Article: 214881 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <2kroc19319ui4fk7q6b2im6k4fda47s136@4ax.com> My program assumes line Zo is purely resistive. But at HF it is practically impossible to tell the difference in line loss between an angle of 0 degrees and 1 degree which is the range of Zo angles involved. I have the exact formula for any line but its far too complicated to write here. I didn't use it in my program as it would have meant another input value for no useful purpose. ---- Reg ---------------------------------------------------------- "Owen" wrote in message news:2kroc19319ui4fk7q6b2im6k4fda47s136@4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:48:53 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" > wrote: > > >Owen, > > > >Your formula is too short to be anything but an approximation. It may > >be a very good approximation. On the other hand it may contain > >exactly the same errors as whatever you may have checked it against. > > > >The exact formula is exceedingly involved and occupies about half a > >dozen lines of source code in new program SWRARGUE which by > >coincidence I have just placed in my website. > > I have calculated the loss using P=Real(V*I*) at the two points, and > it is long winded. Michaels approach produces the same result, and the > coding is more elegant, probably faster to calculate. He is a SK, so I > can't ask him, but in the hope that it is well known, someone might > know of the derivation. > > > > >You can check your formula against my program. Let us know how you get > >on. > > Your calculator does not allow complex Zo does it? Doesn't that mean > it assumes a distortionless line. I am calculating loss in the general > case. > > Thanks... > > Owen > > -- Article: 214882 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: References: <36roc1lcdt1q62kb2qijlm3f4scq80eo7i@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:51:05 GMT On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:17:17 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote: > >I think "Computation of Impedance and Efficiency of Transmission Line >with High Standing-Wave Ratio", W.W. Macalpine, Transactions of the >AIEE, vol. 72, pp 334-339; July, 1953 might be of interest to you. > >The same reference is used as the basis for the section >"Transformation of Impedance on Lines With Highh SWR" in the ITT >handbook. Yes, I saw (and I think, understand) the formulas under the heading "Power and Efficiency" in my ed #6 of the ITT H'book. Not wanting to express the algorithm in pseudo code (AKA ugly ASCII math) here, 'cos it *will* be unreadable, I have pasted the formula I have worked up, and a plot of it in a particular scenario at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/LineLoss.htm . Given, that to support this, there is are functions for Gamma(load) and Gamma(x), it is a whole bunch of code, and Michaels approach is attractively simple, and it produces exactly the same answer on this scenario. Owen -- Article: 214883 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <3%Yye.13220$Si3.1138@fe06.lga> <25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400 "Owen" wrote in message news:25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:06:13 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" > wrote: > > > >As I understand it, Owen, a line has to be lossless for Xo to be 0, while > >distortionless lines have loss but have equal series R and shunt G. All > > Walt, I learnt that a distortionless line is one where attenuation and > phase velocity are constant for all frequencies, and that requires > that R/XL=G/XC in the RLGC model of a lines characteristics, and the > result is that Zo is purely real. > > A lossless line is a special case of a distortionless line. > > >lines that I've measured have a small negative X, that would be zero if the > >line were lossless. So I'd have to say that the material in Appendix is is > >correct for standard lines. Distortionless lines are normally found only in > >long-distance phone lines used at voice frequencies, not RF. Or am I missing > >something? > > If you like, I am saying your approach is valid for lossless lines, it > is also valid for all distortionless lines, but I think it is not > accurate for lines in the general case because it isn't correct if > Xo!=0. > > Owen Owen, if X = 0 there is no attenuation, but you're saying my material is invalid if X is not 0? I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Walt, W2DU Article: 214884 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Support for a 90 ft folded dipole - suggestions From: "Z.Z." References: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:30:35 GMT Bob Miller wrote: > > There's a nice A-frame wood mast in the ARRL Handbook that's about 40 > feet high, and can be made from just a few pieces of lumber. > If you can find nice, clear 2x3's 20+ feet long. Maybe back in the 50's when those first appeared in the Handbook, but not any more... Article: 214885 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: <3i1pc1llb0khd322qqtlfn2a9vet93a50r@4ax.com> References: <3%Yye.13220$Si3.1138@fe06.lga> <25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:44:32 GMT On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: >> If you like, I am saying your approach is valid for lossless lines, it >> is also valid for all distortionless lines, but I think it is not >> accurate for lines in the general case because it isn't correct if >> Xo!=0. >> >> Owen > >Owen, if X = 0 there is no attenuation, but you're saying my material is >invalid if X is not 0? I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Walt, I don't think that Xo=0 implies zero attenuation, but it is true that if the line has zero attenuation that Xo=0. I think the method in your appendix is true when Xo=0, and an approximation where Xo!=0. I have just added a function (DLoss) to calculate loss as per your appendix to the graphic at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/LineLoss.htm , and it can be seen that in this (perhaps extreme) case, it is not a very good approximation. I also added the same calcs for f=100MHz and Zo is much closer to real, and it can be seen the approximation is much closer. Owen -- Article: 214886 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 01:49:11 GMT "Owen" wrote in message news:e1loc1554j1hec26o62l5c7sn5ugublgrp@4ax.com... > > Apparently, Michaels described in "Technical Correspondence" in QST > NOV 1997 a method for calculating loss on a mismatched line. > > I don't have the article, and haven't been able to find it on the net, > so I am working from references to it that I have seen, mainly in > Usenet. > > Apparently, the method involves calculation of a factor (let's call it > MR) as MR=|(Zl-Zo*)/(Zl+Zo)|, and the line loss between two points is > given by 10*log((1-MR1**2)/(1-MR2**2)) where MR1 and MR2 are the > values for MR at points 1 and 2. > > I have compared the results of this on lines with Xo<0 and high VSWR, > and the results are identical to calcuating the loss by subtraction of > Real(VI*) at point 1 from Real(VI*) at point 2. > > Has anyone a link to, or a reference to the derivation of the formula? > > Owen In my first edition of "Paul and Nasar", p 335, dealing with lossy transmission lines; there is a footnote as follows: For the interested reader, a very thorough discussion of the derivation the transmission-line equations is given in R. B. Adler, L. J. Chu, and R. M. Fano , "Electromagnetic Energy Transmission and Radiation", Wiley, New York, 1960, chap. 9. I have never seen the reference, so cannot comment, but may be available in a university library. Wonder if that is the Fano in "Fano's limit". 73, Frank Article: 214887 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <3%Yye.13220$Si3.1138@fe06.lga> <25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com> <3i1pc1llb0khd322qqtlfn2a9vet93a50r@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:05:03 -0400 "Owen" wrote in message news:3i1pc1llb0khd322qqtlfn2a9vet93a50r@4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" > wrote: > > > >> If you like, I am saying your approach is valid for lossless lines, it > >> is also valid for all distortionless lines, but I think it is not > >> accurate for lines in the general case because it isn't correct if > >> Xo!=0. > >> > >> Owen > > > >Owen, if X = 0 there is no attenuation, but you're saying my material is > >invalid if X is not 0? I'm sorry, but I'm confused. > > Walt, I don't think that Xo=0 implies zero attenuation, but it is true > that if the line has zero attenuation that Xo=0. > > I think the method in your appendix is true when Xo=0, and an > approximation where Xo!=0. > > I have just added a function (DLoss) to calculate loss as per your > appendix to the graphic at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/LineLoss.htm , > and it can be seen that in this (perhaps extreme) case, it is not a > very good approximation. > > I also added the same calcs for f=100MHz and Zo is much closer to > real, and it can be seen the approximation is much closer. > > Owen > I'll have to study your math, Owen, to let it sink in. I don't get it on the first glance. Walt Article: 214888 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Hal Rosser" References: <1120500565.034856.267090@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4qmkdpfrb723j7u.060720051413@kirk> Subject: Re: Electrical length Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:50:39 -0400 We need you to prove you are who you say you are, so please answer these questions: 1. Do you know who your daddy is ? 2. If so, can you spell his last name ? 3. How many Floridians does it take to cast one Republican vote? 4. Do you have anything against Republican crickets? "George Washington Bush" wrote in message news:4qmkdpfrb723j7u.060720051413@kirk... > Hal; > > Now don't be picking on my good buddy arnie, he is doing a fine job > out there in california for me. > > We need him to get those drivers licenses for the illegal aliens. By > this time next year I would like to have all the truck drivers which > are buying homes, cars and sending their children through college > reduced to receiving welfare checks. > > It doesn't take a genius to drive a truck and that is one of the last > areas a working fellow can still earn a half decent living, time for > those illegals to start driving those big rigs for a minimum wage. > > With those illegals living 10 family's to a home they can get by on a > lot less. > > Get with the plan man. We used to export our standard of living to the > rest of the world pulling them out from under poverty, disease and > death, but that got darn tiring (and our profits from ripping them off > under that system were too low.) We replaced that tired old plan with > the new one, 'import 3'rd world conditions to america.' Now get out > there, support your president, your congress and the supreme court and > employ an illegal alien today. > > I am counting on you to be a team player here hal. > > Now put down those silly crickets and the thermometer and get to work > man! > > G.W.B. > > "Hal Rosser" wrote in message > news:bjXye.46379$Tt.26779@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > Yah > > That's why I use a thermometer - > > - or - make Arnold count the chirps for me. > > He's a real chirpinator > > > > > > > > "Arnold Schwarzenegger" wrote in message > > news:ir7wmcjgcvulegj.050720052100@kirk... > >> only girly men count cricket chirps > >> > >> arnold > >> > > > > > > > > > Article: 214889 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: References: <3%Yye.13220$Si3.1138@fe06.lga> <25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com> <3i1pc1llb0khd322qqtlfn2a9vet93a50r@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:50:45 GMT On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:05:03 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: >> >> I have just added a function (DLoss) to calculate loss as per your >> appendix to the graphic at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/LineLoss.htm , >> and it can be seen that in this (perhaps extreme) case, it is not a >> very good approximation. >> >> I also added the same calcs for f=100MHz and Zo is much closer to >> real, and it can be seen the approximation is much closer. >> >> Owen >> >I'll have to study your math, Owen, to let it sink in. I don't get it on the >first glance. Sorry all, The function for DLoss on the web page was for the additional loss due to SWR. I have now added a term to the DLoss function to include the matched line loss and updated the web page. The outcome hasn't changed in that the two methods of calculating loss only agree if Zo is real. Owen -- Article: 214890 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas Message-ID: References: <6okoc1pojb9035o93ute5s9a838kdkorkt@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:57:37 GMT On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:42:36 -0600, "Topaz305RK" wrote: >Wow, what a great set of pictures of "how things used to was"!!!!!!!!!!!! > >You really had to be dedicated and love what you were doing. > > Or to be just a little crazy... but as they say, you don't have to be crazy to be a ham, but it helps. Field day activities were fun. Somehow replacing cubic metres of field equipment with a shoebox sized "black box" that does 100W of SSB from 160m to 7ocm has eliminated much of the fun. We are seduced by radios with lots of features in silicon, often without much regard for how it performs as a receiver, things that we can't fix, whether because of a lack of knowledge, test jigs, alignment / diagnostic software or board rework equipment. We have come a long way! Owen -- Article: 214891 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Mr Fed UP" References: Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:38:42 -0500 Oh Dang!! Now I have to go add some more to my car... WB9SMX Just hate to be out done,, get me one o them buses to have room too ;-) BTW That wasn't Dales Dead Bug van from King of the Hill was it? lol "Christopher O'Callaghan" wrote in message news:dagtcc$dt9$1@reader01.news.esat.net... > never saw a car with 6 big antennas(3-4 feet)and 3 small ones all on mag > mounts...WOW > > > Article: 214892 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 07:58:12 -0500 From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mechanical switch ratings References: Message-ID: <42cd27e5$1_1@spool9-west.superfeed.net> Larry Benko wrote: > I have used some toggle switches as RF switches in the HF range in the > past without problems but want to use one in a somewhat higher power > application. Toggle switches generally are only rated at voltages such > as 120VAC (50-60Hz assumed), 250VAC (50-60Hz again), or 30VDC. Looking > at the specs for vacuum relays show that a current derating of ~3X when > going from 60Hz to 30 MHz seems about average. Is there any reason why > a similar derating would not apply to a mechanical toggle switch. E.g. > would a miniture toggle switch rated at both 250VAC 2A and 120VAC 5A > handle 100W at 28MHz (50 ohm impedance assumed)? I was not going to do > any hot switching. Something like that usually works for matched lines. Where I got into trouble is trying to use toggle switches on ladder-line carrying an SWR of 20:1. It fried an RS heavy duty toggle switch. You can avoid such trouble by switching to knife switches with their wider spacings. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Article: 214893 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 09:43:34 -0400 "Me" wrote in message news:Me-B48492.14414606072005@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com>, > Roy Lewallen wrote: > > > That's really just one antenna with six feedpoints. > > > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL > > Maybe a Phased Array for signal tracking........ > > > Me who used to drive one of those for the FCC........... Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and during WW2. Walt, w2du Article: 214894 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <42CD45C3.7D72BFA3@noaspamforme.com> From: luke Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> <11bu1k0evf54aff@news.supernews.com> <11bv2l61vm5red4@corp.supernews.com> <11c0kb4s0hdg1d9@news.supernews.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:09:56 GMT Your trees will SNAP and your tower will fall down. Sure, your antenna have little wind load, however, how much wind load is the TOWER ? Please inventory your gear for the ESTATE sale ! Luke >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes trees do sway but as the photos show they don't sway where the guys are attached. Article: 214895 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:23:24 -0500 Message-ID: <21513-42CD56FC-70@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> References: Owen wrote: "Has anuypne a link to or reference to derivation of the formula?" My 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book treats additional power loss due to SWR on page 24-10. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 214896 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:41:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Walt, As suggested, I looked up your paper in your website about "Additional power lost in trans-lines due to SWR." It is applied only to coaxial lines, of course, because the usual SWR meter cannot be used on balanced twin lines. Actually it applies to all lines. I think your calculating formula is an approximation. It is due to the SWR meter discarding all information about the PHASE ANGLE of reflections. ie., the angle of the reflection coefficient (Gamma) from which you have used to calculate SWR in your explanation. Gamma has an angle which can lie in any of the four quadrants. Theoretically this cannot be neglected. I can't prove the approximation because I havn't the mental energy to do the exact calculations involved. For interest, my program SWRARGUE calculates the exact power lost in the line for any SWR for a given input power of 100 watts. Power lost is then a percentage of input power. Transmission efficiency then follows. Note that the internal resistance of the transmitter or conjugate matching is immaterial. It does this by first of all calculating the input impedance of the line, when terminated with the antenna feedpoint impedance, in the form of Rin + jXin. >From the input power it then calculates the line input current and volts. >From normal transmission line formulae it then calculates line output current and volts. It then calculates the power dissipated in the antenna input resistive component. This is the power radiated. The difference between radiated power and 100 watts line input must be the power lost in the line. Line efficiency and the decibels follow. The excess loss due to SWR is the difference between actual loss and the line's overall matched attenuation, which is an input to the program. Which, to me, appears to be an artificial way of looking at things and your approximation arises from it. The way to prove the point is to calculate the excess loss due to SWR your way and compare with the results from my program. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no significant difference. The matter about the imaginary meanings of SWR and confusing reflected power is not worth the trouble of arguing about. ---- ........................................................... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp ........................................................... Article: 214897 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <21513-42CD56FC-70@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> "Richard Harrison" wrote in message news:21513-42CD56FC-70@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net... > Owen wrote: > "Has anuypne a link to or reference to derivation of the formula?" > > My 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book treats additional power loss > due to SWR on page 24-10. > > Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI > ======================================== On this subject the only hope of discovering the exact loss on a line with SWR is to do an exact complex mathematical analyis for yourseslf and hope you don't make any mistakes. For starters, the calculated curves shown in ARRL publications over the years, as plagiarised by the RSGB, are in error. But they are near enough not to lose any sleep about. Why the importance attatched to this line feature I can't imagine. --- Reg. Article: 214898 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:30:34 -0400 Message-ID: Reg, our thoughts and prayers go out to your countrymen after the cowardly attacks on your transportition system "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:dajpga$fq2$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > Walt, > > As suggested, I looked up your paper in your website about "Additional > power lost in trans-lines due to SWR." > Article: 214899 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: W9DMK (Robert Lay) Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 19:39:40 GMT Message-ID: <42cd84b2.26069916@news.crosslink.net> References: On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:48:53 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: >Owen, > >Your formula is too short to be anything but an approximation. It may >be a very good approximation. On the other hand it may contain >exactly the same errors as whatever you may have checked it against. > >The exact formula is exceedingly involved and occupies about half a >dozen lines of source code in new program SWRARGUE which by >coincidence I have just placed in my website. Dear Reg, I do not believe in coincidence (that's how we knew when the 2nd airplane flew into the World Trade Center, that it was not an accident.) Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html Article: 214900 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:43:22 -0400 "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:dajpga$fq2$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > Walt, > > As suggested, I looked up your paper in your website about "Additional > power lost in trans-lines due to SWR." > > It is applied only to coaxial lines, of course, because the usual SWR > meter cannot be used on balanced twin lines. Actually it applies to > all lines. Reg, my Appendix does not apply only to coaxial lines. Like you also said, it applies to all lines. Balanced twin lines also have SWR, as you already know, but my words didn't limit measurements of SWR only to coaxial lines. There are ways of measuring the SWR on open-wire lines other than instruments limited to use on coaxial lines. > I think your calculating formula is an approximation. It is due to the > SWR meter discarding all information about the PHASE ANGLE of > reflections. ie., the angle of the reflection coefficient (Gamma) from > which you have used to calculate SWR in your explanation. No approximations at all, Reg. As you know, reflection is the cause of SWR, not the reverse. Further, the coefficient of the reflection that results in SWR is the magnitude of the complex value in polar form. Therefore the magnitude of the SWR is determined by the complex reflection coefficient, resulting in the correct value, not an approximation. The complex reflection coefficient can be used to determine the complex impedance. SWR simply lacks the angle of the polar information, and is thus unable to supply the required information to determine complex impedance. Thus the value of SWR does provide the polar magnitude of the complex reflection coefficient, not just the |rho| value. > Gamma has an angle which can lie in any of the four quadrants. > Theoretically this cannot be neglected. And I submit, Reg, that although the numerical value of the angle is omitted, the effect of the angle has not been neglected. > I can't prove the approximation because I havn't the mental energy to > do the exact calculations involved. I'm saving you the mental energy, Reg, because there are no approximations involved--the exact calculation has been made. For interest, my program SWRARGUE calculates the exact power lost in > the line for any SWR for a given input power of 100 watts. Power lost > is then a percentage of input power. Transmission efficiency then > follows. Note that the internal resistance of the transmitter or > conjugate matching is immaterial. I downloaded your SWRARGUE program, Reg, and ran it. The numbers using your program and those using my Appendix 8 are identical. snip > The excess loss due to SWR is the difference between actual loss and > the line's overall matched attenuation, which is an input to the > program. Which, to me, appears to be an artificial way of looking at > things and your approximation arises from it. As I said above, Reg, the values obtained using your program and those using my Appendix 8 are identical. My method does not reveal any approximate values, so it cannot be an artificial way of viewing the procedure. > The way to prove the point is to calculate the excess loss due to SWR > your way and compare with the results from my program. As I just said, I have compared my results with those of your program and the resulting numbers are identical. > I wouldn't be surprised if there's no significant difference. The > matter about the imaginary meanings of SWR and confusing reflected > power is not worth the trouble of arguing about. Not only is there no significant difference, Reg, there is NO difference. Think about it. Walt, W2DU Article: 214901 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: References: <21513-42CD56FC-70@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:27:37 GMT On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:23:24 -0500, richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) wrote: >Owen wrote: >"Has anuypne a link to or reference to derivation of the formula?" > >My 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book treats additional power loss >due to SWR on page 24-10. Richard, I have an 18th edition, and the formula it gives does not factor in the angle of the reflection, and so is an approximation. I don't know if that applies to the 19th edition. Back to my original post, I was not in search of a formula for an exact solution, nor a reason to want an exact solution, but rather whether anyone has seen the derivation of Michaels formula quoted in QST Nov 97. Thanks for your help. Owen -- Article: 214902 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:16:23 -0400 Message-ID: <552ef$42cda9bb$97d55c31$21581@ALLTEL.NET> And your liberal use of profanity accomplishes the exact same thing. Can you not express yourself without sounding like you belong on Ch 19? "Zoran Brlecic" <...WA7AA...@get.lost> wrote in message news:hdidnQkZw8WROFDfRVn-2A@comcast.com... ***** Profanity snipped ****** > The problem is that every ham's action reflects on all of us, both in > the positive and in the negative respect. His installation which flies > in the face of everything we know about tower safety and precautions > makes all of us look no better than the average dumbass CB trucker. > > > 73 .... WA7AA Article: 214903 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <21513-42CD56FC-70@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: <_hize.31144$B_3.26260@fe05.lga> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:46:36 -0400 "Owen" wrote in message news:q97rc1h10bg5bipdedp2trcqfpcm46ephs@4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:23:24 -0500, richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard > Harrison) wrote: > > >Owen wrote: > >"Has anuypne a link to or reference to derivation of the formula?" > > > >My 19th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book treats additional power loss > >due to SWR on page 24-10. > > Richard, I have an 18th edition, and the formula it gives does not > factor in the angle of the reflection, and so is an approximation. > > I don't know if that applies to the 19th edition. > > Back to my original post, I was not in search of a formula for an > exact solution, nor a reason to want an exact solution, but rather > whether anyone has seen the derivation of Michaels formula quoted in > QST Nov 97. > > Thanks for your help. > > Owen > Well, Owen, if you believe the expressions I presented in Reflections 2 are approximate, then why do I get the correct answers? Walt, W2DU Article: 214904 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Me Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:59:15 GMT In article , "Walter Maxwell" wrote: > Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and during WW2. > > Walt, w2du "Me" is an alias for a well know Radioman/FCC Field Agent, who is nearing the end of his natural life, but finds time to kabitz here in NewsGroups.... but, yours didn't have Phased Verticals, with electronic steering, and a Right/Left meter just above the steering wheel to guide you in on the signal.... Me Article: 214905 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: <87hrc19htqbt563esvircc4qin1h5j43lm@4ax.com> References: <21513-42CD56FC-70@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> <_hize.31144$B_3.26260@fe05.lga> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:25:37 GMT On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:46:36 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: >Well, Owen, if you believe the expressions I presented in Reflections 2 are >approximate, then why do I get the correct answers? It seems to me that the method requires that rho is not greater than one (otherwise the denominator (1-rho2**2) becomes negative, which is a nonsense). This hints that it does not apply in the general case where rho *can* be greater than 1, and is therefore probably limited to cases of distorionless line (Xo=0). To avoid publishing "ugly" maths here, I have put a page up at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/reflection.htm with a bunch of expressions for conditions on the modelled line, including functions for power flow at an arbitrary point, Loss calculated from powerflow at two points and loss based on your loss formula + matched line loss. The graphs show the loss from point x to the load, x is 0 at the load and negative toward the source. The algorithms produce quite different results. If I ignore Xo (ie force Zo to be real), then both algorithms produce the same results. Have I made a mistake in the maths, or in modelling the scenario? Owen -- Article: 214906 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <21513-42CD56FC-70@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> <_hize.31144$B_3.26260@fe05.lga> <87hrc19htqbt563esvircc4qin1h5j43lm@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: <3Zjze.1144$yL4.573@fe02.lga> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 20:40:49 -0400 "Owen" wrote in message news:87hrc19htqbt563esvircc4qin1h5j43lm@4ax.com... > On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 18:46:36 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" > wrote: > > > >Well, Owen, if you believe the expressions I presented in Reflections 2 are > >approximate, then why do I get the correct answers? > > It seems to me that the method requires that rho is not greater than > one (otherwise the denominator (1-rho2**2) becomes negative, which is > a nonsense). This hints that it does not apply in the general case > where rho *can* be greater than 1, and is therefore probably limited > to cases of distorionless line (Xo=0). > > To avoid publishing "ugly" maths here, I have put a page up at > http://www.vk1od.net/temp/reflection.htm with a bunch of expressions > for conditions on the modelled line, including functions for power > flow at an arbitrary point, Loss calculated from powerflow at two > points and loss based on your loss formula + matched line loss. > > The graphs show the loss from point x to the load, x is 0 at the load > and negative toward the source. > > The algorithms produce quite different results. If I ignore Xo (ie > force Zo to be real), then both algorithms produce the same results. > > Have I made a mistake in the maths, or in modelling the scenario? > > Owen Thanks for responding, Owen, but I'm going to be otherwise occupied until Saturday, so the fact that I don't respond immediately doesn't mean that I'm ignoring you. Walt Article: 214907 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: SWR losses in 300 ohm TV twinlead vs coax Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:18:12 -0400 Message-ID: <48nrc1lt2gp0v0lntelou088gd0v7j1co4@4ax.com> I have installed a 135 foot dipole which I tune for all bands but 6 and 20 (I have dipoles cut for those bands.) Well, one of the locals and I were discussing a loop antenna. He insists that the loop is better fed with 65 feet of 75 ohm coax and then 50 ohm coax to the tuner for the radio. I was saying there would be less loss by using a 300 ohm twin lead since it was being tuned for all the HF bands and 6 meters, with open wire or ladder line being better options. He insists that if the loop is properly made, it is better to feed it with the 75/50 combo which properly matches the antenna. any thoughts? -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 214908 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> <552ef$42cda9bb$97d55c31$21581@ALLTEL.NET> Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 22:31:31 -0400 Message-ID: <70f97$42cde587$97d55c31$7403@ALLTEL.NET> I guess then we are to conclude that you can not express outrage at a situation with out gutter language. You Sir are the one with flawed logic, regardless of the perceived offense one sees in the construction of a tower, it conveys no license to assail the members of the group with gutter language. Might I suggest a course in creative writing at your local adult education center? It may expand your vocabulary beyond the profane utterances we have seen so far. "Zoran Brlecic" <...WA7AA...@get.lost> wrote in message news:ad-dnTSQS_2CTVDfRVn-hw@comcast.com... > Fred W4JLE wrote: > > > And your liberal use of profanity accomplishes the exact same thing. Can you > > not express yourself without sounding like you belong on Ch 19? > > Nice logic, albeit not much surprising in these "morality" driven times: > "liberal use of profanity" is of the same impact and scope as erecting > an unsafe tower. > Article: 214909 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:42:53 -0500 From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: SWR losses in 300 ohm TV twinlead vs coax References: <48nrc1lt2gp0v0lntelou088gd0v7j1co4@4ax.com> Message-ID: <42cde92d$1_2@spool9-west.superfeed.net> Buck wrote: > I have installed a 135 foot dipole which I tune for all bands but 6 > and 20 (I have dipoles cut for those bands.) > > Well, one of the locals and I were discussing a loop antenna. He > insists that the loop is better fed with 65 feet of 75 ohm coax and > then 50 ohm coax to the tuner for the radio. I was saying there would > be less loss by using a 300 ohm twin lead since it was being tuned for > all the HF bands and 6 meters, with open wire or ladder line being > better options. He insists that if the loop is properly made, it is > better to feed it with the 75/50 combo which properly matches the > antenna. any thoughts? The 75 ohm matching section is for a single frequency (narrow-banded). On that single frequency, it is probably just as good as the twin lead model. However, on other bands than the one for which it is designed, it will probably not function as well as the twin lead model. Your "local" just proves that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do you want a multi-band antenna or a narrow-banded single-band antenna? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Article: 214910 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Hank Oredson" References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> <552ef$42cda9bb$97d55c31$21581@ALLTEL.NET> <70f97$42cde587$97d55c31$7403@ALLTEL.NET> Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online Message-ID: Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 03:06:19 GMT "Fred W4JLE" wrote in message news:70f97$42cde587$97d55c31$7403@ALLTEL.NET... >I guess then we are to conclude that you can not express outrage at a > situation with out gutter language. > > You Sir are the one with flawed logic, regardless of the perceived offense > one sees in the construction of a tower, it conveys no license to assail > the > members of the group with gutter language. > > Might I suggest a course in creative writing at your local adult education Adult education center ??? You assume you address an adult. I see a middle school kid whos mommy left the computer logged in. > center? It may expand your vocabulary beyond the profane utterances we > have > seen so far. > > > > "Zoran Brlecic" <...WA7AA...@get.lost> wrote in message > news:ad-dnTSQS_2CTVDfRVn-hw@comcast.com... >> Fred W4JLE wrote: >> >> > And your liberal use of profanity accomplishes the exact same thing. >> > Can > you >> > not express yourself without sounding like you belong on Ch 19? >> >> Nice logic, albeit not much surprising in these "morality" driven times: >> "liberal use of profanity" is of the same impact and scope as erecting >> an unsafe tower. -- ... Hank http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli Article: 214911 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: SWR losses in 300 ohm TV twinlead vs coax Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 04:16:30 -0000 Message-ID: <11crvguklf0s700@corp.supernews.com> References: <48nrc1lt2gp0v0lntelou088gd0v7j1co4@4ax.com> In article <48nrc1lt2gp0v0lntelou088gd0v7j1co4@4ax.com>, Buck wrote: >I have installed a 135 foot dipole which I tune for all bands but 6 >and 20 (I have dipoles cut for those bands.) > >Well, one of the locals and I were discussing a loop antenna. He >insists that the loop is better fed with 65 feet of 75 ohm coax and >then 50 ohm coax to the tuner for the radio. I was saying there would >be less loss by using a 300 ohm twin lead since it was being tuned for >all the HF bands and 6 meters, with open wire or ladder line being >better options. He insists that if the loop is properly made, it is >better to feed it with the 75/50 combo which properly matches the >antenna. >any thoughts? I think that's going to depend very much indeed on the size of the loop and on the band(s) on which you're trying to use it. If I recall properly, a 1-wavelength resonant loop will have a feedpoint Z of around 100 ohms. A quarter-wavelength section of 75-ohm coax will transform this down to something close to 50 ohms, and you'll have a good match. This specific case doesn't generalize, though. If you use the loop on the second-harmonic band, its feedpoint impedance will be a higher (I think), the "quarter-wavelength" 75-ohm section will now be about a half-wavelength long and will mirror the feedpoint impedance to the 50/75-ohm junction. You'll see a higher SWR (maybe 2:1 or worse?) at the junction and thus at the transmitter. Same problem, even moreso, on higher-numbered harmonic bands. It'll likely be usable, but I'd guess that losses may become significant depending on the coax type and length. On non-harmonically-related bands, the situation could be even worse than that, with a very high or very reactive impedance at the loop/75-ohm-junction point, and a high SWR and significant losses all the way to your tuner. 65 feet of electrical length is roughly a quarter-wavelength at 80 meters, but that neglects the velocity factor of the cable. A setup using this sort of matching arrangement with 65 physical feet of 75-ohm coax would behave somewhat differently depending on whether the 75-ohm coax was solid-dielectric or foam/air dielectric, due to the difference in the velocity factors. -- 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: 214912 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: "Fred W4JLE" wrote - > Reg, our thoughts and prayers go out to your countrymen after the cowardly > attacks on your transportition system. --------------------------------------------------------- Fred, your sincere sentiments are very much appreciated. But we also have in mind the 100's of thousands of Iraqis who have died under attack during the last dozen years. ---- Yours, Reg. Article: 214913 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:56:21 +1000 From: atec Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters References: Message-ID: <42ce2330$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au> Reg Edwards wrote: > "Fred W4JLE" wrote - > >>Reg, our thoughts and prayers go out to your countrymen after the > > cowardly > >>attacks on your transportition system. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Fred, your sincere sentiments are very much appreciated. But we also > have in mind the 100's of thousands of Iraqis who have died under > attack during the last dozen years. > ---- > Yours, Reg. > > I see you ignored the fact that the internal strife and dictatorship murdered far more per day than any out side influence may have caused. Article: 214914 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John Gotwals" Subject: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 07:56:25 -0500 Message-ID: I live in Indiana and am in the process of ground mounting a Butternut HF6V vertical antenna. The antennal is located in a section of lawn which is 40 feet from the nearest building. I am sure a set of guys would make a more sturdy antenna, but I don't want to cause lawn mowing problems, and I don't want to increase the visual impact of this antenna. Any comments or advice is welcome. John, N9JG Article: 214915 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: SWR losses in 300 ohm TV twinlead vs coax Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:21:57 -0400 Message-ID: <7evsc11vjhq79rk80dekf3eru6jiep3er3@4ax.com> References: <48nrc1lt2gp0v0lntelou088gd0v7j1co4@4ax.com> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:18:12 -0400, Buck wrote: >I have installed a 135 foot dipole which I tune for all bands but 6 >and 20 (I have dipoles cut for those bands.) > >Well, one of the locals and I were discussing a loop antenna. He >insists that the loop is better fed with 65 feet of 75 ohm coax and >then 50 ohm coax to the tuner for the radio. I was saying there would >be less loss by using a 300 ohm twin lead since it was being tuned for >all the HF bands and 6 meters, with open wire or ladder line being >better options. He insists that if the loop is properly made, it is >better to feed it with the 75/50 combo which properly matches the >antenna. > >any thoughts? PS. The loop we were discussing was cut for 80 meters and was to be used with a tuner to tune all HF bands. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 214916 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John Gotwals" Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:24:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: Thanks for your comments. I purchased a new HF6V, and the instructions do mention keeping the angle about 45°. I plan to install it without guys, but I wanted to see if someone had some strong advice to the contrary. "Dave "Doc" Corio" wrote in message news:K42dndq2fveH5FPfRVn-sA@adelphia.com... > My HF9V has withstood Iowa and PA winds, both ground-mounted and elevated > without a single problem. The antenna can be guyed, however, if you feel > it necessary. The directions show the placement of guys on the mast. It's > important to get the proper placement so winds don't do any damage if it's > guyed too high or too low. Article: 214917 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: Really low SWRs but is it worth trimming the antenna Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:27:34 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1120820642.403459.107860@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> On 8 Jul 2005 04:04:02 -0700, "Blue Dawg" wrote: >I am running a President Grant am/usb/lsb and on Channel 1 the SWR is >1:0.08, on Channel 40 it is 1:1.45 and on Channel 19 it is 1:1.09. It >really isn't worth doing an adjustment on this antenna setup is there? >The antenna is a single Yagi beam made up of two Tram Penetrators >(Monkey Made's). I think that it is sold as a 1/2 wave antenna and >have heard that it is a 5/8 wave. This antenna can be set for 10 meter >usage also. It really looks weird up there without a reflector on it. >I may put a reflector on it but am stumped as to length of the >reflector (ging to be made of 1/2" electrical conduit). I can't find >the formula for the length taking into consideration of the diameter of >the reflector. I believe that the 'stand-by' one should use 468/f. >Using 27.185 (Chl 19) the length should be 17.22 feet. Only thing is >the length of the driven element is less than 12' because of the >antennas having the centerload coil in them. > >What do you think? Ignore Dave's sarcastic statement. The antenna will work very well as is. It could be trimmed to be a little better, but you and your radio will not notice any difference. If it were my antenna, I would leave it up and take the time either enjoying the radio or studying for an Amateur Radio Licenses. :) (Had to put a plug in there.) 73 and good luck -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 214918 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Peter Voelpel" Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:25:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> Out2Lunch wrote: > Anyone who would fault your tower installation has a serious case of > "penis envy". It looks great and I will bet it will stand the test of > time. never Article: 214919 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jayson Davis Subject: Recommended Books Message-ID: Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 10:53:43 -0400 I'm looking for some recommendations on books about antennas and antenna theory. Any favorites you crusty old RF guys wanna share? Lots of math doesn't scare me. Thanks. Article: 214920 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Walt, my suspicion about approximation, based only on appearance, was not justified. So your "two SWR meter" formula and my program agree exactly. Therefore your formula must be correct. ;o) Thanks for your trouble to sort things out for me. ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 214921 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Joel Kolstad" Subject: Re: Recommended Books Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 08:32:07 -0700 Message-ID: <11ct71160lhbl70@corp.supernews.com> References: "Jayson Davis" wrote in message news:Xowze.1941$yL4.1044@fe02.lga... > I'm looking for some recommendations on books about antennas and antenna > theory. "Antennas" by Kraus & Marhefka: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072321032/qid=1120836458/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-0117018-4818221?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 It may well be the last edition given that Dr. Kraus died last year. The usual "classics" also include Balanis's "Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design" and Stutzman & Thiele's, "Antenna Theory and Design." IMO, Kraus is a better place to start in that the math is somewhat simpler and Kraus was a very "applied" sort of guy. ---Joel Kolstad Article: 214922 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Really low SWRs but is it worth trimming the antenna Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:51:34 -0500 Message-ID: <11530-42CEA106-371@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net> References: <1120820642.403459.107860@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Blue Dawg wrote: "What do you think?" I gather Blue Dawg has a 1/2-wave dipole made from (2) 1/4-wave coil-loaded whips. That works. The coils are necessary because the whips are too short without them. At 27.185 MHz, WL=11.035 meters=36.20 ft. Kraus proposes a "modern version" of the Yagi-Uda antenna on page 258 of his 2002, 3rd edition of "Antennas". The reflector is spaced 1/4-WL behind the radiator. It could be closer for more gain but this would make dimensions of the array more critical, and the improvement in pattern is probably not worth it. The reflector is 1.03 x the radiator length to get the required inductive phase lag required of a reflector. Length of the reflector is 0.475 WL. Length of the radiator is 0.46 WL. Lengths of elements shrink as they get fatter and Kraus assumes thin wires. They are also shorter with loading coils. Bandwidth improves with fat elements and worsens with loading coils. The elements are shorter than 1/2-WL due to "end effects". The length of a thin non-loaded radiator for 11.35-mtr operation is 5.22 m = 17.13 ft. The length of a thin non-loaded reflector for 11.35-mtr operation is 5.39 m = 17.7 ft. Should you trim the antenna to optimize it? Probably not unless performance is at least 1 dB less than expected. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 214923 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: Subject: Re: Recommended Books Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:25:05 -0400 Message-ID: <2b9ac$42ceaaf3$97d55c31$9904@ALLTEL.NET> John D. Kraus "Antennas", Frederic E Terman's "Radio Engineers' Handbook" and Walter Maxwell's "Reflections" are a necessary part of ones library. "Jayson Davis" wrote in message news:Xowze.1941$yL4.1044@fe02.lga... > I'm looking for some recommendations on books about antennas and antenna > theory. > > Any favorites you crusty old RF guys wanna share? Lots of math doesn't > scare me. > > Thanks. Article: 214924 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Michael Coslo Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:07:40 -0400 Message-ID: References: John Gotwals wrote: > Thanks for your comments. I purchased a new HF6V, and the instructions do > mention keeping the angle about 45°. I plan to install it without guys, but > I wanted to see if someone had some strong advice to the contrary. > > "Dave "Doc" Corio" wrote in message > news:K42dndq2fveH5FPfRVn-sA@adelphia.com... > >>My HF9V has withstood Iowa and PA winds, both ground-mounted and elevated >>without a single problem. The antenna can be guyed, however, if you feel >>it necessary. The directions show the placement of guys on the mast. It's >>important to get the proper placement so winds don't do any damage if it's >>guyed too high or too low. I'll chime in that my HF6V is also doing fine without guys. - Mike KB3EIA - Article: 214925 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <1120820642.403459.107860@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Really low SWRs but is it worth trimming the antenna Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:11:36 -0400 Message-ID: <9b946$42ceec0d$97d55c31$14100@ALLTEL.NET> Why do you have to be such a putz? The man asked a question and you wanting to feel superior to somebody, feel you have a patsy in a CBer. More's the pity! "Dave" wrote in message news:UcGdnZ7K9sES-lPfRVn-sA@crocker.com... > yes, keep trimming until the swr is 1:1.0001 or less across all the > channels. anything higher than that will absolutely fry your transmitter > and cause you to go sterile because of all the reflected power leaking out > of your rig. electrical conduit is such a great conductor that it will help > the swr also by sucking all the power that would have been reflected back > out of the coax, i would recommend 17.22329 feet, plus or minus .00001, the > tolerance is very important, a hair too long and it won't reflect properly, > too short and it will act as a director and totally reverse the pattern. > > "Blue Dawg" wrote in message > news:1120820642.403459.107860@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >I am running a President Grant am/usb/lsb and on Channel 1 the SWR is > > 1:0.08, on Channel 40 it is 1:1.45 and on Channel 19 it is 1:1.09. It > > really isn't worth doing an adjustment on this antenna setup is there? > > The antenna is a single Yagi beam made up of two Tram Penetrators > > (Monkey Made's). I think that it is sold as a 1/2 wave antenna and > > have heard that it is a 5/8 wave. This antenna can be set for 10 meter > > usage also. It really looks weird up there without a reflector on it. > > I may put a reflector on it but am stumped as to length of the > > reflector (ging to be made of 1/2" electrical conduit). I can't find > > the formula for the length taking into consideration of the diameter of > > the reflector. I believe that the 'stand-by' one should use 468/f. > > Using 27.185 (Chl 19) the length should be 17.22 feet. Only thing is > > the length of the driven element is less than 12' because of the > > antennas having the centerload coil in them. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Article: 214926 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:37:47 -0500 Message-ID: <11ctshgr6uonh97@corp.supernews.com> References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> <1120805396.429011.168330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Walt Davidson wrote: > On 8 Jul 2005 00:02:57 -0700, nm5k@wt.net wrote: > > >>That tower is quite capable of thinking >>it's a tree. It might not be green and have pretty leaves, but it will >>still kill you deader than a squashed june bug. > > > So it's true, then. Every cloud has a silver lining! > > 73 de G3NYY > Having read this thread from the beginning I feel compelled to comment myself at this time. A couple of weeks ago the area I live in was subjected to some high winds. How high I don't know but my neighbor across the street had to pick a very large tree out if his attic. How large you ask? Glad you asked. I measured the circumfrence at a point that would have been about 5 ft above ground. It measured 87 inches. Now that's one large tree. What happened? The roots snapped off at ground level. So do not trust a living thing to hold anything. Dave WD0BDZ Article: 214927 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:49:32 -0500 Message-ID: <11ctt7ic48ml733@corp.supernews.com> References: Reg Edwards wrote: > "Fred W4JLE" wrote - > >>Reg, our thoughts and prayers go out to your countrymen after the > > cowardly > >>attacks on your transportition system. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Fred, your sincere sentiments are very much appreciated. But we also > have in mind the 100's of thousands of Iraqis who have died under > attack during the last dozen years. > ---- > Yours, Reg. > > Where are these Hundreds of Thousands coming from? The defeat of the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm. That was a conflict started by the Iraqi President. The US President lead the army that defeated him. The majority of the casualties suffered during the current action have been the result a deliberate campaign by those opposed to the Iraqi people guiding their own destiny. To say otherwise is to devalue the lives lost in this action. I look foreword to the day that all non Iraqi military personnel can go home in peace and with honor. Dave N Article: 214928 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: References: <3%Yye.13220$Si3.1138@fe06.lga> <25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:08:17 GMT On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: >> If you like, I am saying your approach is valid for lossless lines, it >> is also valid for all distortionless lines, but I think it is not >> accurate for lines in the general case because it isn't correct if >> Xo!=0. >> >> Owen > >Owen, if X = 0 there is no attenuation, but you're saying my material is >invalid if X is not 0? I'm sorry, but I'm confused. Walt, it has just occurred to me that I am using the "actual" Zo, not the nominal Zo, and I think your rho calc is based on the nominal Zo, as it will be measured with an instrument presumably calibrated for nominal Zo. I have compared the loss calculated by your method (with rho based on nominal Zo, Zo=Ro+j0) and my method and they are very similar (though not the same). I have added a function to calculate the loss using your formula based on nominal Zo and plotted it, along with the difference to the power based loss calc. They are at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/reflection.htm . If your method is based on nominal Zo, rather than the actual Zo, it is likely to be an approximation, though on this example, it is pretty close and probably is quite adequate for most practical lines at HF and above. (The error increases as frequency is reduced (Zo departs more from nominal Zo).) Having resolved the apparent inconsistency... I am still in search of a derivation of the Michaels formula. Owen -- Article: 214929 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Recommended Books Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:46:03 -0500 Message-ID: <18468-42CF3A6B-526@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net> References: <11ct71160lhbl70@corp.supernews.com> Joel Kolstad wrote: " "Antennas" by Kraus & Marthelka:" I agree. Also Terman`s "Radio and Electronic Engineering", and the "ARRL Antenna Book". Other great books are out there but the 3 above cover most of what you will ever need. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 214930 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Ron Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Message-ID: References: Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:09:08 GMT I have do not have guys on the HF6V I own and have had no problems at all. WE had sustanied winds of almost 60mph this winter and no problem at all. Do take the time though if you have not already and add a few radials. Cut you lawn real short,, lay down several radials, pull them taught and then stake them in the ground with ground cloth staples (garden center) The grass will grow right up aroound them and they will "disapear" into the ground. Huge difference in performance. Ron On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 07:56:25 -0500, "John Gotwals" wrote: >I live in Indiana and am in the process of ground mounting a Butternut HF6V >vertical antenna. The antennal is located in a section of lawn which is 40 >feet from the nearest building. I am sure a set of guys would make a more >sturdy antenna, but I don't want to cause lawn mowing problems, and I don't >want to increase the visual impact of this antenna. Any comments or advice >is welcome. > >John, N9JG > Article: 214931 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Polymath" References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> Subject: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 06:03:44 +0100 Message-ID: <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> Actually, just did a quick webbing and found enough to realise that the claims are founded upon feet of clay..... 1. You do not separately excite the E and H fields because if you excite an E field, you get a corresponding H field, and vice-versa, even if it is your intention to excite separately. 2. The differential forms of Maxwell describe the fields at _EVERY_ infinitesimal point and there is no way that the attempt to excite two separate fields from two separate mechanical contrivances will result in registration at every single point. Indeed, it is doubtful that registration will be achieved at all at any infinitesimal point. In any case, as in (1) above, your E field will have its H, and your H field will have its E field already. 3. In the accepted equations describing the generated field, radiation comes only >from accelerating charges. Thus the capacitive elements of the CFA will create the near field (decaying as 1/(r^2)) but not any radiated field (decaying as 1/r). I wonder if the measurements resulting in the claims for the CFA were made in the near field? I wonder if the whole thing is intended as an elaborate hoax, and that the authors, in their original paper in Wireless World, relied on the fact that most readers' eyes would glaze over when faced with the maths of vector fields? (Remember, that in this NG we've had someone who boasts of two degrees, one in maths and the other in electronics, stating that e^(-jwt) is a function that decreases with increasing time, thus indicating that the awarding of a degree together with the professing of mathematical equations is no guarantee of competence!) I suggest http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node53.html etc as a good revising/learning/debunking cookbook. (Don't start from node 53!) "Polymath" wrote in message news:42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org... > I've just about got enough elec-and-mag theory to be > able to understand the claims made for the GM3HAT > CFA; any pointers to the patent claims? > > Article: 214932 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: 20m Halfwave Vertical QST article Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:13:13 -0700 Message-ID: <11cuu8bhpl6bc33@corp.supernews.com> References: Sounds like "The Half-Wave Vertical" by John Belrose, VE2CV in September 1981 _Ham Radio_. It's a sleeve dipole, like the antenna I've heard called a "bazooka" when used at VHF. That used to be a common type of VHF/UHF antenna although I don't see many around these days. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Michael St. Angelo wrote: > QST had an article about a 20 meter halfwave vertical that was end fed with > a coaxial matching section for 50 ohm feed. > It was essentially a j-pole constructed from coax. It was in a 1980-early > 1990 issue of QST. Does anyone recall the article > and the issue? > > Thanks, > > Mike N2MS > > Article: 214933 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Spike Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:00:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> Polly parroted: >1. You do not separately excite the E and H fields because >if you excite an E field, you get a corresponding H field, and vice-versa, >even if it is your intention to excite separately. > >2. The differential forms of Maxwell describe the fields at _EVERY_ >infinitesimal point and there is no way that the attempt to excite two >separate fields from two separate mechanical contrivances will result >in registration at every single point. Indeed, it is doubtful that >registration >will be achieved at all at any infinitesimal point. In any case, as in (1) >above, >your E field will have its H, and your H field will have its E field >already. Your first point does in fact point to the anomaly regarding points in your second point, and you have therefore pointed up the answer to your own point. As you clearly have not thought this point through, I pointedly leave its discovery as an exercise for you. While you continue to struggle for technical excellence, doing this should help point you to the requirements demanded of scientific thinking, and the possibility of also taking your first tentative steps in that discipline. Further, as a guide, scientists do not use personal pronouns in their formal writings, so you might also like to rewrite your article in such a manner. from Aero Spike Article: 214934 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> Message-ID: <41Nze.24204$y86.5670@newsfe1-win.ntli.net> Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:45:36 GMT Spike wrote: > Polly parroted: > > >>1. You do not separately excite the E and H fields because >>if you excite an E field, you get a corresponding H field, and vice-versa, >>even if it is your intention to excite separately. >> >>2. The differential forms of Maxwell describe the fields at _EVERY_ >>infinitesimal point and there is no way that the attempt to excite two >>separate fields from two separate mechanical contrivances will result >>in registration at every single point. Indeed, it is doubtful that >>registration >>will be achieved at all at any infinitesimal point. In any case, as in (1) >>above, >>your E field will have its H, and your H field will have its E field >>already. > > > Your first point does in fact point to the anomaly regarding points in > your second point, and you have therefore pointed up the answer to > your own point. As you clearly have not thought this point through, I > pointedly leave its discovery as an exercise for you. While you > continue to struggle for technical excellence, doing this should help > point you to the requirements demanded of scientific thinking, and the > possibility of also taking your first tentative steps in that > discipline. Further, as a guide, scientists do not use personal > pronouns in their formal writings, so you might also like to rewrite > your article in such a manner. > > from > Aero Spike and what would be the point of that? -- ;-) 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. http://turner-smith.co.uk Article: 214935 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Spike Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:45:11 +0100 Message-ID: <44evc1h509t31vjkv1spn4s24u81lhm426@4ax.com> References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> <41Nze.24204$y86.5670@newsfe1-win.ntli.net> Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote: >and what would be the point of that? It's a triumph of hope over experience, given this chap's posting history - I'm sure you get the point ;-) from Aero Spike Article: 214936 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John Gotwals" Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 07:18:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: I do plan to add a fair number of guys, and will be installing them just as you have suggested. I do have a question about driving the 1 1/8" mounting tube into the earth. The directions give a warning about splitting the plastic insert and suggest placing a piece of wood on top of the tube and then hammer on the wood. The soil here is clay, and the ground is quite dry, at the present time. Do you, or anyone else, have any suggestions about driving the tube into the ground. Should I drive a wooden stake first to form a hole, remove the stake, and then drive the tube into the hole left by the stake? "Ron" wrote in message news:bniuc19efv8crftgcahhhk4tc88phf1b3d@4ax.com... >I have do not have guys on the HF6V I own and have had no problems at > all. WE had sustanied winds of almost 60mph this winter and no > problem at all. > > Do take the time though if you have not already and add a few radials. > Cut you lawn real short,, lay down several radials, pull them taught > and then stake them in the ground with ground cloth staples (garden > center) The grass will grow right up aroound them and they will > "disapear" into the ground. Huge difference in performance. > Article: 214937 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Howard Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:10:28 -0700 Message-ID: <71qvc1do4o09j12tk62nvbhk1md9c35fqa@4ax.com> References: On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 07:18:07 -0500, "John Gotwals" wrote: >I do plan to add a fair number of guys, and will be installing them just as >you have suggested. I do have a question about driving the 1 1/8" mounting >tube into the earth. The directions give a warning about splitting the >plastic insert and suggest placing a piece of wood on top of the tube and >then hammer on the wood. The soil here is clay, and the ground is quite dry, >at the present time. Do you, or anyone else, have any suggestions about >driving the tube into the ground. Should I drive a wooden stake first to >form a hole, remove the stake, and then drive the tube into the hole left by >the stake? I's suggest you take a few days and water the area first, you can use a 'starter hole' approach also. Drive a stake in and withdraw then over the course of a day fill that hole with water and allow it to seep in then water again. You don't want to go too deep with your 'starter hole' though - just enough to hold some water. Article: 214938 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <71qvc1do4o09j12tk62nvbhk1md9c35fqa@4ax.com> > I suggest you take a few days and water the area first, ================================== This may be fine for some amateurs. But what about the people in southern England where the present water shortage will cause the goverment to introduce compulsory metering of domestic water supplies. It's something to do with Earth warming, man-made climatic disturbance, and the price of a glass of clean drinking water in London. ---- Reg. Article: 214939 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:35:33 -0500 Message-ID: <11cvv6q5gakap25@corp.supernews.com> References: <71qvc1do4o09j12tk62nvbhk1md9c35fqa@4ax.com> Reg Edwards wrote: >>I suggest you take a few days and water the area first, > > > ================================== > > This may be fine for some amateurs. But what about the people in > southern England where the present water shortage will cause the > goverment to introduce compulsory metering of domestic water supplies. > It's something to do with Earth warming, man-made climatic > disturbance, and the price of a glass of clean drinking water in > London. > ---- > Reg. > > Use GRAY water. That's the water from the sink, bath tub etc. This will ease the load on the waste water treatment plant and allow you to soak the ground at the same time. A little more work but it can be worth it. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 214940 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> <552ef$42cda9bb$97d55c31$21581@ALLTEL.NET> Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:56:07 -0400 Message-ID: <87ef2$42d00fbe$97d55c31$2803@ALLTEL.NET> So now the actions of the government are responsible for your profanity? Get a life! You are a foul mouthed person with limited ability to express yourself with out profanity, that failing, you resort to hyperbole and rants against the government. "Zoran Brlecic" <...WA7AA...@get.lost> wrote in message news:NuKdnYWEdKAD3VLfRVn-3A@comcast.com... > Ham op wrote: > > > Your profanity speaks more about you than your comments on the radio tower. > > It speaks to the people who, to cite just one recent example, go berserk > and express outrage over a half a breast on national TV, yet fall > strangely silent when their government invades a sovereign country using > false premises and manufactured evidence, or attempts to legalize torture. > > Do you really think I care what the Taliban of any religious persuasion > think about me? Article: 214941 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Eskay Subject: Re: 20m Halfwave Vertical QST article References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 17:59:18 GMT On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 22:17:43 -0400, Michael St. Angelo wrote: > QST had an article about a 20 meter halfwave vertical that was end fed with > a coaxial matching section for 50 ohm feed. > It was essentially a j-pole constructed from coax. It was in a 1980-early > 1990 issue of QST. Does anyone recall the article > and the issue? > > Thanks, > > Mike N2MS You have mail. Article: 214942 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 14:01:45 -0400 "Me" wrote in message news:Me-69639F.15593107072005@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article , > "Walter Maxwell" wrote: > > > Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and during WW2. > > > > Walt, w2du > > "Me" is an alias for a well know Radioman/FCC Field Agent, who is > nearing the end of his natural life, but finds time to kabitz here in > NewsGroups.... > > but, yours didn't have Phased Verticals, with electronic steering, and > a Right/Left meter just above the steering wheel to guide you in on the > signal.... > > Me You're right, mine was a Hudson with a loop DF and Hallicrafters SX-27 and SX-28 receivers. There had to be a somewhat intelligent brain connecting the DF to the steering wheel. Did you drive your car during the time the NDO and RID existed? I was a charter member beginning in 1940. My wife-to-be disseminated more than 500 invitations to join from her FCC office in Washington as an assistant to George E. Sterling, then Chief Engineer of the FCC. If well-known Radioman/FCC Agent is so well known how come I don't know him? I can't believe you're gonna give away any Home Security secrets by tossing your anonomity cloak. How about coming clean with us? Walt, W2DU Article: 214943 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John Gotwals" Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:23:06 -0500 Message-ID: References: <71qvc1do4o09j12tk62nvbhk1md9c35fqa@4ax.com> Why would anyone save water if their water supply was not metered? "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:daorrk$dve$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > This may be fine for some amateurs. But what about the people in > southern England where the present water shortage will cause the > goverment to introduce compulsory metering of domestic water supplies. > It's something to do with Earth warming, man-made climatic > disturbance, and the price of a glass of clean drinking water in > London. Article: 214944 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:22:43 -0400 Message-ID: <18dd6$42d0402a$97d55c31$9215@ALLTEL.NET> He is Riley's mini-me... "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message news:YiUze.1442$5R1.1156@fe07.lga... > > "Me" wrote in message > news:Me-69639F.15593107072005@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > > In article , > > "Walter Maxwell" wrote: > > > > > Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and during > WW2. > > > > > > Walt, w2du > > > > "Me" is an alias for a well know Radioman/FCC Field Agent, who is > > nearing the end of his natural life, but finds time to kabitz here in > > NewsGroups.... > > > > but, yours didn't have Phased Verticals, with electronic steering, and > > a Right/Left meter just above the steering wheel to guide you in on the > > signal.... > > > > Me > > You're right, mine was a Hudson with a loop DF and Hallicrafters SX-27 and > SX-28 receivers. There had to be a somewhat intelligent brain connecting the > DF to the steering wheel. Did you drive your car during the time the NDO and > RID existed? I was a charter member beginning in 1940. My wife-to-be > disseminated more than 500 invitations to join from her FCC office in > Washington as an assistant to George E. Sterling, then Chief Engineer of the > FCC. > > If well-known Radioman/FCC Agent is so well known how come I don't know him? > I can't believe you're gonna give away any Home Security secrets by tossing > your anonomity cloak. How about coming clean with us? > > Walt, W2DU > > Article: 214945 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: 20m Halfwave Vertical QST article Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:17:25 -0400 Message-ID: <11d0j6vrimnk05b@corp.supernews.com> References: WWV uses half wave verticals that are center fed. Their web pages might show the details. End feeding seems more difficult than center feeding. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Michael St. Angelo" wrote in message news:GPudnSRA6NEjrlLfRVn-iQ@comcast.com... > QST had an article about a 20 meter halfwave vertical that was end fed with > a coaxial matching section for 50 ohm feed. > It was essentially a j-pole constructed from coax. It was in a 1980-early > 1990 issue of QST. Does anyone recall the article > and the issue? > > Thanks, > > Mike N2MS > > Article: 214946 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> <18dd6$42d0402a$97d55c31$9215@ALLTEL.NET> Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:48:31 -0400 Riley wouldn't hide behind 'me'. Walt "Fred W4JLE" wrote in message news:18dd6$42d0402a$97d55c31$9215@ALLTEL.NET... > He is Riley's mini-me... > > "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message > news:YiUze.1442$5R1.1156@fe07.lga... > > > > "Me" wrote in message > > news:Me-69639F.15593107072005@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > > > In article , > > > "Walter Maxwell" wrote: > > > > > > > Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and > during > > WW2. > > > > > > > > Walt, w2du > > > > > > "Me" is an alias for a well know Radioman/FCC Field Agent, who is > > > nearing the end of his natural life, but finds time to kabitz here in > > > NewsGroups.... > > > > > > but, yours didn't have Phased Verticals, with electronic steering, and > > > a Right/Left meter just above the steering wheel to guide you in on the > > > signal.... > > > > > > Me > > > > You're right, mine was a Hudson with a loop DF and Hallicrafters SX-27 and > > SX-28 receivers. There had to be a somewhat intelligent brain connecting > the > > DF to the steering wheel. Did you drive your car during the time the NDO > and > > RID existed? I was a charter member beginning in 1940. My wife-to-be > > disseminated more than 500 invitations to join from her FCC office in > > Washington as an assistant to George E. Sterling, then Chief Engineer of > the > > FCC. > > > > If well-known Radioman/FCC Agent is so well known how come I don't know > him? > > I can't believe you're gonna give away any Home Security secrets by > tossing > > your anonomity cloak. How about coming clean with us? > > > > Walt, W2DU > > > > > > Article: 214947 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Me Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:21:11 GMT In article , "Walter Maxwell" wrote: > "Me" wrote in message > news:Me-69639F.15593107072005@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > > In article , > > "Walter Maxwell" wrote: > > > > > Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and during > WW2. > > > > > > Walt, w2du > > > > "Me" is an alias for a well know Radioman/FCC Field Agent, who is > > nearing the end of his natural life, but finds time to kabitz here in > > NewsGroups.... > > > > but, yours didn't have Phased Verticals, with electronic steering, and > > a Right/Left meter just above the steering wheel to guide you in on the > > signal.... > > > > Me > > You're right, mine was a Hudson with a loop DF and Hallicrafters SX-27 and > SX-28 receivers. There had to be a somewhat intelligent brain connecting the > DF to the steering wheel. Did you drive your car during the time the NDO and > RID existed? I was a charter member beginning in 1940. My wife-to-be > disseminated more than 500 invitations to join from her FCC office in > Washington as an assistant to George E. Sterling, then Chief Engineer of the > FCC. > > If well-known Radioman/FCC Agent is so well known how come I don't know him? > I can't believe you're gonna give away any Home Security secrets by tossing > your anonomity cloak. How about coming clean with us? > > Walt, W2DU > > You just don't know any of the Old Gang from the Left Coast, Region X, and Alaska, that's all. and it was a Van, Creme and Brown, with local State Plates, or a dark blue Stationwagon, dark tinted windows, with no backseat and a pile of receivers. I once got myself in trouble by calling it the SolsbyMobile..... Oh well, that was then.....and this is now.... Me Article: 214948 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Me Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> <18dd6$42d0402a$97d55c31$9215@ALLTEL.NET> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:23:56 GMT In article <18dd6$42d0402a$97d55c31$9215@ALLTEL.NET>, "Fred W4JLE" wrote: > He is Riley's mini-me... > > "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message > news:YiUze.1442$5R1.1156@fe07.lga... > > > > "Me" wrote in message > > news:Me-69639F.15593107072005@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > > > In article , > > > "Walter Maxwell" wrote: > > > > > > > Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and > during > > WW2. > > > > > > > > Walt, w2du > > > > > > "Me" is an alias for a well know Radioman/FCC Field Agent, who is > > > nearing the end of his natural life, but finds time to kabitz here in > > > NewsGroups.... > > > > > > but, yours didn't have Phased Verticals, with electronic steering, and > > > a Right/Left meter just above the steering wheel to guide you in on the > > > signal.... > > > > > > Me > > > > You're right, mine was a Hudson with a loop DF and Hallicrafters SX-27 and > > SX-28 receivers. There had to be a somewhat intelligent brain connecting > the > > DF to the steering wheel. Did you drive your car during the time the NDO > and > > RID existed? I was a charter member beginning in 1940. My wife-to-be > > disseminated more than 500 invitations to join from her FCC office in > > Washington as an assistant to George E. Sterling, then Chief Engineer of > the > > FCC. > > > > If well-known Radioman/FCC Agent is so well known how come I don't know > him? > > I can't believe you're gonna give away any Home Security secrets by > tossing > > your anonomity cloak. How about coming clean with us? > > > > Walt, W2DU > > > > > > Riley is a nice enough attorney, but the real enforcement people all got riffed during the Clinton/Gore Bloodletting when the Good Field Operatins folks, all went elsewhere......... Me Article: 214949 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 19:37:04 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters References: Message-ID: <42d06db0$0$32200$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Reg Edwards wrote: > "Fred W4JLE" wrote - > >>Reg, our thoughts and prayers go out to your countrymen after the > > cowardly > >>attacks on your transportition system. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Fred, your sincere sentiments are very much appreciated. But we also > have in mind the 100's of thousands of Iraqis who have died under > attack during the last dozen years. > ---- > Yours, Reg. > > Not to mention the millions killed in interesting and novel ways by the Hesein family and their puppets. tom K0TAR Article: 214950 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jerry" References: <11com00fa5n1r74@corp.supernews.com> <18dd6$42d0402a$97d55c31$9215@ALLTEL.NET> Subject: Re: A car with 6 antennas Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 21:43:21 -0400 "If your car has more antennas on the roof than wheels on the ground, you *might* be a redneck"! (Guess I better add some more wheels! :) ) Jerry "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message news:PvYze.17875$x82.12391@fe03.lga... > Riley wouldn't hide behind 'me'. > > Walt > > "Fred W4JLE" wrote in message > news:18dd6$42d0402a$97d55c31$9215@ALLTEL.NET... >> He is Riley's mini-me... >> >> "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message >> news:YiUze.1442$5R1.1156@fe07.lga... >> > >> > "Me" wrote in message >> > news:Me-69639F.15593107072005@netnews.worldnet.att.net... >> > > In article , >> > > "Walter Maxwell" wrote: >> > > >> > > > Who is 'Me'? I used to drive one 'a them things too, before and >> during >> > WW2. >> > > > >> > > > Walt, w2du >> > > >> > > "Me" is an alias for a well know Radioman/FCC Field Agent, who is >> > > nearing the end of his natural life, but finds time to kabitz here in >> > > NewsGroups.... >> > > >> > > but, yours didn't have Phased Verticals, with electronic steering, >> > > and >> > > a Right/Left meter just above the steering wheel to guide you in on > the >> > > signal.... >> > > >> > > Me >> > >> > You're right, mine was a Hudson with a loop DF and Hallicrafters SX-27 > and >> > SX-28 receivers. There had to be a somewhat intelligent brain >> > connecting >> the >> > DF to the steering wheel. Did you drive your car during the time the >> > NDO >> and >> > RID existed? I was a charter member beginning in 1940. My wife-to-be >> > disseminated more than 500 invitations to join from her FCC office in >> > Washington as an assistant to George E. Sterling, then Chief Engineer >> > of >> the >> > FCC. >> > >> > If well-known Radioman/FCC Agent is so well known how come I don't know >> him? >> > I can't believe you're gonna give away any Home Security secrets by >> tossing >> > your anonomity cloak. How about coming clean with us? >> > >> > Walt, W2DU >> > >> > >> >> > > Article: 214951 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:48:09 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: New program. Two SWR meters References: <42d06db0$0$32200$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <42d07e5a$0$22200$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Tom Ring wrote: > Not to mention the millions killed in interesting and novel ways by the > Hesein family and their puppets. > > tom > K0TAR Sorry mispelled the murdering tyrant's name, should have been "Husein". tom K0TAR Article: 214952 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: <3%Yye.13220$Si3.1138@fe06.lga> <25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 23:17:18 -0400 Owen, I tried to send this as a reply to you, but your email address was rejected, so I had to send this to the group. My response appears below your Walt "Owen" wrote in message news:fprtc119eucfn8p7evsaio4096hihfshdu@4ax.com... > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 21:23:52 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" > wrote: > > > >> If you like, I am saying your approach is valid for lossless lines, it > >> is also valid for all distortionless lines, but I think it is not > >> accurate for lines in the general case because it isn't correct if > >> Xo!=0. > >> > >> Owen > > > >Owen, if X = 0 there is no attenuation, but you're saying my material is > >invalid if X is not 0? I'm sorry, but I'm confused. > > Walt, it has just occurred to me that I am using the "actual" Zo, not > the nominal Zo, and I think your rho calc is based on the nominal Zo, > as it will be measured with an instrument presumably calibrated for > nominal Zo. > > I have compared the loss calculated by your method (with rho based on > nominal Zo, Zo=Ro+j0) and my method and they are very similar (though > not the same). I have added a function to calculate the loss using > your formula based on nominal Zo and plotted it, along with the > difference to the power based loss calc. They are at > http://www.vk1od.net/temp/reflection.htm . > > If your method is based on nominal Zo, rather than the actual Zo, it > is likely to be an approximation, though on this example, it is pretty > close and probably is quite adequate for most practical lines at HF > and above. (The error increases as frequency is reduced (Zo departs > more from nominal Zo).) > > Having resolved the apparent inconsistency... I am still in search of > a derivation of the Michaels formula. > > Owen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen" Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 6:08 PM Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Hi Owen, I'm trying to understand your Mathcad presentations, but I've run into some roadblocks concerning terminology, some of which I'm not familiar with. I confess my questions prove my ignorance, but that's ok if one's trying to learn. However, I was using nominal Zo. First, Xo!=0. I don't know what this means. Second, what does MML stand for in English? Third, in 'functions for V, I, Z, etc at z'. Where is 'z'? I cannot find any reference to it. Fourth, 'exp'. Exponent? If so, of what? e? Fifth, I understand 'x' as distance along the line from the termination, but what is 'y'? Sixth, what is AppLoss? Approximate? Apparent? Applied? Seventh, 'DLoss'. What is 'D'? Dielectric? Again, what is the 'y' term? An ordinate value? Eighth, in the LineLoss(x,y) = 10log... the identical right-hand terms in both numerator and denominator, the identical functions of 'e^^ x e^^. what is the meaning of the bar above the second appearance of 'e'? And above gamma(x)? I want to understand your math presentation, Owen, especially when I see that Loss(x,0 - W2DUloss(x,0) is so small I want to understand what makes the difference. So I'd appreciate it if you'd set me straight on the points I made above. Walt Article: 214953 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:46:59 GMT "Polymath" wrote in message news:42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org... > Actually, just did a quick webbing and found enough to > realise that the claims are founded upon feet of clay..... > > 1. You do not separately excite the E and H fields because > if you excite an E field, you get a corresponding H field, and vice-versa, > even if it is your intention to excite separately. > > 2. The differential forms of Maxwell describe the fields at _EVERY_ > infinitesimal point and there is no way that the attempt to excite two > separate fields from two separate mechanical contrivances will result > in registration at every single point. Indeed, it is doubtful that > registration > will be achieved at all at any infinitesimal point. In any case, as in (1) > above, > your E field will have its H, and your H field will have its E field > already. > > 3. In the accepted equations describing the generated field, radiation > comes only > from accelerating charges. Thus the capacitive elements of the CFA will > create the near field (decaying as 1/(r^2)) but not any radiated field > (decaying as 1/r). I wonder if the measurements resulting in the claims > for the CFA were made in the near field? > > I wonder if the whole thing is intended as an elaborate hoax, and that the > authors, in their original paper in Wireless World, relied on the fact > that > most readers' eyes would glaze over when faced with the maths of vector > fields? (Remember, that in this NG we've had someone who boasts of > two degrees, one in maths and the other in electronics, stating that > e^(-jwt) > is a function that decreases with increasing time, thus indicating that > the > awarding of a degree together with the professing of mathematical > equations is no guarantee of competence!) > > I suggest http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node53.html > etc > as a good revising/learning/debunking cookbook. (Don't start from node > 53!) > > "Polymath" wrote in message > news:42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org... >> I've just about got enough elec-and-mag theory to be >> able to understand the claims made for the GM3HAT >> CFA; any pointers to the patent claims? Not the first time the CFA has been discussed here. The consensus is that it is nonsense. Belrose has probably done the most rigorous investigation. See the paper at http://download.antennex.com/shack/Jun00/paperdavos.pdf I wonder who it was that is not familiar with Euler's formula. Frank Article: 214954 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Subject: Re: Calculating loss on a mismatched line Message-ID: References: <3%Yye.13220$Si3.1138@fe06.lga> <25toc1129od79tf8anm67h16an9fajpit1@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 06:12:23 GMT On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 23:17:18 -0400, "Walter Maxwell" wrote: >I'm trying to understand your Mathcad presentations, but I've run into some >roadblocks concerning terminology, some of which I'm not familiar with. I >confess my questions prove my ignorance, but that's ok if one's trying to >learn. However, I was using nominal Zo. Not at all, you are far more eminent that I on this topic, and I appreciate your review. I am learning from all this. Apologies for the difficulty in understanding my notation. Some of it breaks into psuedo programming code. > >First, Xo!=0. I don't know what this means. Not equals. >Second, what does MML stand for in English? MLL? Matched Line Loss (dB/m) >Third, in 'functions for V, I, Z, etc at z'. Where is 'z'? I cannot find any >reference to it. These quantities are a function of z, where z is a position on the line. The convention that I have used for displacement is that it is negative towards the generator. When it matters, displacement is in metres. The z is just used in definition of some functions in Matchcad (where you see :=), I have used x for position variable in the graphs. >Fourth, 'exp'. Exponent? If so, of what? e? exp(x) is e to the power of x (For clarity, I shouldn't have written it that way, it works, but Mathcad understands the meaning of e superscript x as e to the power of x, as you will see in some of the expressions, and it is easier to read.) >Fifth, I understand 'x' as distance along the line from the termination, but >what is 'y'? In some of the functions, I have written them to calculate some quantity between two arbitrary points x and y. They are used in the definition of fuctions (where you see :=). Most of the graphs use 0 for y so they are plotted wrt the load position >Sixth, what is AppLoss? Approximate? Apparent? Applied? Approximate Loss, and it was incorrectly based on Zo rather than nominal Zo. >Seventh, 'DLoss'. What is 'D'? Dielectric? Again, what is the 'y' term? An >ordinate value? DLoss was equivalent to AppLoss. >Eighth, in the LineLoss(x,y) = 10log... the identical right-hand terms in >both numerator and denominator, the identical functions of 'e^^ x e^^. what >is the meaning of the bar above the second appearance of 'e'? And above >gamma(x)? The bar above the variable is the complex conjugate operator. > >I want to understand your math presentation, Owen, especially when I see >that Loss(x,0 - W2DUloss(x,0) is so small I want to understand what makes >the difference. So I'd appreciate it if you'd set me straight on the points >I made above. Walt, in the models at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/LineLoss.htm , I now know why there is such a gap between DLoss and LineLoss. You will recognise AppLoss / DLoss is your Appendix 8 expression, but my rho function was based on the modelled complex value of Zo (characteristic impedance), not the nominal value of Zo. In the second lot at http://www.vk1od.net/temp/reflection.htm , AppLoss is equivalent to DLoss and it is based on nominal Zo, W2DULoss you will see calculates the rho term (though not identified) using nominal Ro. Comparing the results with loss calcuated from P(x)/P(y) (the ratio of the real power at points x and y), the conclusion is that using your expression with actual Zo is not at all accurate, using it with nominal Zo is very close. If I force Zo to be real for all modelling, the results of all methods is exactly the same (within rounding errors of the order of 10 to the power of -14) Some of your questions are just about the Mathcad notation (though that is not too dissimilar to normal handwritten math notation), but some of it is my expression and usage. Again my apologies for confusing with too little explanation. I appreciate your review and comments Walt. Owen -- Article: 214955 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> >From 'inventor' Hately's original descriptions of his CFA, it is so glaringly obviously a load of nonsense that anybody who takes the time to mathematically expose the fraud, himself exposes his own weakness and uncertainty in the subject and has already been partially taken in by it. Waste no more time. ---- Reg. Article: 214956 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Polymath" References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:51:50 +0100 Message-ID: <42d0e73b_1@x-privat.org> Someone who has recently obtained a post as a teacher of maths at a school in Strood, Kent! Worrying, is it not? Hardly surprising, therefore, to find that that person's greatest achievement in Ham Radio was to aspire to a licence issued under the gangrenous degeneration that is the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme! "Frank" wrote in message news:TS0Ae.144440$on1.37843@clgrps13... > I wonder who it was that is not familiar with Euler's formula. Article: 214957 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Polymath" References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:54:55 +0100 Message-ID: <42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org> One of my purposes in scraping off the rust from 34 years' of unused E-M theory was specifically so that I could evaluate the claims made for the CFA. I was intrigued by the claims but at no times taken in by them. But yes - I exposed my ignorance but not any weakness, but there is never any problem with such exposure if it is done in an open spirit of eagerness to learn! "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:daqmp7$4m5$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > From 'inventor' Hately's original descriptions of his CFA, it is so > glaringly obviously a load of nonsense that anybody who takes the time > to mathematically expose the fraud, himself exposes his own weakness > and uncertainty in the subject and has already been partially taken in > by it. > Waste no more time. Article: 214958 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "zzl" Subject: [help] eznec\4 pro Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:48:10 +0800 Message-ID: I can not find it. Article: 214959 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> <42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org> I see you are accustomed to self analysis. Not a bad thing. But you unwittingly lowered yourself to the CFA level. On the other hand, you have rapidly caught up with your true potential which exceeds mine. I have been worried about your recent absence and silence. Fearing the worst in this gradually extending police state. Welcome back! ======================================= "Polymath" wrote in message news:42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org... > One of my purposes in scraping off the rust from 34 years' > of unused E-M theory was specifically so that I could evaluate > the claims made for the CFA. > > I was intrigued by the claims but at no times taken in by them. > > But yes - I exposed my ignorance but not any weakness, but there is never > any > problem with such exposure if it is done in an open spirit of eagerness to > learn! > > "Reg Edwards" wrote in message > news:daqmp7$4m5$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > > From 'inventor' Hately's original descriptions of his CFA, it is so > > glaringly obviously a load of nonsense that anybody who takes the time > > to mathematically expose the fraud, himself exposes his own weakness > > and uncertainty in the subject and has already been partially taken in > > by it. > > Waste no more time. > > Article: 214960 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Polymath" References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> <42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org> Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:25:57 +0100 Message-ID: <42d0f794$1_1@x-privat.org> Thank-you for your kind words. At 6'3" and 20 stone, I fear that my potential, gravitational at least, exceeds that of most people! "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:daqsrq$jg4$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... >I see you are accustomed to self analysis. Not a bad thing. > But you unwittingly lowered yourself to the CFA level. > On the other hand, you have rapidly caught up with your true potential > which exceeds mine. > I have been worried about your recent absence and silence. Fearing the > worst in this gradually extending police state. Welcome back! Article: 214961 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: 20m Halfwave Vertical QST article Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:45:27 -0700 Message-ID: <11d1v2deipho446@corp.supernews.com> References: <1120982295.417023.206030@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> When radials are in the same plane, they don't radiate a significant amount. But when slanted downward, they do, pretty much the same as a conical element of the same outside dimensions. You can call a quarter wave vertical with sloping radials a "quarter wave ground plane" if you like, but unlike one with horizontal radials, the radiating portion is longer than a quarter wavelength. In the case of the antenna being described, the upper radiating part of the dipole is a quarter wavelength and the lower part is about 0.7 times a quarter wavelength but effectively large diameter. We have to get over the notion that calling some part of the antenna structure "ground" gives it some kind of special properties. It doesn't. Roy Lewallen, W7EL nm5k@wt.net wrote: > The bottom half of each > antenna consists of 9 quarter-wavelength wires that connect to the > center of > the tower and slope downwards to the ground at a 45 degree angle. > > Sure, thats a "1/2 wave" antenna, but I would always consider that > a ground plane, rather than 1/2 wave vertical. It's got sloping > radials. > Same thing I used to run on 40m. I always called it a 1/4 wave ground > plane... MK > Article: 214962 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> <42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org> What worries me is that people can disappear from the streets, be removed from circulation, without any reason except that it might possibly be something to do with the Official Secrets Acts. Untruthful accusations by unfriendly neighbours about terrorist associations, for example, would be of course kept equally secret. Relatives are barred from asking questions about missing persons. ===================================== Article: 214963 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Polymath" References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> <42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org> Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:54:48 +0100 Message-ID: <42d10c52$1_3@x-privat.org> The National government is a Socialist one. What other National Socialist governments were there? "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:dar1lc$1sf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > What worries me is that people can disappear from the streets, be > removed from circulation, without any reason except that it might > possibly be something to do with the Official Secrets Acts. Untruthful > accusations by unfriendly neighbours about terrorist associations, for > example, would be of course kept equally secret. > > Relatives are barred from asking questions about missing persons. Article: 214964 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Wankel Rotary Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> <42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org> <42d0f794$1_1@x-privat.org> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:02:44 GMT Polymath wrote: > Thank-you for your kind words. > > At 6'3" and 20 stone, I fear that my potential, > gravitational at least, exceeds that of most people! ...and those are just the dimensions of your head so we believe! Toot toot old son. Article: 214965 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John Ferrell Subject: Re: AD5TH Tower Project Completed - Pics Online Message-ID: References: <11bsdqpir7o54fa@news.supernews.com> <11bu1k0evf54aff@news.supernews.com> <11bv2l61vm5red4@corp.supernews.com> <11c0kb4s0hdg1d9@news.supernews.com> <4Uxye.1368$BK1.479@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> <42CAAF91.50507@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 13:42:47 GMT I admit I have only read the first few and the last post on this subject, but I just have to offer my opinions.... This is Amateur Radio. If the insurance companies and the politicians had their ways, we probably would not do much of any of this. Here is a fellow who has takes his own unique circumstances and put up an experimental antenna support. He has chosen to accept the responsibility of haven chosen to do things differently. He has not done it the way I would have but only time will tell if he has fulfilled the structural requirements. I have been down my own path on towers since the early 1960's and experienced two failures. It never occurred to me to call the insurance company. I always made certain that the mess stayed within the confines of my property. Every tower project I have done has had at least one significant aspect that could be improved upon. The only problems I see with using a tree as a guy point is that it moves a little and you have to take care to not kill the tree. Dead trees are unreliable. In a lot of neighborhoods, land use is negotiable. Out here in the country I have come to accept that a few cows in the yard are something that happens from time to time. What constitutes encroachment is in the eye of the beholder... I have always wondered about the accepted practice of putting up a 60 foot tower of all the same size sections. It seems to me that the top half or at least third would be better if it were lighter. It certainly is not going to see the same stresses as the lower components. AD5TH lives in an area that sees some high winds, I hope this bad experience with the nay sayers does not keep him from sharing his experiences in the future. 73, de W8CCW On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 01:55:08 -0700, "Ed Price" wrote: >> Yes but you need everything first insurance with one company and then at >> the maximum but the minimums. You pay dearly for a general liability >> rider if you take it all into account. Yes you are protected. >> > >Hank, those general riders are expensive, and no, I don't have one. OTOH, I >am not erecting a 75' tower, made with two dissimilar structural systems, >joined together by amateur engineering and welding, a very minimal concrete >base, and held in place with guy wires running to nearby trees and an >illegal encroachment onto someone else's property. The OP wanted our opinion >of his efforts; he got 'em. The extent of my insurance coverage has >absolutely no bearing on the subject of AD5TH's tower project. Article: 214966 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Walter Maxwell" References: Subject: Re: [help] eznec\4 pro Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:59:42 -0400 wrote in message news:k0a2d11qfpdb3f55q6kse6a6c3n43v4i22@4ax.com... > On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:48:10 +0800, "zzl" wrote: > > >I can not find it. > > > > Find What? Hi Danny, your question reminds me of the 4-year old in a restaurant, went to find the rest room, then came back and told his mother he couldn' find it. So she went with him and discovered the reason he couldn't find it was because he had his underpants on backward. Walt Article: 214967 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <42cf4d37_3@x-privat.org> <42cf5a7c$1_2@x-privat.org> <42d0e73b$2_1@x-privat.org> Subject: Re: The CFA de-bagged (Was: Re: First "Del" and now "D'Alembertian"!) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:35:34 -0400 Message-ID: I hope your tinfoil hat is intact... Mind control waves are being sent out daily over a CFA antenna. I have visted your gulags just south of London and obsrved the slaves of the new order as they were forced to drink warm beer at the Bull. Oh the inhumanity of it all. "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:dar1lc$1sf$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > What worries me is that people can disappear from the streets, be > removed from circulation, without any reason except that it might > possibly be something to do with the Official Secrets Acts. Untruthful > accusations by unfriendly neighbours about terrorist associations, for > example, would be of course kept equally secret. > > Relatives are barred from asking questions about missing persons. > > ===================================== > > Article: 214968 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <313030303837383542D1425325@zetnet.co.uk> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:44:19 +0100 From: Dave Piggin Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? References: > I do plan to add a fair number of guys, and will be installing them just as > you have suggested. I do have a question about driving the 1 1/8" mounting > tube into the earth. The directions give a warning about splitting the > plastic insert and suggest placing a piece of wood on top of the tube and > then hammer on the wood. The soil here is clay, and the ground is > quite dry, > at the present time. Do you, or anyone else, have any suggestions about > driving the tube into the ground. Should I drive a wooden stake first to > form a hole, remove the stake, and then drive the tube into the hole > left by > the stake? Post Hole/fencing Borer comes to mind or depending on your current soil condition you could use a hose pipe with a tube inserted in the tip and bore a hole that way, albeit fairly high pressure is needed, but that could be achieved with a pressure washer. As you start off your bound to be soaked a bit, but as you [bore deeper] push/ pull the nozzle out of the hole so that excess soil/clay can be removed by the water, bore down to your required depth, insert pole and back fill with sand or tamp down soil sides. This is also one way to ensure you can get a decent enough hole, deep enough to insert a earth stake. Your idea of utilising a hole by driving in a stake would no doubt give you problems extracting it back out again as I assume that you would be requiring a depth of about 900mm? Dave d:-) -- Amateur Radio Call Sign M1BTI, Located in Manchester England. Locator square IO83TK Chairman Of Trafford Radio Club. Club Call Signs G0TRG & M1BBP Located at Umist, University Of Manchester Institute For Science And Technology Share What You Know, Learn What You Don't. Article: 214969 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Recommended Books Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:49:21 -0400 Message-ID: <11d2kbrd0pamve2@corp.supernews.com> References: <11ct71160lhbl70@corp.supernews.com> The third edition of Antennas (recommended by Joel Kolstad) is certainly mandatory for study. Note that a paperback edition exists that costs much less than the hardback edition. The third edition is rather directed towards specific antennas (or classes of antennas) with plenty of examples and problems. Do look for the first edition of Antennas by Professor Kraus (published in 1950). In my prejudiced opinion, since I studied under Professor Kraus, the first edition is a key text to antenna theory. One should also have the ARRL's antenna book - relatively low cost and a wealth of practical information. Kraus third, an HP calculator, and diligent working of the examples in the third edition will provide a real education about antennas and their environment. Go for it! 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Joel Kolstad" wrote in message news:11ct71160lhbl70@corp.supernews.com... > "Jayson Davis" wrote in message > news:Xowze.1941$yL4.1044@fe02.lga... > > I'm looking for some recommendations on books about antennas and antenna > > theory. > > "Antennas" by Kraus & Marhefka: > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072321032/qid=1120836458/sr=8 -1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-0117018-4818221?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 > > It may well be the last edition given that Dr. Kraus died last year. > > The usual "classics" also include Balanis's "Antenna Theory: Analysis and > Design" and Stutzman & Thiele's, "Antenna Theory and Design." IMO, Kraus is a > better place to start in that the math is somewhat simpler and Kraus was a > very "applied" sort of guy. > > ---Joel Kolstad > > > Article: 214970 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John Gotwals" Subject: Re: Butternut HF6V need guys? Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:52:59 -0500 Message-ID: References: The only thing I had on hand was some square cross-sectional hard wood stake. The cross-sectional diagonal length was about 3/4 of the Butternut mounting tube diameter. I have clay soil and we are in the middle of a drought, so I used plenty of water and each time went an inch or two deeper. Driving the mounting tube was quite easy, and the plumb is quite good. The tube is now in the ground and secured to a DX Engineering stainless ground plane radial plate. http://dxengineering.com/ "Dave "Doc" Corio"