93qv1$rd3@dispatch.concentric.net... >I guess I am not sure if eBay listing are approved on this list if they are >not then let me know and I will not post on this group again. > > Being this is an antenna newsgroup and this is an antenna listing I > figured some people might be interested. I just listed a new old stock > KT34A on eBay. Please email me directly with your comments and question > so as not to overpost on this group. > > Thanks > Ron WA0KDS Article: 227025 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "M.M." Subject: Re: A KT34A was just listed on eBay for your information only. References: Message-ID: <0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:46:53 -0700 Bob Agnew wrote: > In general, if I remember correctly, Usenet rules prohibit using newgroups > for buying and selling. > Rules? On Usenet? Where did you ever get that idea? Besides, there are hundreds of newsgroups specifically for buying & selling. Article: 227026 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bob Agnew" References: <0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01> Subject: Re: A KT34A was just listed on eBay for your information only. Message-ID: <4WUwg.12163$lv.1187@fed1read12> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:59:55 -0700 I guess I was thinking of the old Arpanet rules. "M.M." wrote in message news:0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01... > Bob Agnew wrote: >> In general, if I remember correctly, Usenet rules prohibit using >> newgroups for buying and selling. >> > > Rules? On Usenet? Where did you ever get that idea? > > Besides, there are hundreds of newsgroups specifically for buying & > selling. Article: 227027 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bob Agnew" References: <0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01> <4WUwg.12163$lv.1187@fed1read12> Subject: Re: A KT34A was just listed on eBay for your information only. Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 18:05:42 -0700 P.S. Sorry, my bad. A lot of things have changed since I started on the Arpanet in 1967. I'm pretty sure the rules on the Arpanet prohibited using newsgroups that way. "Bob Agnew" wrote in message news:4WUwg.12163$lv.1187@fed1read12... >I guess I was thinking of the old Arpanet rules. > > "M.M." wrote in message > news:0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01... >> Bob Agnew wrote: >>> In general, if I remember correctly, Usenet rules prohibit using >>> newgroups for buying and selling. >>> >> >> Rules? On Usenet? Where did you ever get that idea? >> >> Besides, there are hundreds of newsgroups specifically for buying & >> selling. > > Article: 227028 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:17:31 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> <1153604715.292035.274210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <33dc8$44c42dfe$453d9423$31394@FUSE.NET> jgboyles@aol.com wrote: > jawod wrote: > >>I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's QST. >> It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can model >>it on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a dipole >>or two). >> >>I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in a >>sort of temporary fashion. >> >>Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over >>Alaska. >> >>Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first >>antenna build? >> >>I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to use >>RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an UNUN or >>Balun in the article. >> >>What do youse think? Thinks? >> >>John >>AB8WH >> >>PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) > > > Hi John, The model does not account for the metal tower right in the > middle of the delta loop. It will have some effect on the feedpoint > impedance, as well as the pattern. > > If I were to string it up among trees, I would go with a standard (not > inverted) delta loop configuration. According to the article, it gives > about 1 db more forward gain at an elevation angle that might favor dx. > You won't have to worry about a tower messing things up either. > > As for feeding the loop, consult the ARRL Antenna book for the various > methods. For a single band Quad or delta loop, I would use a series > transmission line matching transformer. Thats what I think. > > Gary N4AST > Thanks for your input, Gary! Article: 227029 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "M.M." Subject: Re: A KT34A was just listed on eBay for your information only. References: <0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01> <4WUwg.12163$lv.1187@fed1read12> Message-ID: <6FWwg.107915$iU2.70422@fed1read01> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:56:02 -0700 Bob Agnew wrote: > P.S. Sorry, my bad. A lot of things have changed since I started on the > Arpanet in 1967. I'm pretty sure the rules on the Arpanet prohibited using > newsgroups that way. > Yep, it was a lot different back then. Even when I got into it in the 80's. The signal-to-noise ratio was much higher. Only a handful of newsgroups...no trolls...no spam...not even any www...sigh... Article: 227030 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 23 Jul 2006 20:21:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1153711278.414867.6660@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> an_old_friend wrote: > been trying EME with a staion that should just make it to the "big > guns" on 144.111 eraticly getting what seems to be sent in CW a > response of course I can't read it it is runing my wife guesses faster > the 15wpm morse > > on the off chance someone was simply confused I switched programs and > sent at 15 wpm a signal to the party unknown infrom any that could read > cw what I was doing and still I get back half the time a cwsignal that > breaks in over top of my eme contact > > are any morse code operators that stupid or should honestly assume this > is someone jamming > > anntenna is included becuase I know cecil has been hanging out there > and I would like his opinion the problem was somebody one of the area newer hams was mistaking my jt65a signal for badly sent CW he came on the reptear later and asked if anyone who sending the realy bad on 144.111 and I called him on the repeater explain I was trying moonbounce and he was tepping on the echos I was trying to read bso then he cleared off and 8:35 eEDT I made EME contact with IK7EZN Article: 227031 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 23 Jul 2006 20:52:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1153713126.753121.305400@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> I gotta say, this is one of the cleverer troll posts I have seen ! I'm going to no-sell it and say that I've got this damn noise around 50.175 that sounds just like weak SSB if you're tuning by it, and so I get all excited when I'm tuning around 6m and I come across it... until I look at the display. Also have a bunch of them that sound like CW signals... this is mostly a problem on 6m where I'm really, really hoping something happens. 73 es you'll get over it someday, Dan Article: 227032 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:06:53 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On 23 Jul 2006 15:11:26 -0700, blsherm@comcast.net wrote: >Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for >about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical >antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about >antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house >and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, >any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ Move. If you signed an agreement not to put up antennas, don't. Hams have a bad enough rep with the neighbors as it is without violating agreements they voluntarily agreed to. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227033 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Sal M. Onella" References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:32:50 -0700 > BB> From: Bob B. > BB> Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:33120 > > BB> Hello... > > BB> Will an antenna rotator like a Radio Shack or Channel Master work if > BB> hung upside-down from a roof beam, or should I try to come up with a > BB> way to secure it to the attic floor? > > BB> I know rotators are designed to handle a certain weight, but I can't > BB> guess at what they'd do with a "negative" weight... > > BB> The antenna I'm looking to rotate is a Channel Master 8-bay bowtie. > BB> (CM4228) I did it years ago with a 4-bay bowtie -- lighter, obviously, than your 8-bay, but I had not a bit of trouble over several years. I was at Ft. Meade, MD, near Baltimore. I connected two antennas in the attic -- close, so they'd interact -- one VHF aimed toward DC and one UHF hanging upside down on a rotor. I rotated for UHF as needed, and used the UHF antenna to cancel ghosts on VHF. The whole stupid thing was a success the first time -- entirely by accident. I had envisioned a WHO-O-O-LE lot of trial-and-error, but none was needed. And the rotor did not die in about two years of daily use. Article: 227034 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "palaniappan chellappan" Subject: Capacitors for HF Antenna Date: 24 Jul 2006 00:45:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Hi all, I am trying to do a loop antenna (HF - 13.56 Mhz - RFID Application), I found people using air variable capacitors and mica variable capacitors. can i use ceramic capacitors ? will that affect the performance a lot ? will that spoil the Q of antenna a lot ? regards, palani Article: 227035 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:58:33 GMT blsherm@comcast.net wrote: > Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for > about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical > antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about > antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house > and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, > any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? Are there restrictions against flagpoles? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227036 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:02:51 GMT Al Klein wrote: > Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent > enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a > license is to memorize the answers." How else one can know that the unit of resistance is the "ohm", except by memorizing? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227037 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: A KT34A was just listed on eBay for your information only. References: <0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:08:14 GMT M.M. wrote: > Bob Agnew wrote: >> In general, if I remember correctly, Usenet rules prohibit using >> newgroups for buying and selling. >> > Rules? On Usenet? Where did you ever get that idea? > > Besides, there are hundreds of newsgroups specifically for buying & > selling. He's talking about the rec.radio.amateur.* newsgroups. rec.radio.swap is the associated buying/selling newsgroup. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227038 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:23:43 +0100 From: test Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: <44c4bbd9_1@news.iprimus.com.au> jawod wrote: > I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's QST. > It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can model it > on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a dipole or > two). > > I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in a > sort of temporary fashion. > > Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over > Alaska. > > Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first > antenna build? > > I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to use > RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an UNUN or > Balun in the article. > > What do youse think? Thinks? > > John > AB8WH > > PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) This antenna was meant to be fed as a multiband antenna using open wire feedline and a tuner. Its height dependent. The takeoff angle on 20 is high. I myself would use a dipole with open wire feedline. However the authors intentions was for a compact multiband antenna. If you have trees use the large loop as in the ARRL antenna handbook. For a better antenna that feeds with open wire line and that has a ideal low angle pattern on all band from 20 meters to 10. Look at the horizontal magnetic slot antenna. You can find details in the latest RSGB handbook. A good tuner for these antennas is the Balanced Tuner by Measures. Pat Article: 227039 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:24:47 +0100 From: test Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44c4bc15$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> blsherm@comcast.net wrote: > Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for > about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical > antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about > antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house > and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, > any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? > Dont forget magnetic loops, they work well. Pat Article: 227040 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: A KT34A was just listed on eBay for your information only. References: <0MUwg.107891$iU2.9167@fed1read01> <4WUwg.12163$lv.1187@fed1read12> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:33:46 GMT Bob Agnew wrote: > P.S. Sorry, my bad. A lot of things have changed since I started on the > Arpanet in 1967. I'm pretty sure the rules on the Arpanet prohibited using > newsgroups that way. Hi Bob, there are rec.radio.amateur.* guidelines but a lot of posters ignore them. Here they are: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/radio/personal-intro/ rec.radio.swap is the group for buying/selling/trading. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227041 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Richard Fry" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <44c39fb5_3@newsfeed.slurp.net> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:03:54 -0500 Message-ID: <44c4c472_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> "hasan schiers" wrote ... > Do 26 radials 5 metres long perform substantially as well as > 26 radials 16 metres long at 3.62 mhz with the two soil > constants = 25 (in my case), with radial wire size #14 and > antenna wire size #10 (I think I used 2mm and 4mm in my calculations.) Some insight into this is provided by the following. Figure 37 in the BL&E paper shows about 77.5% of the theoretical maximum inverse field for a 77 degree vertical used with 30 radials of 0.137-wavelength each. Figure 36 shows 90.6% of the theoretical maximum inverse field for the same vertical with 30 radials of 0.411-wavelength. For 30 each 0.137-wavelength radials and a 77 degree vertical, Reg's program radial_3 calculates an efficiency corresponding to 87.2% of the theoretical maximum inverse field. (Other parameters for radial_3 were as shown in the plots I posted earlier.) This is significant when considering that the inverse field varies by the square root of this power difference. > NEC-4 should be able to tell us how much current is in a radial > and how that current is distributed along the length of the wire. If it > disappears into inconsequential levels within the first 5 metres, > then it confirms Reg's assertion. If it does not, i.e., it remains at > substantive levels well beyond 5 metres, then it contradicts Reg's > program, and agrees with BL&E, as well as W8JI. BL&E data show that if few radials are used they may as well be "short," because system performance isn't improved greatly by making them much longer. Quoting the BL&E paper (p.760), "These diagrams show that the ground system consisting of only 15 radial wires need not be more than 0.1 wave length long, while the system consisting of 113 radials is still effective out to 0.5 wave length. But there was no experimental evidence from BL&E showing that radiation efficiency ever _improved_ with shorter radials, as apparently calculated by radials_3.. RF Article: 227042 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Cumstains_with_a_C" References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153687680.702887.63220@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153687921.488620.217980@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153695990.509908.240120@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:09:01 -0400 Message-ID: <454b0$44c4c664$d1cc7af3$603@snip.allthenewsgroups.com> When will this ham radio cumstain bullshi+ end ?? keep your obsolete ham radio dribble out of our NG. Capeesh? "Konstans_with_a_C" wrote in message news:1153695990.509908.240120@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > hey marqueer..........you're not even wanted on the moon! maybe YOU > need to get help, you twisted fruit. > an_old_friend wrote: > > TheMonger wrote: > > > an_old_friend wrote: > > > > been trying EME with a staion that should just make it to the "big > > > > guns" on 144.111 eraticly getting what seems to be sent in CW a > > > > response of course I can't read it it is runing my wife guesses faster > > > > the 15wpm morse > > > > > > > > on the off chance someone was simply confused I switched programs and > > > > sent at 15 wpm a signal to the party unknown infrom any that could read > > > > cw what I was doing and still I get back half the time a cwsignal that > > > > breaks in over top of my eme contact > > > > > > > > are any morse code operators that stupid or should honestly assume this > > > > is someone jamming > > > > > > > > anntenna is included becuase I know cecil has been hanging out there > > > > and I would like his opinion > > > > > > sounds like you're being fag filtered by the moon. > > > > > now stfu. > > no > Article: 227043 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:15:54 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <5-ydnbbndK2aVVnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com> palaniappan chellappan wrote: > Hi all, > I am trying to do a loop antenna (HF - 13.56 Mhz - RFID Application), > I found people using air variable capacitors and mica variable > capacitors. > can i use ceramic capacitors ? will that affect the performance a lot ? > will that spoil the Q of antenna a lot ? > > regards, > palani > Are ceramic variables available?? The reason variable capacitors are used is that variables can tune the loop to resonance. Article: 227044 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:32:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> Wayne, The best study I've seen is in both the ARRL Antenna Handbook and in ON4UN's Low Band DX'ing Handbook. I think it was a 3 station that came up with a method (consistent with BL&E) that gave a simple formula for putting down the optimum number and length of radials, for a given length of radial wire available. I used that study to originally arrive at 50' long radials at 80m. This gave tip to tip separation of about 3 or 4 feet on 80m, which met his criteria. The material above specifically answers the question: how do you get the best bang for the buck for a given amount of available radial wire. Read that material..or at least get the formula and apply it to your available wire...that will get you were most of us are with respect to optimizing radials. Now, Reg has come up with his program that flies in the face of these other studies, indicating one can obtain comparable performance with MUCH shorter radials (5 metres instead of 16 metres) and that is what started this whole thread. We await some sort of comfirmation from several sources that Reg's numbers are correct. If they are, Reg will become famous. Currently here is how things line up: 1. BL&E doesn't seem to agree with Reg's numbers (on the issue of short radials) 2. Tom, W8JI's, recollection of his measurement don't either. 3. NEC-4 is in the process of analyzing the short radial comparability claim as we speak. The entire issue is: does the current in the radials described above taper off as quickly as Reg predicts, or not? If it does, the short radials will be comparable and Reg is right. If it doesn't, Reg needs to fix his program in that particular section. We await more data, or someone to extract from BL&E a precise answer to the actual question: how fast does current fall in a radial as you move away >from the base of a 1/4 wave ground mounted vertical with shallowly buried radials. In the mean time, you can get started with the formula I referred to above. If Reg is right, you used more wire than needed. If not, you have your wire in place and are ready to go. ...hasan, N0AN "Wayne" wrote in message news:L0Nwg.5924$yN3.4270@trnddc04... > These are very good points. I am reading these postings to try to > understand the behavior of actual implementations that lie somewhere > between the extremes you pointed out. In other words, what gets you the > most bang for the buck.... How fast does performance change with > increased radial length and number of radials. > Article: 227045 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Caveat Lector" References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:35:03 -0700 Bill -- check out Stealth Antenna projects at URL: http://ac6v.com/antprojects.htm#STANT >>Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for >>about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical >>antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about >>antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house >>and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, >>any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? Article: 227046 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Ulf B" References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:36:44 GMT skrev i meddelandet news:1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for > about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical > antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about > antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house > and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, > any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? > Hello, this situation is very simular to mine. I have tried a lot of different ideas and LW´s are very good stealth antennas BUT: >From my own experience: 1: Need good RF-ground close to tuner. I use radials. 2: Tuner is best located well outside of shack or you will run inte problems with RF and/or antenna picking up noise from the house. For practical reasons this is solved with a remote control or an autotuner. Right now I use a 6m (20ft) "El Cheapo" fishing rod vertical with a wire inside. My tuner will tune it from 80 to 10m. This is very "stealth" if you can hide the radials. Burry them in the lawn at a dark night. This is of course not a very efficient radiator at 80m but has worked ok with 100 watts. I use about 100 ft coax to tuner to keep it away from house. There are posibillities.... SM0FKI / Ulf Article: 227047 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > How else one can know that the unit of resistance > is the "ohm", except by memorizing? More importantly, that you can only transmit on 7.000 to 7.300 mHz, with restrictions on mode and license class. Or that you call "MAYDAY" on voice or SOS on CW for emergencies and never, never, never call "breaker, breaker". Going back to the orginal point of memorizing or not, is knowing the type of oscilators and drawing their schematics anything but memorizing? Actually, the only MORSE code you need to get help is SOS (not even run together as one letter). If you keep sending SOS, SOS, SOS, someone will eventually hear you and track you down. Note that the original intent of the morse code test was that amateur radio was to provide a pool of ready trained radio operators in case of war. I'm in a country in the middle of a war, and I can guarentee you that NONE of the radio communications are morse code. In fact, until we took out the cellular towers in Lebanon, almost all of the Hizbolah's command and control traffic was via cellular phone. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 227048 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:43:56 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: SNIPPED > > In fact, until we took out the cellular towers in Lebanon, almost all of > the Hizbolah's command and control traffic was via cellular phone. > > Geoff. > With tongue in cheek I ask: "Now that the towers are out, does that mean Hezzbollah is changing to CW?" :-) /s/ W1MCE Article: 227049 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:48:12 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On 24 Jul 2006 00:45:39 -0700, "palaniappan chellappan" wrote: >Hi all, >I am trying to do a loop antenna (HF - 13.56 Mhz - RFID Application), >I found people using air variable capacitors and mica variable >capacitors. >can i use ceramic capacitors ? will that affect the performance a lot ? >will that spoil the Q of antenna a lot ? > >regards, >palani ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ You didn't give many details such as the bandwidth of the antenna, but if you use the NP0 type ceramic capacitors you should be ok. Loops, especially small ones, are notorious for narrow bandwidth and stable caps are a must. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227050 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 07:50:37 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:35:03 -0700, "Caveat Lector" wrote: >Bill -- check out Stealth Antenna projects at URL: >http://ac6v.com/antprojects.htm#STANT ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ Do the CC&Rs allow "stealth" antennas? If so, go for it. If not, don't. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227051 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions From: Bert Hyman References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: 24 Jul 2006 14:59:03 GMT noway@nohow.com (Bill Turner) wrote in news:hgn9c25huo8lm8hl2qd86sg5gp04j2sdsl@4ax.com: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:35:03 -0700, "Caveat Lector" > wrote: > >>Bill -- check out Stealth Antenna projects at URL: >>http://ac6v.com/antprojects.htm#STANT > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > > Do the CC&Rs allow "stealth" antennas? If so, go for it. If not, > don't. Are you suggesting that the OP might actually want to comply with the terms of the contract he made when he bought his house? How strange! -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com Article: 227052 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "clfe" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:01:41 -0400 Message-ID: <44c4e0c5$0$2935$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Dave" wrote in message news:paudnQPFYdY0QVnZnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com... > Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > > SNIPPED >> >> In fact, until we took out the cellular towers in Lebanon, almost all of >> the Hizbolah's command and control traffic was via cellular phone. >> >> Geoff. >> > > With tongue in cheek I ask: "Now that the towers are out, does that mean > Hezzbollah is changing to CW?" :-) > > /s/ W1MCE > Not knowing the "distances" involved - any chance they may be using YOUR cell towers? IF so, that could really suck. Nothing like having your enemy use your own equipment against you. Lou Article: 227053 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:44:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Preliminary numbers from Frank's NEC-4 run on Reg's model below: Caveat: I have not been able to ask Frank if the segments are all the same length along the radial wire. The info below is based on that assumption. The radial is 10 meters long, buried about 1 inch. I'm reading the numbers >from the graph that Frank sent me. The radial wire is 40 segments long or .25 meters per segment. The antenna is 9 feet long and modeled at 8.07 mhz. If I'm reading it right, at 30 segments along the radial wire, the current has dropped from a peak of 0.6 amps to 0.2 amps. 30 segments seems to be 7.5 meters out. If the current is still 0.2 amps at 7.5 meters out on a 10 meter radial, then Reg's approach fails. He indicated 20 dB down at a short distance out. 75% of the way out on the 10 meter radial, the current is down 0.2/0.6 = .33. 10log * 0.33 = 4.8 dB (if I did that right). So...it seems that the current along the radial is down only 4.8 dB at 75% of it's length. Reg indicated that it should be down 20 dB at about 1/3 of its length. At the 35th segment of the radial, the current is 1/6th or 7.8 dB down. This is at 90% of the radial's length. At the 39th segment of the radio the current is .025 amps. 0.025/6 = .0146. 10log * .0146 = 14 dB down. That is only 14 dB down at 100% of the radial length. I'm using 10 log * (I1/I2) for for the dB calcs...I think current ratios and power ratios are 10log, and voltage is 20log. It is possible I'm interpreting Frank's graph incorrectly or applying the attenuation that Reg refers to incorrectly. I'm just so glad to see some numbers for current distribution along a radial wire from NEC-4, that I had to post what I see. Eyeballing it looks like this:(the radial wire starts at segment 39 and runs to segment 79) Segment 39 0.60 amps, distance from source = 0, dB = 0 Segment 49 0.54 amps, distance from source = 2.5 meters, dB = 0.46 dB Segment 59 0.42 amps, distance from source = 5.0 meters, dB = 1.5 dB Segment 69 0.22 amps, distance from source = 7.5 meters, dB = 4.3 dB Segment 79 0.025 amps, distance from source = 10 meters, dB = 14.8 dB What does Reg's program predict for dB down on this sample antenna? Using 25 and 25 for soil and the info Frank gave me: Reg's program shows radial attenuation of 20 dB at 2.3 meters from the source. Side by side with the NEC-4 data Distance Reg NEC-4 (dB down) 2.5 m 21.2 0.46 5.0 m 42.4 1.5 7.5 m 63.9 4.3 10 m 83.3 14.8 These numbers are so far apart, it looks like I did something terribly wrong. Someone please correct me. Keep in mind these are preliminary attempts to analyze the NEC-4 based graph that Frank sent me. I really do hope I did something wrong. ...hasan, N0AN "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com... > Frank, > > Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have - > > Number of radials = 36 > Length of radials = 10 m > Diameter of radials = 2 mm > Frequency = 7 MHz > Antenna height = 9 m > Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG > Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres > Ground permittivity = 16 > > IMPORTANT: > > If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be > very pleased to know what it is. > > Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the > radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation. > > Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known > formula - > > Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials ) > > provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out. > > Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a > hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance. > Altogether different. > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ > > Article: 227054 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:47:12 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION: The wire segments are NOT equal in this model. Frank is sending me a new one with linear segments. I'll correct the errors below as soon as I get the new values. ...hasan, N0AN "hasan schiers" wrote in message news:ea2pt9$bv7$1@news.netins.net... > Preliminary numbers from Frank's NEC-4 run on Reg's model below: > > Caveat: I have not been able to ask Frank if the segments are all the same > length along the radial wire. The info below is based on that assumption. > > The radial is 10 meters long, buried about 1 inch. I'm reading the numbers > from the graph that Frank sent me. The radial wire is 40 segments long or > .25 meters per segment. The antenna is 9 feet long and modeled at 8.07 > mhz. > > If I'm reading it right, at 30 segments along the radial wire, the current > has dropped from a peak of 0.6 amps to 0.2 amps. 30 segments seems to be > 7.5 meters out. If the current is still 0.2 amps at 7.5 meters out on a 10 > meter radial, then Reg's approach fails. He indicated 20 dB down at a > short distance out. 75% of the way out on the 10 meter radial, the current > is down 0.2/0.6 = .33. 10log * 0.33 = 4.8 dB (if I did that right). > > So...it seems that the current along the radial is down only 4.8 dB at 75% > of it's length. Reg indicated that it should be down 20 dB at about 1/3 of > its length. > > At the 35th segment of the radial, the current is 1/6th or 7.8 dB down. > This is at 90% of the radial's length. > > At the 39th segment of the radio the current is .025 amps. 0.025/6 = > .0146. 10log * .0146 = 14 dB down. That is only 14 dB down at 100% of the > radial length. > > I'm using 10 log * (I1/I2) for for the dB calcs...I think current ratios > and power ratios are 10log, and voltage is 20log. > > It is possible I'm interpreting Frank's graph incorrectly or applying the > attenuation that Reg refers to incorrectly. I'm just so glad to see some > numbers for current distribution along a radial wire from NEC-4, that I > had to post what I see. > > Eyeballing it looks like this:(the radial wire starts at segment 39 and > runs to segment 79) > > Segment 39 0.60 amps, distance from source = 0, dB = 0 > Segment 49 0.54 amps, distance from source = 2.5 meters, dB = 0.46 dB > Segment 59 0.42 amps, distance from source = 5.0 meters, dB = 1.5 dB > Segment 69 0.22 amps, distance from source = 7.5 meters, dB = 4.3 dB > Segment 79 0.025 amps, distance from source = 10 meters, dB = 14.8 dB > > What does Reg's program predict for dB down on this sample antenna? > > Using 25 and 25 for soil and the info Frank gave me: > > Reg's program shows radial attenuation of 20 dB at 2.3 meters from the > source. > > Side by side with the NEC-4 data > > Distance Reg NEC-4 (dB down) > > 2.5 m 21.2 0.46 > > 5.0 m 42.4 1.5 > > 7.5 m 63.9 4.3 > > 10 m 83.3 14.8 > > > These numbers are so far apart, it looks like I did something terribly > wrong. Someone please correct me. > Keep in mind these are preliminary attempts to analyze the NEC-4 based > graph that Frank sent me. I really do hope I did something wrong. > > ...hasan, N0AN > > "Reg Edwards" wrote in message > news:2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com... >> Frank, >> >> Just to confirm we are both working on the same system, I have - >> >> Number of radials = 36 >> Length of radials = 10 m >> Diameter of radials = 2 mm >> Frequency = 7 MHz >> Antenna height = 9 m >> Antenna diameter = 1.64 mm = 14 AWG >> Ground resistivity = 150 ohm-metres >> Ground permittivity = 16 >> >> IMPORTANT: >> >> If NEC4 gives you the input impedance of the radial system I should be >> very pleased to know what it is. >> >> Otherwise we shall have no idea where the discrepancy arises - in the >> radial system or in the antenna efficiency calculation. >> >> Radiating efficiency is estimated by my program by the well-known >> formula - >> >> Efficiency = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rradials ) >> >> provided antenna and radials reactance are tuned out. >> >> Whereas NEC4 calculates efficiency by integrating power flow over a >> hemisphere WITHOUT tuning out antenna and radials reactance. >> Altogether different. >> ---- >> Reg, G4FGQ >> >> > > Article: 227055 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Dan Richardson Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:47:36 -0700 Message-ID: <8pq9c2ljfrsvrnputiqm0ea8i2ci4nf60s@4ax.com> References: <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:32:08 -0500, "hasan schiers" wrote: >The best study I've seen is in both the ARRL Antenna Handbook and in ON4UN's >Low Band DX'ing Handbook. I think it was a 3 station that came up with a >method (consistent with BL&E) that gave a simple formula for putting down >the optimum number and length of radials, for a given length of radial wire >available. I used that study to originally arrive at 50' long radials at >80m. This gave tip to tip separation of about 3 or 4 feet on 80m, which met >his criteria. The material above specifically answers the question: how do >you get the best bang for the buck for a given amount of available radial >wire. You can find the article and the formula in the August 2004 QST. Danny, K6MHE Article: 227056 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:11:08 GMT > Frank, > Thanks for information so far. I need time to study it. > > Could you tell me the > > efficiency, > antenna input resistance component > and resonant frequency, > > using our standard set of input data, ie., 36 radials, 10 metres long, > when frequency is set exactly to its 1/4-wave resonant value around > 8.3 MHz. Input reactance = zero or very few ohms. Reg' With the above parameters; summarizing the data obtained so far: Efficiency 31.8%; Antenna input resistance component 36.21 - j 3.1, and; The resonant frequency 8.07 MHz. 73, Frank Article: 227057 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Hill" References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500 "Al Klein" wrote in message news:gijob2paistn335sjmffjab7mv493cmm3g@4ax.com... > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert > wrote: > >>Al Klein wrote: > >>> Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. > >>Ahh...but I did, once > > But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. > >>proving that one has little to do with the other. > > And that you have little to do with this conversation. You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's just the sign of the times. BH Article: 227058 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 24 Jul 2006 09:32:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1153758746.412078.97040@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Cumstains_with_a_C wrote: > When will this ham radio cumstain bullshi+ end ?? > keep your obsolete ham radio dribble out of our NG. > Capeesh? > > "Konstans_with_a_C" wrote in message > news:1153695990.509908.240120@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... fraid nyou can't stop the raving of AB8MQ short of serious violence becuase the man is completely mad From Nevermind Tue Jul 25 12:18:58 EDT 2006 Article: 227059 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:01:02 -0500 From: Nevermind (Nevermind@hotmail.com) Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Rotor Cable? X-Newsreader: NewsLeecher v3.7 Final (http://www.newsleecher.com) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:01:02 -0500 Lines: 15 X-Trace: sv3-nQclO9wrZoi0OqJRSgAQCHREATKmm8XQHwZmTTIyAd3aV/H7hzqZ/3PuHDGWlabl45Mpd+bAb4WO1cK!oTgFjEk9kLFeHeFgd4z1sld4DsU8m435JJ+h0YXYGPI86X2ep87TUtopIpm1divb7N7Q2ClU X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Path: news.unc.edu!elk.ncren.net!news.uoregon.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!atl-c05.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: news0.isis.unc.edu rec.radio.amateur.antenna:227059 Im a new ham setting up a tower in my backyard. Eventually, when I can afford it, I will buy a rotor and a directional antenna. I wanted to run the rotor cable while I have the PVC above ground, and im not sure what kind of cable I would need. Would any 8 conducter cable work? cat cable? telephone cable size okay? I dont want to get something too cheap, but im running 300 ft. -- --------------------------------- --- -- - Posted with NewsLeecher v3.7 Final Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet ------------------- ----- ---- -- - Article: 227060 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:47:51 +0100 Message-ID: Frank, Having used NEC4 to derive the input impedance of a single radial, it is now in your hands to settle the discussion about attenuation along radials and the distance at which a radial becomes ineffective. The spectators are waiting! We already have the input impedance of a single radial of length 10 metres at 7.0 MHz, with resistivity = 150 and permittivity = 16. Using our standard set of data, I suggest you increase the SINGLE radial length in increments of 3 metres until the input impedance Zin stops changing and becomes relatively constant. That value of Zin will be equal to Zo = Ro + jXo, the complex characteristic impedance of the equivalent transmission line. It might never become absolutely constant because NEC4 will take into acount the effect of current flowing in the soil which, although it is decreasing, eventually it will be substantially greater than that in a long radial. ( My program does not do this.) But you should be able to judge the distance at which radial attenuation is about 18 or 20dB, ie., when Zin = Zo. The question of efficiency is of less importance. It doesn't matter what the efficiency is because you are using the antenna input impedance plus radial input impedance only to deduce radial input impedance in the same way as if you were measuring it. Be careful with the signs of reactances. ;o) At your leisure you may find a way how to do 36 and other numbers of radials, at different frequencies. A 1/4-wave resonant antenna is always best. The optimum length of a radial will decrease as frequency increases. At 14 MHz the effect of permittivity kicks in quite strongly. And with 120 or more radials you might be able to demonstrate BL&E were quite correct when they concluded that a virtually perfect ground. at MF, is independent of soil conditions. ---- Reg. Article: 227061 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:52:51 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Corrected numbers for linearly segemented radials from Frank's latest NEC-4 model of one buried radial wire, compared to Reg's program. > Side by side with the NEC-4 data > This is how many dB down the current is as you move outward from the origin of the radial. Distance Reg NEC-4 (dB down) 1.0 m 2.5 1.3 3.5 m 8.7 4.4 5.9 m 14.9 8.7 8.5 m 21.4 10.0 9.7 m 24.4 23.8 Conclusion: the current drop along the radial is no where near as fast as Radials3 predicts, therefore shortening the radials as much as the program shows will increase losses significantly. I find it VERY interesting, that at the full length of 10m, there is good agreement between Reg's program and NEC-4. If I were going to base my conclusions on this preliminary small sample, I would say that Reg's program does not hold up for short radials. BL&E, W8JI and now NEC-4 all indicate that there is no where near 20 dB of attenuation in short radials. To confirm this isn't an odd case, a lot more runs would need to be done with varying lengths and radial numbers...but I have to say, it ain't lookin' good for Radials3 in terms of fairly representing the rapidity with which currents diminish on a radial wire over its length. Bottom Line: For the present, the articles in QST, ARRL Handbook, Low-Band DX'ing and W8JI's findings are the ones I would follow. The first three are all the same study and that formula is based on BL&E. The following data are from a spreadsheet I used to calculate the optimum length and number of radials based on the above sources. I put the BL&E data in the spreadsheet as a reference. The numbers are how many dB down the field strength was for a given number and length of radials. Brn/Lw/Ep # Rad 0.137 wl 0.274 wl 0.411 wl 2 -4.36 -4.36 -4.05 15 -2.40 -1.93 -1.65 30 -2.40 -1.44 -0.97 60 -2.00 -0.66 -0.42 113 -2.00 -0.51 0 (Ref) Here are a few runs for 80 meters of various numbers and lengths of radials that should be within a dB or so of optimum (BL&E).(Based on the references noted above) 3.7 mhz, 1/4 wave vertical. The formula is based on tip separation at the perimeter. Too much separation increases loss, too little wastes wire. All based on wavelenthgs, of course. I believe the maximum tip separation recommended was .015 wavelength. Available Wire # of Radials Length of Radials 500' 25 19.7' (not within a dB, not enough wire) 1000' 36 27.8' (not within a dB, not enough wire) 1500' 44 34.0' 2000' 51 39.3' 3116' 63 49.0 (should be within 0.5 dB of BL&E Optimum) My final setup will be 46 radials 50' long. I have 26 right now. It looks like for 50' long radials, I should really have 63 of them, otherwise, I could have stayed at 51 radials only 39.3' long. All this says is that I'm not making the "most" out of the available wire I had. (which makes sense, given I've added radials over time, and didn't have a final plan). At this point, it looks like when copper prices drop, I need to get another 850' of wire and put in 17 more radials and I will have met the criteria for the formula. (Be within 0.5 dB of maximum field strength according to BL*E). If anyone wants a copy of the Excel spreadsheet, just email me and I'll send it to you as an attachment. Only two variables should be entered: Total length of available wire and Frequency in Mhz. Everything else is calcuated.( I did not protect any of the fields, so if you enter data into a calculated field, you'll have to reload your spreadsheet from a non-messed-up one...so save a virgin copy somewhere until you protect the appropriate cells.) 73, ...hasan, N0AN Article: 227062 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w0zv@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Rotor Cable? Date: 24 Jul 2006 10:53:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1153763637.074424.230120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: Nevermind@hotmail.com wrote: > Im a new ham setting up a tower in my backyard. Eventually, when I > can afford it, I will buy a rotor and a directional antenna. I > wanted to run the rotor cable while I have the PVC above ground, and > im not sure what kind of cable I would need. Would any 8 conducter > cable work? cat cable? telephone cable size okay? I dont want to get > something too cheap, but im running 300 ft. For a typical Ham-IV rotator, total resistance for Terminals 1 & 2 should be 0.8 ohms and 2.0 ohms for the other 6. Hy-Gain's manual says: http://www.hy-gain.com/man/pdf/HAM-IV.pdf (page 4) Maximum Gauge for Gauge for Length Terminals 1 & 2 Terminals 3-8 300' (91 m) #14 (1.75 mm) #16 (1.42 mm) You can mount the motor capacitor at the rotator instead of inside the control box and eliminate the need for two #16 wires (terminals 3 and 4). In this case you could parallel two of the smaller wires with the two larger wires for Terminals 1 & 2. A 300' run of rotor cable is not cheap! Think $360 ($1.19/ft). http://www.texastowers.com/rotcable.htm 73, Bill W4ZV Article: 227063 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Dan Richardson Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:10:34 -0700 Message-ID: References: <44c15484_5@newsfeed.slurp.net> <12c6uva6pbslk26@corp.supernews.com> <8pq9c2ljfrsvrnputiqm0ea8i2ci4nf60s@4ax.com> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:47:36 -0700, Dan Richardson wrote: >You can find the article and the formula in the August 2004 QST. OOOPS! Make that August 2003! Sorry, Danny, K6MHE Article: 227064 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Kelley Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:26:35 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > Jim Kelley wrote: > >> Consider the nature of dielectric materials. I could be wrong, but I >> bet if you stuck a negative oxygen ion on the outside of a jacketed >> conductor, you could make the conductor inside think you had put an >> electron directly on it. > > > The question is whether the electron stays on the insulation > or migrates through it to the conductor. Actually, the question is whether or not one can hear the resulting noise. > The size of the charge Vs the dielectric determines how > much of the charge actually reaches the conductor. Perhaps you mean the amount of charge Vs. the dielectric determine the voltage. > When > I went from bare wire to 600v insulation, my precipitation > static problems decreased considerably. Then when I went to > 1000v insulation and a full wave loop, most of my precipitation > static problems disappeared. I see your point. The poorer the dielectric and the greater it's thickness, the lower the induced voltage. There should be some effect, yes. What'd you use, 20 meters of CRT anode wire or spark plug wire? :-) The point with which Tom seemed to take issue was the implication that an antenna with low DC resistance would have lower precipitation static noise. I also disagree with that notion. > The worst case of precipitation static seems to be for > airplane antennas. Insulation is the recommended cure > although folding is also mentioned. Please do a web > search for "precipitation static" and see for yourself. > > http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_precipitation_static.html I'm glad we agree on the definitions. In one of your previous references I noted the term precipitation static used (incorrectly) to describe the noise associated with static discharge. This is a distinction I attempted to point out in my earlier post. Precipitation, among other things, can cause charge to accumulate on objects which are insulated from ground. This accumulation can continue to increase until breakdown occurs, causing a spark and a noise which is big enough to knock down the receiver AGC for a few seconds (or worse). Precipitation static is the noise which is apparent when a relatively high flux of ions impinges upon an antenna. Low DC impedance antennas won't accumulate large amounts of charge or generate a static discharge, but they are nevertheless sensitive to the static noise just as any other antenna would be. In other words, you and Tom W8JI are both right - you just don't know why. ;-) Did you see the article in Harper's magazine on W6AM? Pretty neat. Even that article mentioned precipitation static. 73, ac6xg Article: 227065 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <5E8xg.11671$2v.3280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:50:41 GMT Bill Turner wrote: > You didn't give many details such as the bandwidth of the antenna, but > if you use the NP0 type ceramic capacitors you should be ok. Loops, > especially small ones, are notorious for narrow bandwidth and stable > caps are a must. I once used disc ceramic bypass caps to try to tune an antenna. They went up in flames. For a small loop, I would at least use doorknob quality caps. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227066 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:31:11 GMT Jim Kelley wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: >> The size of the charge Vs the dielectric determines how >> much of the charge actually reaches the conductor. > > Perhaps you mean the amount of charge Vs. the dielectric determine the > voltage. size = amount = magnitude = amplitude. It is hard to visualize how a charge could make it to the conductor without the migration of a quantum particle. > The point with which Tom seemed to take issue was the implication > that an antenna with low DC resistance would have lower precipitation > static noise. I also disagree with that notion. Both of you misunderstood the definition of "noise" that I was using. With the feedline completely disconnected from the transceiver, arcing occurred and that aural noise woke me up at night. It was aural noise from the arcing caused by precipitation static charge tansfer that woke me up and a low DC resistance eliminated it. > Precipitation > static is the noise which is apparent when a relatively high flux of > ions impinges upon an antenna. Low DC impedance antennas won't > accumulate large amounts of charge or generate a static discharge, but > they are nevertheless sensitive to the static noise just as any other > antenna would be. In other words, you and Tom W8JI are both right - you > just don't know why. ;-) When a charge hits a closed loop, there are two paths it can take to equalize the charge around the loop. Only one of those paths is through the receiver and that is a higher impedance path than the other path. When a single-wire dipole needs to equalize the charges between the dipole elements, there is only one path available - through the receiver which often has a capacitor in series and thus blocks DC charge equalization. This is, of course, not the only reason that a loop is quieter than a single-wire dipole but is simply one of the reasons. Incidentally, "Quietflex" antenna wire, with its 1000v insulation reduced the problem to an acceptable level in the Arizona desert. I still use that wire for my dipoles. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227067 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:35:55 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > Having used NEC4 to derive the input impedance of a single radial, it > is now in your hands to settle the discussion about attenuation along > radials and the distance at which a radial becomes ineffective. The > spectators are waiting! Reg, how did you determine how much attenuation there is in a radial because of the surrounding ground? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227068 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Chris" Subject: Re: Antenna installed below ridge line? Date: 24 Jul 2006 13:13:40 -0700 Message-ID: <1153772020.026191.222830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1153428201.081171.242200@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> I would be placing it just even with the ridge line. Sounds like that this shouldn't be a big issue then. Thanks for the help. Reg Edwards wrote: > If the antenna is mounted just level with the obstructing ridge, then > the refraction over the ridge is only about 6 dB less than when the > antenna is in the clear. > > But below that level the refraction loss increases very rapidly. > ========================================== Article: 227069 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:10:27 +0100 Message-ID: Fellow Experimenters, Frank and Hasan. I havn't the foggiest idea what you are doing with NEC4 but you should be aware that, according to Radial_3, there are 3 resonant frequencies with a single radial at lengths shorter than 10 metres and at a frequency of 7 MHz. The propagation velocity is very low. VF = 0.225 Funny unexpected things happen on multi-resonant lines especially when Zo has a relatively large positive angle. Before you draw any conclusions about deducing attenuation from your output data you should take into account the line is - 1/4-wave resonant at 2.4 metres. 1/2-wave resonant at 4.8 metres. 3/4-wave resonant at 7.4 metres. and at 10 metres it is very near to full-wave resonance. It can be assumed the far end is open-circuit. Actually it isn't. It behaves as if it is slightly longer. It is significant that at 10 metres and 7 MHz, you have concluded that the radial is about 20dB long. Which approximately agrees with my program as being the length beyond which there is not much point in extending it. But the best way of determining attenuation is to do what I have suggested - increase radial length in short increments and observe what happens to radial input impedance. Eventually, Zin will converge on Zo if it hasn't already done so. I should very much like to know what Zo is and at what length it occurs. I have to assume NEC4 knows what it's doing! ;o) ---- Reg. Article: 227070 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:52:35 +0100 Message-ID: > Reg, how did you determine how much attenuation there is > in a radial because of the surrounding ground? > -- > 73, Cecil ========================================== Cec, I don't have enough time left to write a thick book. But as an engineer and radio amateur with 60 years (on and off) experience of transmission lines ( from 0.05 Hz to 3 GHz ), and having once read something about Oliver Heaviside's trouble with university professors, I was able to make an intelligent guess. It remains to be seen what the uncertainty is. Isn't there anything in the Handbook or Google? ;o) ---- Yours, Reg. Article: 227071 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Allodoxaphobia Subject: Re: Rotor Cable? Date: 24 Jul 2006 21:28:36 GMT Message-ID: References: On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:01:02 -0500, Nevermind (Nevermind@hotmail.com) wrote: > Im a new ham setting up a tower in my backyard. Eventually, when I > can afford it, I will buy a rotor and a directional antenna. I > wanted to run the rotor cable while I have the PVC above ground, and > im not sure what kind of cable I would need. Would any 8 conducter > cable work? cat cable? telephone cable size okay? I dont want to get > something too cheap, but im running 300 ft. Hmmmm... 300 feet! There'll be voltage drops. Do you already know the rotator you'll be using? "Would any 8 conducter cable work?" makes it sound so. My current rotator use a 5-wire set-up. The one before that was a 6-wire lash-up. What I've always used is loss-leader, 100' 14 ga. extension cords. You'll see these from time-to-time at a Real Good price at the chain and/or Big Box hardware stores. Since I've never needed more than about 70-80 feet, they serve me well. (And, if I cut Just Right, I can make up some 8-10-12 foot extension cords and/or replacement cords for power tools.) For the 5-wire configuration, I parallel the 2 ground ("green") wires of the two cords to serve as the common return for the motor windings and the position pot. I don't know where you're located, but eliminating the voltage drop will be a Big Plus when you want to swing your collectionairy at midnight on a cold Winter's night. I used to live in Gunnison, Colorado and getting that sucker to wave around at 20-25 below zero after the sun went down was always dicey. HTH Jonesy -- Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux 38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2 *** Killfiling google posts: Article: 227072 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:56:24 -0400 On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:02:51 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent >> enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a >> license is to memorize the answers." >How else one can know that the unit of resistance >is the "ohm", except by memorizing? There's a difference between knowing that the unit of resistance is the Ohm, and remembering that the answer to the question about Kirchoff with the 3 resistors is 10,000 ohms. Article: 227073 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tam/WB2TT" References: Subject: Re: Rotor Cable? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:02:01 -0400 Message-ID: "Nevermind" wrote in message news:w7-dnepodaBTYVnZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@giganews.com... > Im a new ham setting up a tower in my backyard. Eventually, when I > can afford it, I will buy a rotor and a directional antenna. I > wanted to run the rotor cable while I have the PVC above ground, and > im not sure what kind of cable I would need. Would any 8 conducter > cable work? cat cable? telephone cable size okay? I dont want to get > something too cheap, but im running 300 ft. > > > > -- > --------------------------------- --- -- - > Posted with NewsLeecher v3.7 Final > Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet > ------------------- ----- ---- -- - > You need rotor cable. The Belden 9405 has 8 wires: 2 x #16 and 6 x #18. Sells for 94 cents a foot at AES. Probably cheaper elsewhere. You would probably be best off with a Yaesu rotator for these reasons: 1) About 1/3 cheaper up front. 2) Uses a DC motor. These won't stall at low voltage, just run slower. 3) Require 6 wires, instead of 8. Only 5 of the 6 are actually used. What I did was to use 8 conductor cable, and connect 2 wires in parallel for the 2 motor wires. What you should do for any rotor installation is to first connect the control box to the rotator on the kitchen table, or wherever, using the actual whole piece of cable you plan to use. Tam/WB2TT Article: 227074 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:33:25 GMT > Fellow Experimenters, Frank and Hasan. > > I havn't the foggiest idea what you are doing with NEC4 but you should > be aware that, according to Radial_3, there are 3 resonant frequencies > with a single radial at lengths shorter than 10 metres and at a > frequency of 7 MHz. > > The propagation velocity is very low. VF = 0.225 > > Funny unexpected things happen on multi-resonant lines especially when > Zo has a relatively large positive angle. Before you draw any > conclusions about deducing attenuation from your output data you > should take into account the line is - > > 1/4-wave resonant at 2.4 metres. > 1/2-wave resonant at 4.8 metres. > 3/4-wave resonant at 7.4 metres. > > and at 10 metres it is very near to full-wave resonance. It can be > assumed the far end is open-circuit. Actually it isn't. It behaves > as if it is slightly longer. > > It is significant that at 10 metres and 7 MHz, you have concluded that > the radial is about 20dB long. Which approximately agrees with my > program as being the length beyond which there is not much point in > extending it. > > But the best way of determining attenuation is to do what I have > suggested - increase radial length in short increments and observe > what happens to radial input impedance. Eventually, Zin will converge > on Zo if it hasn't already done so. I should very much like to know > what Zo is and at what length it occurs. I have to assume NEC4 knows > what it's doing! ;o) > ---- > Reg. Reg, Note that I am making all my calculations at 8.07 MHz, where the structure is very close to resonance. NEC does indicate the resonant lengths of the radials as follows: 1/4 wave = 2 m; 1/2 wave = 4 m......etc., to 1.25 wavelengths at 10 m. I will try your suggestion of gradually increasing radial length until I see a convergence trend at the complex Zo. Frank Article: 227075 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 24 Jul 2006 16:27:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153783624.825341.120110@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Al Klein wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:02:51 GMT, Cecil Moore > wrote: > > >Al Klein wrote: > > >> Must? Where's the "must"? Or do you mean "If you aren't intelligent > >> enough, or motivated enough, to learn a little, the only way to get a > >> license is to memorize the answers." > > >How else one can know that the unit of resistance > >is the "ohm", except by memorizing? > > There's a difference between knowing that the unit of resistance is > the Ohm, and remembering that the answer to the question about > Kirchoff with the 3 resistors is 10,000 ohms. someone could memorize that sort of detail I spuose but you nor your friends have ever advanced any evidence that this occurs Indeed I don't think it is possible to memorize enough to pass the test and learn nothing in the bargan I can't prove that of course but it does seem likely Article: 227076 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700 Message-ID: <1153784535.633739.249980@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: Brian Hill wrote: > "Al Klein" wrote in message > news:gijob2paistn335sjmffjab7mv493cmm3g@4ax.com... > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert > > wrote: > > > >>Al Klein wrote: > > > >>> Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. > > > >>Ahh...but I did, once > > > > But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. > > > >>proving that one has little to do with the other. > > > > And that you have little to do with this conversation. > > You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone > sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's > just the sign of the times. Indeed I understand the points of the CW crwod but I simply reject the ntotions that merits of CW merit the strangle hold it has after all I can do even EME without knowing a BIT of Morse did so last night > > BH Article: 227077 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 24 Jul 2006 16:53:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1153785207.014583.244350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Hey Stupid wrote: > "an_old_friend" wrote in > news:1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > There is absolutely no way you could have passed the written exam Mark, no > way. The VE's must have accidently mix up your answer sheet with someone > elses. > was possible to mix up my answer sheet with someon elses SC but that would not have affected me passing every one passed the day I took mine I passed to 2 elemt test for tech we used ot have and I have passed the the general and extra class written waiting for the plug to be plulled on code testing Look like for time on the CSSE I moay need to retake the general element but that isn't rough > SC Article: 227078 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS Date: 24 Jul 2006 16:53:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1153785208.723816.64630@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > "Steve" wrote in > news:vTwwg.6179$1Z5.2107@twister.nyroc.rr.com: > > > Ya, and you're not a 'real' bowler either unless you have a $500 bowling > > ball. > > > > And you're not a 'real' fisherman until you've caught a Marlin off the > > coast of Mexico either. > > > > It's only a hobby. If you don't like it, pick another one! > > > It's not just a hobby, read part 97 again. If you wanted just a hobby you > should've stuck to CB and Stamp collecting. sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts are supposed to be > > > Help save Ham radio and ignore Mark to save > usenet: if one wants to Help save Ham radio SC needs to get a life Article: 227079 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: bless you and may you find peace Date: 24 Jul 2006 16:53:35 -0700 Message-ID: <1153785215.684168.244880@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > That's what you have to decide. > > SC no it isn't CW as a licenseing requiremtn is on life support and the plug will be pulled soon CB has nothing to to do with it Article: 227080 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 24 Jul 2006 16:54:50 -0700 Message-ID: <1153785290.735689.11100@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Slow Code wrote: > Al Klein wrote in > news:e1o5c29r6guct0u6m2ekonaojgqq16d7ec@4ax.com: > > > On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:14:17 GMT, Slow Code wrote: > > > >>The fit get a ham license. All the rest get cell phones, CB, and > >>shortwave listening. > > > > No, SC - in today's society we can't hurt people's feelings, so the > > loud get anything they want. > > > I guess that means I got to get louder too. LOL it is way too late for that SC > > SC Article: 227081 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dee Flint" References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:20:45 -0400 Message-ID: "Slow Code" wrote in message news:uVcxg.9478$vO.5615@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > "Brian Hill" wrote in news:8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga: > >> >> "Al Klein" wrote in message >> news:gijob2paistn335sjmffjab7mv493cmm3g@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert >>> wrote: >>> >>>>Al Klein wrote: >>> >>>>> Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. >>> >>>>Ahh...but I did, once >>> >>> But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. >>> >>>>proving that one has little to do with the other. >>> >>> And that you have little to do with this conversation. >> >> You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone >> sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but >> it's just the sign of the times. >> >> BH > > > We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because once > it's all the way in the shitter it will be even harder to pull back out & > clean up. > > A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept > more dumbing down. > > > Help save Ham radio: > > > 1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all > elements required for their license class every ten years. > No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio and there is no reason to think it would improve things. > > 2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. > Might be OK. > > 3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. > Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way. > > 4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. > Probably wouldn't make any difference. > > 5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve > things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB. > Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want. > > Article: 227082 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:43:37 -0700 Message-ID: <12caqa0ku1vpoca@corp.supernews.com> References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <0Uqwg.124465$I61.76247@clgrps13> Frank's wrote: > > Here's what the EZNEC manual says: "Horizontal wires should not >> be placed exactly on the ground, but should be at least 1/1000 >> wavelength above (and in the case of EZNEC/4, also below) the >> ground." > > Cecil, Probably the 1/1000 WL limit contains a safety margin. > This does not appear to be addressed by either the NEC 2, > or NEC 4 user manual. From the NEC-2 User's Guide, p. 11: ". . .for a horizontal wire with radius a, and height h, to the wire axis, [h^2 + a^2]^1/2 should be greater than about 10^-6 wavelenths. Furthermore, the height should be at least several times the radius for the thin-wire approximation to be valid." All I can find in the NEC-4 manual is the restriction in terms of wire radius. > Cebik's book "Intermediate Antenna Modeling", p 1-12, > states: "The minimum height for wires above > a Sommerfeld-Norton ground has two dimensions. The first > relates the height above ground limit to the wire radius. > The wire height (h) should be several times the wire radius > (a), that is, h>~a. As well, the minimum height is related to > the wavelength for the frequency in use: > (h^2 + a^2)^(1/2)>10^(-6)Lambda. If a is very small > compared to h, the wires may approach 10^(-6) Lambda > toward ground. ......reflection Coefficient approximation.... > ... the general recommendation is that ...... > horizontal wires should be (>) 0.4 Lambda above ground". > > Obviously, from the manual quote, EZNEC can invoke a > Sommerfeld-Norton ground. Yes. EZNEC's "Real, High-Accuracy" ground is the NEC Sommerfeld-Norton ground. >. . . Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 227083 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 24 Jul 2006 17:59:09 -0700 Message-ID: <1153789149.679540.21960@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Dee Flint wrote: > "Slow Code" wrote in message > news:uVcxg.9478$vO.5615@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > 3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. > > > > Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way. > > > > > 4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. > > > > Probably wouldn't make any difference. certainly would but then you are into killing the ars of course > > > > > 5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve > > things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB. > > > > Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in the > politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want. ask Carl Stevenson about that one > > > > > Article: 227084 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:05:48 +0100 Message-ID: Frank, After correcting the resonant lengths for the change in frequency from 7 to 8.07 MHz there is almost exact agreement between NEC4 and Radial_3. Keep a record of length, Rin, jXin for each incremental increase in length. They could be useful. When using Radial_3 set the number of radials to 1. The input impedance of the radial system will then be same as the input to the single radial and will be displayed with a greater number of significant figures. When you compare results between the two programs set the frequency on Radial_3 also to 8.07 MHz. The resonant frequency of the Radial_3 antenna is slightly higher - it's something to do with the end-effect and the fact that a vertical antenna needs pruning by a few percent to make it resonate at the theoretical value of 75/Height MHz. Since at present we are concerned only with the radials it is better to use the same frequency for both programs. I think that will complete all I have in mind. It may involve you with a tedious amount of work. If you find it interesting you could do something similar at 28 MHz. The 20dB limit may be reached with an even shorter length of radial. Radial resonances ( which BL&E never dreamed of ) will be much more pronounced especially with high ground resistivity. Has anybody ever generated an input table for 120 radials? It's all in the cause of Science. Thanking you in advance. ---- Reg. Article: 227085 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:21:34 -0400 From: John Popelish Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Message-ID: Reg Edwards wrote: > Frank, > > After correcting the resonant lengths for the change in frequency from > 7 to 8.07 MHz there is almost exact agreement between NEC4 and > Radial_3. > > Keep a record of length, Rin, jXin for each incremental increase in > length. They could be useful. > > When using Radial_3 set the number of radials to 1. The input > impedance of the radial system will then be same as the input to the > single radial and will be displayed with a greater number of > significant figures. (snip) Does Radial_3 assume that each radial is independent of its neighbors, regardless of how close or far? Article: 227086 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:10:18 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: [snip] > . . . Radial resonances ( which BL&E never > dreamed of ) will be much more pronounced especially with high ground > resistivity. Reg, I have no idea what BL&E might have dreamed of, but I did find one curious item on the fifth page of their paper (page 757 in the original). <<<<< Where there are radial ground wires present, the earth current consists of two components, part of which flows in the earth itself and the remainder of which flows in the buried wires. As the current flows in toward the antenna, it is continually added to by more displacement currents flowing into the earth. It is not necessarily true that the earth currents will increase because of this additional displacement current, since all the various components differ in phase. >>>>> Whether this is "resonance" I cannot say. However, it is pretty clear they understood that the radial currents did not monotonically increase as the distance from the antenna decreased. There was some sort of variation. Their figure 42 seems to show significant "resonance", but there does not appear to be any discussion of that behavior. 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 227087 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:18:34 +0100 From: Maxwell Smart #99 Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <5E8xg.11671$2v.3280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <44c58d8b_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Cecil Moore wrote: > Bill Turner wrote: >> You didn't give many details such as the bandwidth of the antenna, but >> if you use the NP0 type ceramic capacitors you should be ok. Loops, >> especially small ones, are notorious for narrow bandwidth and stable >> caps are a must. > > I once used disc ceramic bypass caps to try to tune an > antenna. They went up in flames. For a small loop, I > would at least use doorknob quality caps. I would also look for RF caps with a KVAR ratings. Most caps even doorknobs are just simple HV power supply doorknobs with no RF ratings. Ebay is full of this stuff, most of them are useless at HF. Many of these caps have a resonance dip in them. I have found many that dip at 7,8 and 13mhz. When i applied power you can figure out what happened! So check them with a dipper. Good caps like HT57s will have no dips. Some of the Russian pancake types are also good, but most are GP high voltage caps for laser power supplies. The ultimate caps are Tubular Types made by people like Morgan, however they would make wire antenna with caps as expensive as a Steppir! I was lucky enough to find a few of these for cheap and used them on a N6LF type improved zepp antenna. These caps were rated at 50 KVar. Someone told me 1kvar is about a kilowatt. Pat Article: 227088 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "palaniappan chellappan" Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna Date: 24 Jul 2006 20:20:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1153797618.568020.109440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > Bill Turner wrote: > > You didn't give many details such as the bandwidth of the antenna, but > > if you use the NP0 type ceramic capacitors you should be ok. Loops, > > especially small ones, are notorious for narrow bandwidth and stable > > caps are a must. > > I once used disc ceramic bypass caps to try to tune an > antenna. They went up in flames. For a small loop, I > would at least use doorknob quality caps. Thanks to all for replies, Actually my requirement is to pump 4W into 1meter diameter loop antenna. I need to tune the antenna to resonance 13.56Mhz and then match it. I using some fixed capacitors and variable capacitors of small range for fine tuning. Now i am using ceramic fixed and ceramic variable capacitors and found that its performance is good (I am not sure, the problem may in my transceiver also). I thinking of trying other capacitors, how about following combinations mica fixed + mica variable mica fixed + air variable Is it worth to buy mica capacitors ? can i simply buy mica capacitors ? , i found some vendors selling rf mica capacitors , is there any big difference between them for HF frequency ? regards, palani Article: 227089 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "clfe" References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400 Message-ID: <44c59219$0$2926$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Dee Flint" wrote in message news:FZ-dnYiba5WU-VjZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> 5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve >> things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB. >> > > Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in > the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you want. >> You're most likely correct on getting into the "politics" of the ARRL to "try" to get anywhere. But, good luck. It is more like a "good ole boys club". Anytime I've ever seen any reps to the area at a hamfest - they acted like snobs more than trying to communicate with hams of their concerns OR to try to win those hams who weren't members - to become members. If the rep couldn't give me the time of day, the ARRL didn't need my money either. I stopped my membership when it was due for renewal. That was a good 15 years ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR ARRL REP HERE" lou Article: 227090 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: <2a5bc21ed6fvmham95o9uvtjrjkmcoh55k@4ax.com> References: <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:52:37 -0400 On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:51:08 +0000 (UTC), gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: >Note that the original intent of the morse code test was that amateur >radio was to provide a pool of ready trained radio operators in case of >war. I'm in a country in the middle of a war, and I can guarentee you that >NONE of the radio communications are morse code. And none of the current crop of CBers is qualified to provide military (or any other coherent form of) communications. Article: 227091 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:55:40 -0400 On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote: >You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone >sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's >just the sign of the times. The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be able to put it on the air immediately. It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license. Article: 227092 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:15:44 -0000 Message-ID: <12cb6nge2go5l58@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <5E8xg.11671$2v.3280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153797618.568020.109440@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >I thinking of trying other capacitors, how about following combinations >mica fixed + mica variable >mica fixed + air variable Another option is to homebrew your own capacitors. I've seen descriptions of magloop-antenna tuning caps of a number of interesting sorts which are fairly easy to homebrew: - A sheet of glass as the dielectric, with metal plates (or the surface copper of sheets of PC-board material) as the electrodes. These can be made variable by arranging to slide one plate-electrode over, or away from, the other. - Fixed caps made of PC-board material (etch away a strip around the edge of each side to prevent arcing) - "trombone" caps made of concentric copper or brass pipe or tubing, with Teflon or polyethylene film rolled onto the inner tubing as a dielectric. If you only require single-frequency operation you might be able to build a metal-and-glass or PC-board fixed cap which has more capacity than you need, and them trim it (literally) by removing a bit of the metal at a time until you reduce the capacity to the value which establishes resonance at your operating frequency. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 227093 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brenda Ann" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:36:13 +0900 Message-ID: References: <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> "Al Klein" wrote in message news:qd5bc25n0khh0akqt6qfdetlo5497jst9u@4ax.com... > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote: > >>You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone >>sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's >>just the sign of the times. > > The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be > able to put it on the air immediately. > > It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be > able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's > initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the > real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license. Ahh.. the 1977 solution.. first, middle and last initials followed by your 5 digit zip code.... Article: 227094 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:42:05 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <5E8xg.11671$2v.3280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:50:41 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >I once used disc ceramic bypass caps to try to tune an >antenna. They went up in flames. For a small loop, I >would at least use doorknob quality caps. >-- ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ He was asking about an RFID application, presumably a few milliwatts. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227095 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Sal M. Onella" References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <1153789149.679540.21960@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:46:14 -0700 wrote ... > Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. > > Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. ... and new aircraft pilot license requirement: Demonstrate an engine start by spinning the prop -- by hand. Even if you intend to fly only jets, some old "prop-job" might be the only thing that can get through in an emergency. I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for the transition away from spark? Article: 227096 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: The Kat Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <66bbc2dnqst0ca37v3s2ekb5g2aborehic@4ax.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:31:56 GMT On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:42:18 GMT, Slow Code wrote: >We have to keep trying to save Ham radio Your proposals would, as you've been told many times, effectively KILL Ham radio, not save it. But YOU think that's fine, because YOU had to learn code way back when, EVERYONE should have to learn it now, even though it's of NO use in the modern world. plonk, moron... Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity... Remove XYZ to email me Article: 227097 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:01:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2a5bc21ed6fvmham95o9uvtjrjkmcoh55k@4ax.com> Al Klein wrote: > And none of the current crop of CBers is qualified to provide military > (or any other coherent form of) communications. Why? I assume you really mean that the current crop of new hams needs education. Have you done anything? How many new hams have you elmered? Are you active on 2m? Do you speak to new no-code hams and offer to teach them morse code, let them see your HF station in operation? Have them assist you during contests? If all you do is hang out on the HF bands, and complain about how bad the new hams are, they will stay that way. Whose fault is that? 73, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 227098 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:02:03 +0100 Message-ID: "Gene Fuller" wrote > > Whether this is "resonance" I cannot say. However, it is pretty clear > they understood that the radial currents did not monotonically increase > as the distance from the antenna decreased. There was some sort of > variation. > > Their figure 42 seems to show significant "resonance", but there does > not appear to be any discussion of that behavior. > ========================================== I find it easier to think in terms of ground currents flowing 'away' >from the focal point rather than coming into it. At 3 MHz, where BL&E made their measurements, in ordinary soils there are hardly enough resonant effects to be noticed. At MF and below there are no resonant effects. The equivalent transmission line is mainly resistive. There is inductance of the radial wire but propagation is largely independent of the value of soil permittivity and hence on 'capacitance'. Resonance effects begin to show at 7 MHz, At 21 MHz permittivity and inductance predominate - especially with high ground resistivities. At higher frequencies in very high resistance soils, buried radials take on the characteristics of the elevated variety. But nobody uses buried radials with vertical antennas at 30 MHz and above. Everybody switches to dipoles! ---- Reg. Article: 227099 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials again Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:14:12 +0100 Message-ID: "John Popelish" wrote > Does Radial_3 assume that each radial is independent of its neighbors, > regardless of how close or far? ======================================= No John. The input impedance of a set of radials is not the sum of the individuals all in parallel. Input impedance is a non-linear function of N, the number of radials. ---- Reg. Article: 227100 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Radiating Efficiency Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:41:18 +0100 Message-ID: Cecil, could you or somebody, please use Eznec or something, to determine the radiating efficiency of a 9.0 meter long vertical antenna with a ground-loss connection resistance of 5 ohms, at its 1/4-wave resonant frequency slightly above 8 MHz. Will discuss the result later. - and oblige Reg. Article: 227101 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 25 Jul 2006 03:58:25 -0700 Message-ID: <1153825105.116139.184450@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> n9rqz an old friend to sodomy wrote: > Cumstains_with_a_C wrote: > > When will this ham radio cumstain bullshi+ end ?? > > keep your obsolete ham radio dribble out of our NG. > > Capeesh? > > > > "Konstans_with_a_C" wrote in message > > news:1153695990.509908.240120@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > fraid nyou can't stop the raving of AB8MQ short of serious violence > becuase the man is completely mad Says the English impaired imbecile who spams with "get help" and other assorted drivel. Article: 227102 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 25 Jul 2006 04:00:20 -0700 Message-ID: <1153825220.452540.220060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> an old freind wrote: > Hey Stupid wrote: > > "an_old_friend" wrote in > > news:1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > There is absolutely no way you could have passed the written exam Mark, no > > way. The VE's must have accidently mix up your answer sheet with someone > > elses. > > > was possible to mix up my answer sheet with someon elses SC but that > would not have affected me passing every one passed the day I took > mine Wrong, you didn't pass. > I passed to 2 elemt test for tech we used ot have and I have passed the > the general and extra class written waiting for the plug to be plulled > on code testing Liar. The only thing you passed is the training wheel no code. And you gave the VE's a blowjob to do it. > Look like for time on the CSSE I moay need to retake the general > element but that isn't rough Except you didn't pass it, the VE session sheet proves it. Article: 227103 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers If Necesssary. Date: 25 Jul 2006 04:06:13 -0700 Message-ID: <1153825573.622589.222240@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <1153139989.393054.210140@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> an old friend wrote: > bless Hey Markie, hear from any state workers recently? BWHAHAHAHAHA! Article: 227104 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Radial attenuation Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:22:38 +0100 Message-ID: Cecil, There has been a temporary improvement in my Alzeimer's affliction. The attenuation along a radial is given by = Attenuation = ( R / Ro + G * Ro ) / 2 nepers. Where - R = HF Conductor resistance. G = Shunt leakance or conductance, related to soil conductivity. Ro = Resistive component of line impedance Zo. One neper = 8.686 dB. If I published the source code you would be asking even more questions and Richard Clark would again unjustly accuse me of trolling. ;o) ---- Reg. Article: 227105 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 25 Jul 2006 04:58:24 -0700 Message-ID: <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> For the past few days we had rain and lighting. Prior to any rain hitting my antennas the steeady background noise hissing came up. The noise came up first on my high dipoles, two regular dipoles at 150-160 feet. One was bare #14 copperweld, the other is insulated #10. they were both equal as near as I could tell. It came up the same but later in time on my three low 80 meter dipole antennas at about the same rate. Two were bare wire and one was a coaxial double bazooka. All are at about 35-40 feet high. I have a 1/4 wl shorted stub I use as a second harmonic trap on 80 meters. It switches in and out with a relay on an RCS-8V switch that selects trunk lines to antennas. I pulled the relay wire off, and the 80 meter dipoles had then same steady noise as with the stub in. The dc path had no effect at all on steady noise, but on the high dipoles, both the insulated one and bare one, there was a popping noise about once every second or two that went away with the dipoles center conductor grounded. I could hear this popping noise on any antenna near the dipoles. I added a 470K resistor to the 80M feedlines and the popping noise quit. I removed it and added a choke and the popping noise quit. When lightning would hit the popping noise would quit for a while, and then come back. As the storm got worse the noise got worse. When the rain was very heavy and lightning very close, I stopped for a while. At that point the noise was terrible on all antennas, but definately worse in level on the high antennas. It was no better and no worse on any antenna at the same height. All through this my IAC double bazooka was no quieter than a regular dipole made from #16 bare copper located 100 feet away at the same height. This test was with all antennas in place at the same time on the same day in the same weather. 73 Tom Article: 227106 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "g. beat" <@> References: Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:05:02 -0500 Message-ID: "Slow Code" wrote in message news:pVcxg.9475$vO.1554@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > That's what you have to decide. > > SC > Personally, I would rather have the First Class and Second Class Radio Telephone back. Thank the broadcasters for lobbying to eliminate that requirement -- ironic that the industry has been sliding ever since (go figure) -- and of course -- this happen at the same time that personal computers for business usage were expanding, LAN for the PCs & cellular telephones introduced, and AT&T was broken up (1984 Judge Green order). SO -- the best "talent" left the industry (since the industry no longer wanted to pay for it). gb Article: 227107 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153783624.825341.120110@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:34:46 -0400 On 24 Jul 2006 16:27:04 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: >someone could memorize that sort of detail I spuose but you nor your >friends have ever advanced any evidence that this occurs Indeed I >don't think it is possible to memorize enough to pass the test and >learn nothing in the bargan I can't prove that of course but it does >seem likely It's so likely that people have bragged about it. Article: 227108 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2a5bc21ed6fvmham95o9uvtjrjkmcoh55k@4ax.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:37:26 -0400 On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:01:04 +0000 (UTC), gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote: >> And none of the current crop of CBers is qualified to provide military >> (or any other coherent form of) communications. > >Why? I assume you really mean that the current crop of new hams needs >education. Have you done anything? How many new hams have you elmered? A few dozen over the years, maybe over 100. I never kept count. Do I still do it? No, the people I elmered are elmers now. And some of the people THEY elmered are elmers. It's time I hung up my "elmer spikes". Article: 227109 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <1153784535.633739.249980@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:38:21 -0400 On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" wrote: >after all I can do even EME I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on an EME path. Article: 227110 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <084cc2pa83r32o3ibkvf3ac79o7npu4nfj@4ax.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <44c59219$0$2926$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:41:21 -0400 On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe" wrote: >ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was >with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention >and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid >you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR >ARRL REP HERE" Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any better. Article: 227111 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:42:25 -0400 On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:36:13 +0900, "Brenda Ann" wrote: > >"Al Klein" wrote in message >news:qd5bc25n0khh0akqt6qfdetlo5497jst9u@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:15:03 -0500, "Brian Hill" wrote: >> >>>You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be gone >>>sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys but it's >>>just the sign of the times. >> >> The sign reads, "Instant Gratification". Buy the equipment and be >> able to put it on the air immediately. >> >> It wouldn't surprise me if, in the not too distant future, one will be >> able to buy a ham transceiver, create call letters out of one's >> initials or something and legally be on the air while waiting for the >> real "ask for it and you get it for a fee" license. > >Ahh.. the 1977 solution.. first, middle and last initials followed by your 5 >digit zip code.... And remember how that "improved" things? :) Article: 227112 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <5E8xg.11671$2v.3280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <44c58d8b_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:41:55 GMT Maxwell Smart #99 wrote: > Someone told me 1kvar is about a kilowatt. There's no real power in a Var since Vars = V*I*sin(A). -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227113 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <0ro4c2d13dq9i23ab98uiiql3spgmhfi22@4ax.com> <1153597502.509378.294260@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153664765.447946.4510@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2a5bc21ed6fvmham95o9uvtjrjkmcoh55k@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:46:23 GMT Al Klein wrote: > And none of the current crop of CBers is qualified to provide military > (or any other coherent form of) communications. CW is not coherent. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227114 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <5E8xg.11671$2v.3280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:56:01 GMT Bill Turner wrote: > He was asking about an RFID application, presumably a few milliwatts. I think he said 4 watts to a one meter loop. Even in that application, I suspect the physical flexing of ceramic caps would cause losses. After mine caught on fire, I found out that at least some ceramic caps are designed to be biased by DC. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227115 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:07:33 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > Cecil, could you or somebody, please use Eznec or something, to > determine the radiating efficiency of a 9.0 meter long vertical > antenna with a ground-loss connection resistance of 5 ohms, at its > 1/4-wave resonant frequency slightly above 8 MHz. Is the 5 ohms of ground loss the only loss in the system? i.e. should perfect ground be used? Or should it be done in free space with a 5 ohm load going to the radials. Will integrating the area of the omnidirectional elevation envelope yield a value proportional to the radiated power? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227116 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:23:12 +0000 From: Maxwell Smart #99 Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <5E8xg.11671$2v.3280@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <44c58d8b_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: <44c61b45_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Cecil Moore wrote: > Maxwell Smart #99 wrote: >> Someone told me 1kvar is about a kilowatt. > > There's no real power in a Var since Vars = V*I*sin(A). I should have said a rule of thumb. A 1kvar capacitor should be good for a kilowatt amplifier. I believe KVAR, RF current and RF voltage to be a complex matter. Maybe someone really smart could write a program that could work out what the TRUE RF current rating of a capacitor is versus frequency and its KVAR rating, now that would be useful. Pat Article: 227117 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:30:57 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > All through this my IAC double bazooka was no quieter than a regular > dipole made from #16 bare copper located 100 feet away at the same > height. > > This test was with all antennas in place at the same time on the same > day in the same weather. Precipitation static doesn't always occur during thunderstorms. It's effects are greatly reduced in high humidity environments. For precipitation static to occur requires charged particles. And you don't know if charged particles even existed during your experiment. To separate charged particle effects from lightning effects you need to run your experiment without the clouds and thunderstorms under conditions that guarantee charged particles. That would be during a dust storm on a clear sky day under low humidity conditions as often exist in Queen Creek, AZ. Precipitation static is a large problem for airplanes but only when they are flying through a field of charged particles. One of the treatments for precipitation static on airplane antennas is to insulate the antenna inside a non-conductive pipe. Another treatment is to fold the antenna. These are well known, well accepted methods of reducing precipitation static problems on airplane antennas. You can verify those facts for yourself through a little web research. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227118 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Helmut Wabnig <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> Subject: Re: Cutting cable length to match 1/4 wave 162 MHz antenna? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:38:04 +0200 Message-ID: References: <59ywg.3365$bP5.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:03:29 GMT, "Robert Haston" wrote: >I'm moving a 162 MHz (marine band ship tracker - AIS) receiver to within a >couple feet of its quarter wave ground plane antenna. > > >Is there a certain cable length I should use to tune for maximum gain? There are some very common misconceptions around regarding cable length impedance matching. Ideally your antenna has 50 ohms, the cable has 50 ohms, the transmitter has 50 and there is perfect matching all the time, at any cable length. Side note: Did you note I left out the receiver? Does anybody know the input impedance of his receivers in use? How would you measure the input impedance? Back to the cable lenght, may I spill a few words. One may use the feed cable to match a non 50 Ohm antenna to the 50 ohm transmitter, but that works sufficiently only for a very narrow frequency range. Some people do it on shortwave and they switch different lenght cable loops with a relais to cover an entire SW band. Works fine, if no antenna tuner is available. On the UKW bands this is rather unusual, and normally not necessary. Go and tweak the antenna lenght and the radials to optimum SWR. The cable tuning method may fail with broadband antennas, of course. w. Article: 227119 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:22:29 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > ... but on the high dipoles, > both the insulated one and bare one, there was a popping noise about > once every second or two that went away with the dipoles center > conductor grounded. > All through this my IAC double bazooka was no quieter than a regular > dipole made from #16 bare copper located 100 feet away at the same > height. I forgot to ask. Did the double bazooka arc like the ungrounded dipoles? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227120 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44C6294C.C57BD5EC@mred.com> From: wilber Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test. References: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:23:09 GMT interesting thread, I gues I could be considered a real ham ^ 3 power, it took me three times to pass my cw test... but I got my general written the first time. I enjoy cw and all modes. lets use what we like to use. 73 to all Article: 227121 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:39:14 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > > Precipitation static doesn't always occur during thunderstorms. > It's effects are greatly reduced in high humidity environments. > For precipitation static to occur requires charged particles. > And you don't know if charged particles even existed during > your experiment. To separate charged particle effects from > lightning effects you need to run your experiment without > the clouds and thunderstorms under conditions that guarantee > charged particles. That would be during a dust storm on a clear > sky day under low humidity conditions as often exist in Queen > Creek, AZ. Cecil, This is close to being an all-time RRAA classic. Precipitation, at least in the form of rain, often occurs when the humidity is quite high. Do you suppose they should have named it dust storm static rather than precipitation static? Or perhaps dry rain static? 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 227122 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "EchoBlip" References: Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:54:31 GMT C u p o r C o n e . . . . . "Slow Code" wrote in message news:pVcxg.9475$vO.1554@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > That's what you have to decide. > > SC > Article: 227123 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:20:32 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> <44c4bbd9_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: test wrote: > jawod wrote: > >> I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's >> QST. It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can >> model it on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a >> dipole or two). >> >> I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in >> a sort of temporary fashion. >> >> Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over >> Alaska. >> >> Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first >> antenna build? >> >> I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to >> use RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an >> UNUN or Balun in the article. >> >> What do youse think? Thinks? >> >> John >> AB8WH >> >> PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) > > This antenna was meant to be fed as a multiband antenna using open wire > feedline and a tuner. > > Its height dependent. The takeoff angle on 20 is high. I myself would > use a dipole with open wire feedline. However the authors intentions was > for a compact multiband antenna. If you have trees use the large loop > as in the ARRL antenna handbook. > > For a better antenna that feeds with open wire line and that has a ideal > low angle pattern on all band from 20 meters to 10. Look at the > horizontal magnetic slot antenna. You can find details in the latest > RSGB handbook. > > A good tuner for these antennas is the Balanced Tuner by Measures. > > > Pat Pat, Thanks for the input. I have a question. Why do you say that the antenna was meant to be fed using open wire feedline? In the article, it shows an SO239 bulkhead to be attached to RG8U cable. John AB8WH Article: 227124 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:25:00 GMT Gene Fuller wrote: > Precipitation, at least in the form of rain, often occurs when the > humidity is quite high. Yes, and triboelectric charging is known to be magnitudes worse in low humidity conditions. On this web page: http://www.esda.org/basics/part1.cfm it says that a worker at a bench can expect 6000v when the relative humidity is 10-25% Vs 100v when the relative humidity is 65-90%. > Do you suppose they should have named it dust storm static rather than > precipitation static? Or perhaps dry rain static? "Charged particle" static would have been more descriptive since "precipitation" is most associated with falling H2O. If the relative humidity is 10% when the rain starts falling, seems the precipitation static would be worse than if the relative humidity was 90% when the rain started falling. Dry snow falling in low relative humidity conditions could certainly carry large charges. Dry wind driven dust particles in low relative humidity conditions are often associated with precipitation static. But assuming that raindrops falling in high humidity conditions are electrically charged is a questionable assumption. And trying to detect precipitation static noise in the presence of lightning seems like looking for a needle in a haystack. It is good engineering practice to try to isolate what one is trying to measure. The best way I know of to isolate precipitation static from other noise sources is to perform the measurements under clear sky, windy, low humidity conditions in the desert. I strongly suspect that w8ji didn't detect any of the arcing noise in the double bazooka that he detected in the bare wire ungrounded dipoles. Was that a noise reduction? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227125 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 25 Jul 2006 08:25:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1153841099.994341.82180@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1153584132.692529.177920@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Al Klein wrote: > On 24 Jul 2006 16:27:04 -0700, "an old friend" > wrote: > > >someone could memorize that sort of detail I spuose but you nor your > >friends have ever advanced any evidence that this occurs Indeed I > >don't think it is possible to memorize enough to pass the test and > >learn nothing in the bargan I can't prove that of course but it does > >seem likely > > It's so likely that people have bragged about it. bragging did not make it true I cercerly doubt anybody that passed memerized allthe answered and LEARNED NOTHING at all in the bargain Article: 227126 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers If Necesssary. Date: 25 Jul 2006 08:28:40 -0700 Message-ID: <1153841320.484127.88130@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <1153139989.393054.210140@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: > an old friend wrote: > > bless > > Hey Markie, hear from any state workers recently? BWHAHAHAHAHA! had a chat with county worker but he was with the road crew bless you and may you find peace Article: 227127 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> <4jqxg.170368$771.62308@edtnps89> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:28:06 GMT Frank's wrote: >> Will integrating the area of the omnidirectional elevation >> envelope yield a value proportional to the radiated power? > > Cecil, that is what I did with NEC, and got an efficiency > of about 35%. Using the ratio of Rr/(Rr+Rloss) > produces a totally different answer. > > NEC 4 computes a normalized far field, at 1 m, in units > of volts. NEC 2 incorrectly shows units of V/m. W7EL tells us that EZNEC doesn't display the surface wave which obviously contains power. Would that affect the efficiency using the integration technique? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227128 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: bless you and may you find peace Date: 25 Jul 2006 08:35:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1153841734.279300.112490@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: > an old freind wrote: > > Hey Stupid wrote: > > > "an_old_friend" wrote in > > > news:1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > Look like for time on the CSSE I moay need to retake the general > > element but that isn't rough > > Except you didn't pass it, the VE session sheet proves it. get over it Mr turd bless you and may you find peace Article: 227129 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 25 Jul 2006 08:41:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1153842091.291441.16690@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On 24 Jul 2006 16:42:15 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" > wrote: > > >after all I can do even EME > > I sincerely doubt that. You probably couldn't even figure the loss on > an EME path. doubt it all you like figure the path with any precison no, but I am can use the various charts to know know I need to contact various types of stations theseday 100w a 13b2 a preamp and you are able to pick up the larger stations, and they can hear you why do Ineed to be figure the path loss when I can determine the parameters for sucess. I honestly don't care how much of the signal islost along the way I care wether a readble signal reach the otherside Article: 227130 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 25 Jul 2006 08:45:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1153842300.466951.174190@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: Sal M. Onella wrote: > wrote ... > > > Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. > > > > Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. > > ... and new aircraft pilot license requirement: Demonstrate an engine start > by spinning the prop -- by hand. Even if you intend to fly only jets, some > old "prop-job" might be the only thing that can get through in an emergency. > > I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for > the transition away from spark? it idid so I hear and again with adoction of SSB and the dino never learn that change is part of life and dealing with change is part of being adult Article: 227131 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:45:00 +0000 From: Maxwell Smart #99 Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> <44c4bbd9_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: <44c63c89_1@news.iprimus.com.au> jawod wrote: > test wrote: >> jawod wrote: >> >>> I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's >>> QST. It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can >>> model it on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a >>> dipole or two). >>> >>> I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in >>> a sort of temporary fashion. >>> >>> Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over >>> Alaska. >>> >>> Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first >>> antenna build? >>> >>> I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to >>> use RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an >>> UNUN or Balun in the article. >>> >>> What do youse think? Thinks? >>> >>> John >>> AB8WH >>> >>> PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) >> >> This antenna was meant to be fed as a multiband antenna using open >> wire feedline and a tuner. >> >> Its height dependent. The takeoff angle on 20 is high. I myself would >> use a dipole with open wire feedline. However the authors intentions >> was for a compact multiband antenna. If you have trees use the large >> loop as in the ARRL antenna handbook. >> >> For a better antenna that feeds with open wire line and that has a >> ideal low angle pattern on all band from 20 meters to 10. Look at the >> horizontal magnetic slot antenna. You can find details in the latest >> RSGB handbook. >> >> A good tuner for these antennas is the Balanced Tuner by Measures. >> >> >> Pat > Pat, > Thanks for the input. > I have a question. > > Why do you say that the antenna was meant to be fed using open wire > feedline? > > In the article, it shows an SO239 bulkhead to be attached to RG8U cable. > > John > AB8WH I Hope we talking about the same antenna? I am talking about the antenna in this months QST page 38 ZS6AAA "The Compact Quad Multiband Hf Antenna" August 2006 So i hope i have not crossed wires here. But this antenna is open wire fed, supported on a single fibreglass pole. Pat Article: 227132 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:05:27 -0500 Message-ID: <12ccga7n3do8ta0@corp.supernews.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <44c59219$0$2926$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <084cc2pa83r32o3ibkvf3ac79o7npu4nfj@4ax.com> Al Klein wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe" > wrote: > > >>ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was >>with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention >>and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid >>you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR >>ARRL REP HERE" > > > Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to > Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are > so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of > human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any > better. Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians. Dave WD9BDZ