Article: 225228 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: References: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:05:51 GMT On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:48:48 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:40:19 GMT, "Jerry Martes" > wrote: > >> I did measure the impedance across a loop of RG 223 with 4 tubes around >>the outside. The problem I come up with is my ignorance of *whats needed* >>for adequate decoupling of the balanced antenna from the outside of the >>coax. > >Hi Jerry, > >Just think of the antenna as the "source" and consider its >characteristic Z. Now consider the common mode circuit of the >transmission line and its Z. So often this is an unknown, and if we Richard, does Z mean the characteristic impedance of the line in the "differential" mode or "common" mode? Owen -- Article: 225229 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John Laczik Subject: HF antenna for yacht / boat Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:13:29 +0100 Message-ID: Any recommendations for a *simple* antenna that can be used on a yacht/boat to receive ~500 kHz, and to receive/transmit in the HF amateur and marine bands (1.5 MHz ~ 30 MHz)? Currently I am thinking about a length of wire between the stern and the top of the mast, fed via an ATU at the stern end. I can make the wire ~50' long. What is the optimum wire length? As long as possible? Thanks, John Article: 225230 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: HF antenna for yacht / boat From: chuck Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:26:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1150197385_52775@sp6iad.superfeed.net> References: Hello John, The best starting point is probably the installation guides available at www.icomamerica.com and www.sgcworld.com. Those two companies sell ssb radios and automatic antenna tuners. If your tuner is of a different make, you might search out information on it. From there, you can simply do google searches on any aspects not covered in those manuals. The ARRL has published a book on marine installations but I have not seen a copy yet. Good luck. Chuck John Laczik wrote: > Any recommendations for a *simple* antenna that can be used > on a yacht/boat to receive ~500 kHz, and to receive/transmit > in the HF amateur and marine bands (1.5 MHz ~ 30 MHz)? > > Currently I am thinking about a length of wire between the > stern and the top of the mast, fed via an ATU at the stern > end. I can make the wire ~50' long. What is the optimum > wire length? As long as possible? > > Thanks, > > John ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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: 225231 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Message-ID: References: <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:37:58 GMT On 13 Jun 2006 01:37:57 -0700, w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >Cecil Moore wrote: >> When I lived in the Arizona, clear-sky wind-driven charged >> dust particles transferred lots of energy to my bare-wire >> G5RV. It caused arcing whether the outside braid was grounded >> or not. It only happened when the wind was blowing and >> the humidity was very low. > >But that effect is common no matter where we live. As I've said several >times, a high dipole here for 160m charges enough to knock you on your >rear on a calm sunny day if the coacial line is well insulated from >ground. > >It is not wise tol have a large high antenna that was well-insulated >from ground, since the accumulated charge can suddenly discharge >through a series capacitor and damage equipment. I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off electrical build up? bob k5qwg > >Utility companies must ground unused wires that run for miles to >prevent build up of charge, so that is not something that just occurs >in arid climates. > >> Do you agree that a charged particle will transfer energy >> to the bare wire in a dipole when it touches it? If not, >> why not? > >Of course it will IF it is at a different potential than the wire. > >> If the antenna were link coupled, do you agree that the >> above transferred energy will try to equalize between the >> two dipole elements? If not, why not? > >Of course it will. > >> Do you agree that the equalizing of the charges between >> elements would cause a current to flow through the link? >> If not, why not? > >Of course it will. > >I disagree wth your contention that the link, if the noise comes from >each particle hitting the antenna, will reduce noise. That's the part >that makes no sense. > >Maybe you can explain why the link (or folded element) would reduce >that noise. > >73 Tom Article: 225232 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149910151.859293.41560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:29:38 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: >> When I lived in the Arizona, clear-sky wind-driven charged >> dust particles transferred lots of energy to my bare-wire >> G5RV. It caused arcing whether the outside braid was grounded >> or not. It only happened when the wind was blowing and >> the humidity was very low. > > But that effect is common no matter where we live. As I've said several > times, a high dipole here for 160m charges enough to knock you on your > rear on a calm sunny day if the coaxial line is well insulated from > ground. During the "H Field Antennas" thread, you said the following: *************************************************************** > Reg Edwards wrote: >> Precipitation static, eg., from highly charged raindrops and fine snow >> or fine sand, impinging on the antenna wire, just causes an increase >> in receiver white noise level. It can be reduced but not removed by >> using a very thickly insulated antenna wire, like the inner conductor >> of a coaxial cable complete with its polyethylene jacket. >> ---- >> Reg. W8JI replied: > I've never seen a case of precitation static occuring that way. > > In every single case I've seen, whether on tall buildings, tall towers, > or antenna hear earth, it has always been corona discharges from the > antenna or objects near the antenna. ... 73 Tom **************************************************************** I have only noticed the charged particle arcing in Arizona when the wind was blowing and that is what I am reporting. > It is not wise to have a large high antenna that was well-insulated > from ground, since the accumulated charge can suddenly discharge > through a series capacitor and damage equipment. Where does the accumulated charge come from if not from charged particles? If the antenna is link coupled, the charge equalizes between the two dipole elements and, in my experience, doesn't arc. >> Do you agree that a charged particle will transfer energy >> to the bare wire in a dipole when it touches it? If not, >> why not? > > Of course it will IF it is at a different potential than the wire. > >> If the antenna were link coupled, do you agree that the >> above transferred energy will try to equalize between the >> two dipole elements? If not, why not? > > Of course it will. > >> Do you agree that the equalizing of the charges between >> elements would cause a current to flow through the link? >> If not, why not? > > Of course it will. Seems we are in agreement that charged particle RF noise can therefore be picked up by a receiver as Reg says above. It is only logical that it will be worse when the wind blows causing more charged particles to encounter the antenna wire. And, as shown below, it is only logical that a folded dipole would transfer less of that noise to the link than a non-folded dipole. > I disagree with your contention that the link, if the noise comes from > each particle hitting the antenna, will reduce noise. That's the part > that makes no sense. In my experience, it eliminated the arcing. Thus it eliminated the *AURAL* arcing noise that my ears were hearing. Why does that make no sense? I was very clear that my receiver was off and disconnected at the time and that I made no RF noise measurements. A short, or 4:1 voltage balun, or choke, or link across the connector eliminated the *AURAL* arcing noise. > Maybe you can explain why the link (or folded element) would reduce > that noise. Seems you confused my statements about aural noise with RF noise. I have previously said I didn't measure the RF noise. In any case, please see the pictures below to understand why a folded element redirects the charge equalization process away from the link. The process of equalizing the charge on the non-folded dipole elements causes RF noise across the link which is picked up by the S-meter on the receiver. I observed that many times in AZ and wish I had made some measurements. The S-meter reports a higher level of charged particle noise during high wind conditions and dry-air snowstorms. Please explain what it is about the following that you don't understand. 1. The equalizing of the element charges on a link coupled dipole will cause a current to flow through the link resulting in higher RF noise readings on the S-meter during high wind conditions when more charged particles are encountering the antenna wire. 2. Turning the dipole into a folded dipole (or loop) gives a preferred localized path for the equalization of the charge. Not nearly as much RF noise current flows through the remote link. Maybe a picture would help. Here's a non-folded dipole with a charge hitting it. In order to equalize charge with the other element, part of the charge must flow down the transmission line, through the link, and back up the transmission line to the other dipole element. Virtually all of the pulsed charge equalization process goes through the link. ---------CH----+ +--------------- | | / / | | link **************************************************************** +--------------------------------+ +--------CH----+ +---------------+ | | / / | | link Here's a folded dipole with a charge hitting it in the same relative place. What is the most efficient preferred path for equalizing the charge with the other element? Not down the transmission line and through the link but simply straight through the antenna wire. Hint: Charge would rather take the 50 foot path of least resistance than a 200 foot path of most resistance. Eureka! The folded dipole is less noisy during high wind conditions than is the non-folded dipole because most of the charge equalization takes place locally through the antenna wire and not remotely through the link. BTW, thanks for forcing me to think this through in detail. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225233 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:36:45 GMT Bob Miller wrote: > I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, > through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire > on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off > electrical build up? If there is a DC path to ground from *BOTH* sides of the dipole, the answer is yes. But, looking at the 989c schematic, I don't see a DC path to ground from one of the balanced line outputs. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225234 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:43:29 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Bob Miller wrote: >> I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, >> through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire >> on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off >> electrical build up? > > If there is a DC path to ground from *BOTH* sides of the > dipole, the answer is yes. But, looking at the 989c > schematic, I don't see a DC path to ground from one of > the balanced line outputs. I forgot to say that your high humidity probably provides a path to ground from the other tuner terminal. It was only during super low humidity conditions in the Arizona desert that I experienced the arcing process during high winds. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225235 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jerry Martes" References: Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:58:00 GMT "Richard Clark" wrote in message news:fins825cbte12e9cec7o5klv3al77vcguq@4ax.com... > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:40:19 GMT, "Jerry Martes" > wrote: > >> I did measure the impedance across a loop of RG 223 with 4 tubes around >>the outside. The problem I come up with is my ignorance of *whats >>needed* >>for adequate decoupling of the balanced antenna from the outside of the >>coax. > > Hi Jerry, > > Just think of the antenna as the "source" and consider its > characteristic Z. Now consider the common mode circuit of the > transmission line and its Z. So often this is an unknown, and if we > were always lucky, it would be a half wave multiple to present a very > high Z indeed. Thus 'twould be the end of the story. > > How high is high enough? I offer three values for choking: > 3 times antenna Z at a minimum; > 5 times is practical; > 10 times is lab grade. > > So, tell us what those 4 tubes measured? > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard I have been thinking of the "string of ferrites" as a method of presenting a high impedance to Conducted currents along the outside of the coax from the antenna down to the radio. It is clear that a "high impedance" may actually couple well to the outside of the coax if the length of coax is some special length that presents a high impedance up to where the choke is located, I think I could have saved time if I'd asked you more questions when I was doing the work of learning about baluns. I didnt keep any of the data I recorded with any of the coils and ferrites. It is easy to measure the Z of any high impedance circuit so I could easily measure choke impedance at 2 meters. Jerry Article: 225236 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Message-ID: <2cot82dpgpl61diuobmjka31ufjqurtdn5@4ax.com> References: <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:06:46 GMT On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:43:29 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Cecil Moore wrote: >> Bob Miller wrote: >>> I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, >>> through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire >>> on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off >>> electrical build up? >> >> If there is a DC path to ground from *BOTH* sides of the >> dipole, the answer is yes. But, looking at the 989c >> schematic, I don't see a DC path to ground from one of >> the balanced line outputs. > >I forgot to say that your high humidity probably provides >a path to ground from the other tuner terminal. It was >only during super low humidity conditions in the Arizona >desert that I experienced the arcing process during >high winds. I can't recall seeing any gap-sparking here in the San Antonio area. When it's hot, it's usually pretty humid, too. bob k5qwg Article: 225237 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Richard Fry" References: <448d64a0$0$16401$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1150153471.710936.106120@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: hey W8JI Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:27:05 -0500 Message-ID: <448ee692_1@newsfeed.slurp.net> > As a matter of fact AM BC stations, despite their large ground > systems, abandoned the 5/8th wave many years ago. They > found in the real world use of 5/8th waves instead of extending > coverage they reduced coverage. ____________ The h-plane inverse field of a 5/8-wave AM BC vertical working against 120 buried radials each at least 1/4-wave long is calculated in theory and measured in practice as having the greatest possible field per unit of radiated power of any non-sectionalized radiator height, no matter what the earth conductivity at the antenna site. But the 5/8 wave BC vertical does have a discrete, high angle sidelobe that, at night, can interfere with its own groundwave over an annular zone starting a few hundred miles from the antenna. Very distant coverage is provided by low-angle skywave (less than about 30 degrees), and is not affected because the groundwave is gone at those distance ranges. But this is the reason that 24-hr, 50 kW AM BC stations use a radiator typically around 195 degrees. Its h-plane inverse field (the groundwave) is not quite as great as from a 5/8-wave, but it doesn't develop that high-angle lobe. It is popularly called an "antifade" radiator. RF (WJR staff engineer, 1960s) Article: 225238 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "AAA RF Products" Subject: FS: SMA Cable Assemblies, $9.90 each, made in USA Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:29:35 -0700 Any 10 SMA Male to SMA Male cable assemblies for $99.00 RG-58C/U or RG-223/U Mix & match any 10 Length available: 12", 18", 24", 30", 36", 48", 60", 72", 84", & 96" High quality & made in USA Please email sales@AAARFProducts.com or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) AAA RF Products 946 Calle Amanecer, suite E San Clemente, CA 92673 Article: 225239 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149910151.859293.41560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:29:36 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: Why didn't you respond to the pictures I drew for you? > 1.) You say the particles make the noise as each individual particle > hits the antenna. Yes, and you have agreed with all the steps leading up to that noise pulse flowing through the link. It is just simple physics. I notice you are not responding to any of the technical content of my posting are are continuing to deliberately obfuscate something I said earlier about aural arcing noise. > 2.) You say grounding the antenna eliminates that noise. Grounding the antenna eliminated the ***AURAL*** arcing noise that was keeping me awake at night and scorching my rug when the transceiver was powered down and disconnected from the antenna. How many times do I have to explain that to you? But I have no doubt that if the transceiver had been turned on, the arcing across the transceiver connector would have caused RF noise if not failure. And I also have no doubt that grounding both transmission line conductors would have eliminated the arcing and thus reduced the RF noise heard by the receiver. Your style of argument is making you look stupid. > There is an obvious conflict in those two ideas. Only in your mind, Tom. Please cease and desist with the obfuscation and try to follow your own advice from another newsgroup where you said nobody knows everything (presumably including you) and everyone is capable of learning something new (presumably including you). It's past time for you to learn about dry-air wind-driven charged-particle noise. Quantum Electrodynamics will tell you that even corona noise is caused by charged particles. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225240 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <2cot82dpgpl61diuobmjka31ufjqurtdn5@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:31:38 GMT Bob Miller wrote: > I can't recall seeing any gap-sparking here in the San Antonio area. > When it's hot, it's usually pretty humid, too. If you have an o'scope, please hang it across the transmission line wires during your next dust storm and report the results compared to a calm day. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225241 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: FS: SMA Cable Assemblies, $9.90 each, made in USA From: Larry References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:12:05 -0400 More spam on here every week....(sigh) Don't forget to send Cox Abuse the header: From: "AAA RF Products" Newsgroups: misc.industry.electronics.marketplace,rec.boats.electronics,rec.radio.ama teur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Subject: FS: SMA Cable Assemblies, $9.90 each, made in USA Lines: 19 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:29:35 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.58.167.76 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net X-Trace: fed1read11 1150216151 64.58.167.76 (Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:29:11 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:29:11 EDT Organization: Cox Communications Xref: usenetserver.com misc.industry.electronics.marketplace:126904 rec.boats.electronics:160756 rec.radio.amateur.antenna:326959 rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors:215070 "AAA RF Products" wrote in news:rJBjg.7953 $rS6.3286@fed1read11: > Any 10 SMA Male to SMA Male cable assemblies for $99.00 > > RG-58C/U or RG-223/U > > Mix & match any 10 > > Length available: 12", 18", 24", 30", 36", 48", 60", 72", 84", & 96" > > High quality & made in USA > > Please email sales@AAARFProducts.com > > or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) > > AAA RF Products > 946 Calle Amanecer, suite E > San Clemente, CA 92673 > > > Article: 225242 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:56:13 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > I must have missed it. :-) Sure you did even after I said it half a dozen times. :-) You have talked about my transmission line laying on the rug scorching it so you could not possibly have "missed it". > With any AURAL noise there is always a spark, and > that spark is accompanied by electrical noise or component damage. Yes, I have said *many* times that my transceiver's power was off and it was unplugged from the transmission line. You know the transmission line was laying on my rug because you have talked about that before. > My understanding was you said the HF noise in the receiver was caused > by the random particles actually striking the antenna. If so, grounding > makes no difference. I agree and never said otherwise. However, since you insist, below I indicate how grounding would have made a difference had I responded in a different way. > If you disagree, explain why. Let's say that I was stupid enough not to disconnect my transceiver when I heard the arcing at the coax input and instead turned the transceiver on. Let's say it didn't suffer failure. Would you agree that I would hear RF noise in the transceiver every time the coax connector arced? Would you agree that if I shorted the center conductor to ground that since the outer conductor was already grounded, the RF noise in the transceiver would decrease? > Why not act mature? It was you who once again regressed to your terrible-twos infantile omniscient stage and just couldn't resist misquoting me. Please don't do that again. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225243 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <448F0CEE.4020502@fuse.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:07:26 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149910151.859293.41560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Perhaps I'm not pedantic enough to enjoy the courtesy of your reply. If your rug is scorched...how much current is there? My simple question was: Is this a novel way to create a trickle charger? (When TCVR is d/c'd, of course) Anyone care to respond? Otherwise, I'll just lurk and observe the "drama" between you two. John AB8WH Article: 225244 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: Wide bandwidth ladder line J-pole for 6-Meters Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:09:55 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5ZWdnbe8ZP27NBHZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> "Chuck Olson" wrote in message news:Ts-dndx_b-BRkBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com... > Today I clipped out the connection I had made at the bottom of the radiator, > and the SWR bandwidth remained 2MHz as is was with the connection. The group > of SWR measurements moved up an average of 150 KHz from my readings with the > connection, but otherwise the performance of the "Slim Jim" configuration is > identical. The length of the gap may now serve as a tuning mechanism, which > wasn't a feature with the bottom connection, and the archives show some > builders made good use of that facility. Thanks for spotting the similarity, > Jeff. My 6M antenna will no doubt be better for it. > 73, Chuck Chuck, I searched on Slim-Jim. Let me see if I understand correctly. Slim-Jim is a twin-lead or ladder-line type J antenna with the *top* of the half-wave 9dual conductor) radiator ends connected. Yours has the bottom of the 1/2 wave ends connected. Am I to understand that the Slim-Jim configuration and yours have very similar SWR BW? This is good to know. Then I'd like clarification on your comment: "... If you analyze the operation of the very successful "Open Stub > J-Pole" that Arrow makes, you will find they use the 0.95 FV for both the > radiator and the stub,..." Can you be more specific about this. What is the electrical length of the stub for said analysis? I like that design, though there is controversy about it. 73, Steve, K9DCi Article: 225245 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Michael Coslo Subject: Re: Have any of you mailed this to your ARRL Division directors and Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:49:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: <448B2227.2090601@fuse.net> <4H6jg.28755$QP4.3723@fed1read12> Sal M. Onella wrote: > "Michael Coslo" wrote in message > news:e6jvip$1a4e$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... >> Sal M. Onella wrote: > > < snip > >>> I learn new tricks every day. Morse Code isn't one of them. >> >> The real issue is probably that HF privileges are probably just not that >> important to you. > > < snip > > > Thanks for explaining it so clearly. That just makes everything right. > > Hey, no prob. I don't use Morse code, probably never will, unless I get into keyboard Morse. But I did want the HF access, so I learned Morse code. It was that important to me. As for what is right, do you know that there are thousands, maybe millions of people who can't pass the writtens? How is it right that we have any testing at all when we discriminate against them? It isn't an insult to anyone to say that HF access isn't important enough to them that they will take the time and effort to learn Morse code. Ham radio doesn't have to be important to anyone - it's a hobby. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Article: 225246 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Michael Coslo Subject: Re: Buyer Beware - Cobra Ultralight Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:53:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1149770557.629987.141180@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <9luj82h4k68g3r71qm0c4qd3ijie9pk4ei@4ax.com> Owen Duffy wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:04:37 -0400, Michael Coslo > wrote: > > >> I'm modeling the thing in 4nec2 now. I get different results than both >> of you, so I need to go back to the drawing board..... > > The NEC deck for my models is linked from the article. You will need > to replace the $freq symbolic variable though with a number. Thanks Owen, I'll take a look after tonights club meeting. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Article: 225247 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: measurements at the antenna Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:37:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:Y_OdnUi9xcVd2xHZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Thank you all for your replys, they were all interesting. > > The first set of test measurements were taken on a 2-meter loaded vertical. Two > voltage readings were taken via a high impedance scope probe, one at the > feedpoint of the coax center connection, and the other from the connection of > the coax shield to the antenna ground. In this case the ground is a simple > raised metal 1/4 inch screen mesh about 10 square feet. > > The antenna was tuned to resonance. The relative voltage readings were the > center conductor was 2x the ground reading. I do not have a way to measure > current at the base at this time. > > However looking ahead, with power = iv would this imply about 2 times the energy > is being radiated from the vertical element as through the base? > > Thanks Dan - kb0qil > > dansawyeror wrote: > > Good morning, > > > > This question is: Taking measurements at the antenna and what they mean? > > > > The antenna is a loaded vertical over a set of untuned radials. The feed > > is 50 Ohm coax with a 1:1 isolation transformer at the antenna. I intend > > to run a separate coax for measurement purposes to the feed point, > > stimulate the antenna with a 10 mw signal at the operating frequency, > > and measure the voltage across the antenna feed and the ground connection. > > > > Will the voltages indicate the relative RF impedance of antenna > > (including loading coil) versus the ground? If the ground were near > > perfect the voltage at the feedpoint should be close to zero. These > > voltages should indicate the power disapation difference between the > > antenna and the ground. > > > > Thanks, > > Dan Dan, I'm echoing the others on this. Using scope probes for this kind of measurenet is a very touchy undertaking at the very best, even with the best quality equipment and much experience. Other methods of measuting RF are required and used by those who know. That's why they were developed. If you do this at 10M or below, then you have more chance of getting correct results. That being said, it is not clear what you are trying to measure since you say you are, in essence, measuring "ground". It is not clear just what you are doing. Unfortunately, from your description, the way you describe this, I feel you do not have enough technical background to understand the technical concepts well enough. You appear to have some knowledge, but not enough, in what appear to be basics, to do this. The way you describe your technique, you are not connecting the probe ground to anything. This makes no sense. RF measurements may seem like "black magic" but it takes nothing more than *really* understanding all the basics and all the stray effects really, really well. At least you seem to understand that "ground" is not the absolute zero reference that others seem to believe it is / can be / needs to be. A few comments in general: You *MUST* connect *BOTH* parts of the probe tip if you hope to get anything close to true results. Both these connections must have no effect on the measurement. The probe must be capable of measuring what you are attempting. There are high frequency 10x probes, but all the other sonsiderations are even more important because they will be even more susceptable to the side effects just because they *are* capable of making the measurements. The Shield / ground part of the scope probe and cable leading back to the scope is something which can have a significant effect on what you see on the scope face. The antenna can be inducing current into this and giving false readings. This is a major problem in measuting any high frequency signals. There must be no possibility of the scope cable picking up any signal. I have seen very misleading results when this technique is tried on digital circuits which have fast rise times and therefore high frequency components. Good luck & 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225248 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:55:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <3fkr82hl0ugon8vrja2r6bt8dpj2c5cna9@4ax.com> "John Ferrell" wrote in message news:3fkr82hl0ugon8vrja2r6bt8dpj2c5cna9@4ax.com... > Neat. I especially like the Black Noise... Isn't the mute switch nothing more than a black noise generator? 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225249 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:53:13 -0500 Message-ID: References: OK here's my take, since all the other answer'ers answered without having enough info in the first place, in my opinion... Pink niose explanatino #12. What you call the "pink noise" that you see / hear in an FM receiver could be that which is designed into the receiver and therefore not normally removable. You could add preemphasis to "whiten" it up. The reason is that the receiver has "de-emphasis" built in to compensate for the pre-emphasis designed into the transmitters that it will receive, which, in turn, was put there to help enhance the low noise characteristics of the FM mode of transmission. This "de-empnasis" is nothing more than a filter which reduces the high frequency audio copmponents more than the low frewquencies, thus giving it the "pink" or low frequency enhanced characteristic. The term Pink coming from the color red which is the color of lower frequency visible light and we have simply retained that analogy when referring to noise. Narrow band receivers use a simple -6 dB per octave deemphasis across the whole audio band and wide band, broadcast receivers use something similar, but it doesn't extend across the whole audio band. So can you be more speciffic? When do you hear this noise? Why do you want to get rid of it? What are you listening to? 73, Steve, K9DCI "Boborato" wrote in message news:e6e4u3$jel$1@news.nivel5.cl... > Hi group. > > I wanna know how can I get the FM signal without that nasty 'pink' noise. > > I'm not using any kind of external antenna. > > Greetings!! > > Article: 225250 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <448F0CEE.4020502@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:15:35 GMT jawod wrote: > Perhaps I'm not pedantic enough to enjoy the courtesy of your reply. I just checked back to your last posting to this thread. Here's what it said: > Error! > newsgroup server responded: Bad article number > Perhaps the article has expired > <448CC167.7010009@fuse.net> (272761) That's rather difficult to reply to. > My simple question was: Is this a novel way to create a trickle charger? You could get some charge out of it but I just don't know how many joules per unit time. Perhaps someone out there in the desert could perform an experiment. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225251 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:07:31 -0500 Message-ID: References: "Jimmie D" wrote in message news:Bfjjg.10989$gv2.4052@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "Boborato" wrote in message > news:e6e4u3$jel$1@news.nivel5.cl... > > Hi group. > > > > I wanna know how can I get the FM signal without that nasty 'pink' noise. > > > > I'm not using any kind of external antenna. > > > > Greetings!! > > > > Use an outside antenna > > Ahhhh! Right to the heart of it, Jimmy... 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225252 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:06:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: "W3JDR" wrote in message news:YUBig.3630$%m5.685@trnddc04... >> Dave, > >> If you've never heard of 'pink' noise, then you're probably not a student of >> noise. >> >> In noise parlance, 'white' noise is the term that is usually used for >> non-bandlimited noise (ie, 'broadband noise'). "Pink' noise, on the other >> hand, is a term used to refer to bandlimited noise. In practice, anything >> that comes out of the audio channel of a communications receiver is really >> 'pink' noise, as the bandwidth is limited to a few KHz. On the other hand, >> the noise that is incident at the antenna or generated in the front-end is >> much broader in bandwidth and is more deserving of the term 'white' noise. >> Joe W3JDR >White noise is constant energy/Hz, pink is constant energy/octave. >tom K0TAR You're both right. The "classical" definition is Tom's. "White" is a constant energy density. "Pink" is 1/f, which gets to you the octave thing. In looser circles/ discussions, we often call noise which is not infinite in bandwidth or not "flat" in the bandwidth of discussion as "colored" and when the low frequency end has more than the high, "pink" often creeps into the vocabulary. "RED" noise would be what many broadcast FM stations seem to be transmitting now-a-days. 15-20 dB bass boost even on the mics. Really hard to listen to, but liked by the sub woofer crowd we all hear coming blocks away. 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225253 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:33:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Here's something similar Cecil: I drove at 65 mph through a limited (about 1 mile wide) wind driven dust storm from an Iowa corn field during a drought. I was watching my S-meter on a 2m radio at the time (in the car). It slowly built up and eventually pinned (simultaneously, AM radio stations suffered the static build up and were blotted out. By the time I got through the mini-dust storm, the PIN diode antenna switching in the 2m radio had been destroyed. It was not raining. It was hot and dry, and you can imagine the dust particle count. I don't know the mechanics (as you people are disputing), but there was no doubt a significant build up and eventual discharge (I heard it on the AM radio) and the dust in the wind (thankyou Kansas), caused it, IMO. Another idiosyncratic report: 40m dipole up 30'. Middle of winter, very heavy wet snow. I could draw an arc off the end of the coax connector about an inch long. The rate of build/up and then discharge (how long it took between SNAPS) correlated very nicely with the rate of snowfall. The harder it snowed, the more rapidly the arc would happen, the more slowly it snowed, the longer in between arcing from the connector. Both of these, I would call "precip static"...one was dust, the other was snow. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out the mechanism. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:hTDjg.24031$VE1.20801@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: >> I must have missed it. > > :-) Sure you did even after I said it half a dozen times. :-) > You have talked about my transmission line laying on the > rug scorching it so you could not possibly have "missed it". > >> With any AURAL noise there is always a spark, and >> that spark is accompanied by electrical noise or component damage. > > Yes, I have said *many* times that my transceiver's power was > off and it was unplugged from the transmission line. You know > the transmission line was laying on my rug because you have > talked about that before. > >> My understanding was you said the HF noise in the receiver was caused >> by the random particles actually striking the antenna. If so, grounding >> makes no difference. > > I agree and never said otherwise. However, since you > insist, below I indicate how grounding would have made > a difference had I responded in a different way. > >> If you disagree, explain why. > > Let's say that I was stupid enough not to disconnect my > transceiver when I heard the arcing at the coax input and > instead turned the transceiver on. Let's say it didn't > suffer failure. > > Would you agree that I would hear RF noise in the transceiver > every time the coax connector arced? > > Would you agree that if I shorted the center conductor to > ground that since the outer conductor was already grounded, > the RF noise in the transceiver would decrease? > >> Why not act mature? > > It was you who once again regressed to your terrible-twos > infantile omniscient stage and just couldn't resist > misquoting me. Please don't do that again. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225254 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Eric the hair Oyen" References: <448B2227.2090601@fuse.net> <4H6jg.28755$QP4.3723@fed1read12> <1150233801.005719.10130@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Have any of you mailed this to your ARRL Division directors and SM's yet? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:47:02 -0400 Message-ID: <448f24f3$0$3637$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "an_old_friend" wrote in message news:1150233801.005719.10130@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > I am a man not a mindless sheep > You and Eric have sex with men and sheep. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Article: 225255 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <5YGjg.50144$Lm5.24239@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:26:09 GMT hasan schiers wrote: > Both of these, I would call "precip static"...one was dust, the other was > snow. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out the mechanism. The behavior of charged particles has been understood for a century by most rational engineers and physicists. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225256 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: <8heu829nge0vngdo5cfl9d8m3q3i7m3ds5@4ax.com> References: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:06:20 GMT On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:51:43 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >As this discussion has been largely coaxial based, the outer >conductive surface of the coax is the primary imbalance to a dipole >through its "third wire" connection at the dipole feed point. It >appears as one of three wires to the abstract source established at >that feed point and it presents an ad-hoc Z load. The value of this >load is rarely determined, except when one deliberately attempts to >make their feed line 1/2 wave long (or some multiple). Of course, >that means 1/2 wave for the velocity factor of the outside conductive >path of the coax. This is often accomplished through cut and try >rather than modeling or measuring currents, but these too would be >good first pass approximations. Richard, There is a focus on evaluating baluns as a passive component in a bench test jig designed to characterise them by a simple equivalent circuit to show their imperfections in certain scenarios (eg impedance range, frequency range, common mode impedance with different balance points on the load and floating loads). Collectively, we seem to have done that to death. To date, I don't think anyone has discovered a practical balun that is close to ideal in all applications. Baluns (being any device that is designed to facilitate the transition >from un-unbalanced load (might be perfectly balanced, might not be) to an unbalanced transceiver (one terminal approximately grounded) seem to be usually employed to: - reduce common mode RF currents entering the shack where they may disrupt operation of equipment, and more recently may be a health concern; - reduce the feedline's participation in radiation or reception (pattern distortion, unwanted noise pickup, EMC / proximity to other equipment). It seems to me that NEC models are a worthwhile tool in developing insight into the effects that occur. I think NEC modelling of a coax fed, centre fed dipole at various heights as a centre fed conductor with generator at the centre of two wires, and the "third wire" to ground through some loss resistance is quite revealing. (The coax example is not to suggest that this phenomena is peculiar to coax feed alone.) You mention measuring currents. It seems that discussion on common mode currents has spawned a new market for clip on RF current probes. I even see suggestion that common mode current be continuously monitored in much the same way as VSWR is monitored at a spot adjacent to the tx. NEC modelling reveals that the currents on the "third wire" (common mode current) varies with position (no surprise there), and that depending on the topology, can be insignificantly low at some points while it is significantly high at other points. Measurement of common mode current at just a single point does not necessarily provide enough information to detect or assess a common mode current problem. Spot measurement is a superficial approach. So if there are maxima and minima in the common mode standing wave current on the feedline, the influence of chokes on current in all parts of the antenna system (hence pattern) and loss of chokes will depend on where they are located. That is not to suggest that it is all too complicated. I think there are good reasons to routinely deploy baluns of appropriate type an location, but they aren't a cut and dried idealised solution and further work may be required to identify and rectify residual problems. Owen -- Article: 225257 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:03:10 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: >> Would you agree that if I shorted the center conductor to >> ground that since the outer conductor was already grounded, >> the RF noise in the transceiver would decrease? > > Absolutely. So would the signals. S/N ratio would not change. There was nothing about signals being present in the previous discussion and this is the first time signals or S/N ratio have even been mentioned. Signals and/or S/N ratios are therefore irrelevant to the present discussion. W8JI previously wrote: > My understanding was you said the HF noise in the receiver was caused > by the random particles actually striking the antenna. If so, grounding > makes no difference. You just admitted above that shorting the transmission line to ground changes the noise level, i.e. indeed does make a difference. You have agreed with every leading question that I have asked you so it seems we are in agreement. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225258 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150234050.789190.210420@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:09:00 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Cecil then proposed, if I am not mistaken, that P-static was caused by > particles striking the antenna, each one making a noise as it > discharged into the antenna, and that noise could be reduced by > grounding the element at DC. That is really the only point I disageed > with. I'm glad you now agree with it. Grounding the feedline obviously reduces everything, including noise. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225259 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:37:27 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > When you short ANY transmission line center to ground and the shield is > grounded, which is what you asked, ALL signal levels will decrease. > They will all go to zero if it is a perfect short. Glad you agree. Now would you agree that in a system with arcing, anything that eliminates the arcing and preserves the signal has reduced the noise? A path to ground will do exactly that. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225260 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:48:03 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Of course I agree when someone shorts the RF input connector of their > radio the noise will decrease! W8JI previously wrote: > So when you provide a DC path that does not short the antenna at radio > frequencies, it does nothing. In AZ, I provided a DC path (choke) that eliminated arcing and allowed me to make contacts. The elimination of arcing obviously improved my signal to noise ratio. You have stopped asserting that folding doesn't make for a quieter antenna system. Do you now understand why a folded dipole is less noisy than a non-folded dipole in a charged particle environment? Do you understand that the probable cause for high antennas having more particle noise is that the higher you go, the faster the wind blows? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225261 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC From: chuck Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:49:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1150292304_65647@sp6iad.superfeed.net> References: jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement of > radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I recall, > anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo Hey Jimbo, Here's a link: http://www2.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/exposure_regs.html ARRLWeb: The FCC's New RF-Exposure Regulations The criteria include both power and frequency, so powers below 100 watts at VHF and UHF may be subject to the regulation. Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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: 225262 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:05:15 -0500 Message-ID: <12909dcs1jtbv67@corp.supernews.com> References: jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement of > radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I recall, > anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo Jim; Go to the ARRL web site. They have links there to the requirements for power measurement that you are looking for. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 225263 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Caveat Lector" References: <12909dcs1jtbv67@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC Message-ID: <3KVjg.178975$bm6.126047@fed1read04> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:15:12 -0700 > jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement of > radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I recall, > anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo Jim See URL: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfexpose.html -- CL -- I doubt, therefore I might be ! From meb58optonline.net Wed Jun 14 22:24:29 EDT 2006 Article: 225264 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Mike Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: newbie UHF antenna question Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 5 Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 2f09e97e.news.astraweb.com X-Trace: DXC=b4?nJcnVf`mJ?XMfTm0i_cL?0kYOcDh@jETUgB5R3[1g?Nf References: Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 2006 17:08:38 GMT > Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to > install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can > someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help > me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would > like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... > Not sure there is information that you want available here, but http://www.batlabs.com does have a lot of Morotola info. THe HT-1000 is discussed here: http://www.batlabs.com/visar.html Ed K7AAT Article: 225266 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "gravity" References: Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:09:43 -0500 Message-ID: <449042b6$0$79787$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> "Mike" wrote in message news:jcg09290feuu9dt7poubpt873k2e7kbps5@4ax.com... > Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to > install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can > someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help > me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would > like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... pretty easy. just buy a beam and some cable, or a vertical / cable setup >from a vendor. it's pretty much plug and play. if you want to build your own, there are some cool things you can do. cable *does* matter at UHF. most coax is very lossy. i'd suggest a stack of long boom Yagis on a 300 foot tower. ;- Gravity Article: 225267 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:27:59 GMT Mike wrote: > Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to > install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. http://www.diamondantenna.net -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225268 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question Message-ID: <4qq0929thgvlki52avsj8qqjs61l8ktf9n@4ax.com> References: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:05:13 GMT On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400, Mike wrote: >Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to >install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can >someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help >me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would >like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... If this is a business service radio, I'd imagine most Motorola or business radio dealers would have a "base station" type of antenna you could hook to the walkie talkie with the proper cable and connector. bob k5qwg Article: 225269 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Kevin Hastings" References: Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:05:16 GMT Thanks John - I may have thought the balun assembly was somehow involved. I'm new to the group and a fairly new amateur, and your respone was the only one that dealt with my question. What I thought was a relevant description was mis-read as "excess verbiage" I guess. I'll try trimming the loop, and hope also to cure the electronic thermostat problem which is fairly significant. 73 Kevin e"John Ferrell" wrote in message news:frou82lobemh1nuqkh2o95dqfr8m9mm0f3@4ax.com... > If the Swr is better below 145 than above the radiator must be over > length. You need to trim it or match it. If you are measuring through > lot of coax the match at the antenna is a lot worse than 3:1. > > Any kind of choke arrangement amounts to working on the wrong problem > to me. > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:17:44 GMT, "K. Hastings" > wrote: > > > John Ferrell W8CCW Article: 225270 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "dale.j. " Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:58:39 GMT In article , jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement > of radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I > recall, anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo I'd suggest you comply with the rules. It's easy and more than likely you will pass muster. I used this site for my evaluation: http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/ I also made copies of my antenna specs and attached them to the report, then filed. -- Email: dalej2@mac.com Article: 225271 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Telamon Subject: Re: I bought a large capacitance hat for my vertical, but the antenna still gets wet when it rains. References: <1149714609.565540.160300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <448767E7.4040009@fuse.net> <1149774341.518961.129650@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1149939299.081665.138120@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <448d6fe1$0$23707$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com> <2Rhjg.43959$fb2.30213@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <5Qijg.43979$fb2.36034@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <2pf6m3-kiv.ln1@remote.clifto.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:25:54 GMT In article , Cecil Moore wrote: > clifto wrote: > > Cecil Moore wrote: > >> Did you know that when Jesus prayed to God in > >> Aramaic, he probably prayed to "Allah"? > > > > I doubt it. The word Allah appears to be a conglomeration of "al elah", > > meaning "the god". > > A well educated friend told me that the Aramaic word > for "God" is "Allah". It would be nice to know if > he was wrong about that. > > Aren't Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah all the same God-head? I know Clifto posted from rec.radio.shorwave but please drop the group >from the thread thanks. -- Telamon Ventura, California Article: 225272 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:40:34 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Yes, but there are fewer particles. > > > I don't think that is true. Dust is sucked high into > the air during the formation of a dust storm. I > have seen a wall of dust hundreds of feet high in > Arizona. It didn't look any denser closer to the > ground. In any case, it is not the number of > particles that matter but the average charge per > particle which increases with wind speed. How do you know that? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225273 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:00:42 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >> .....or doing some actual experiments like I have done. > > > I have been reporting actual experiences from when > I lived in the Arizona desert and I can guarantee > you that charged particles exist in the dry-air > desert wind. Where does the charge on an antenna > come from if not from charged particles? It probably comes from charged particles and the earth's electric field, but you won't know anything for sure unless you can come up with a mechanism for showing how dust particles get their charge in the first place. Then you have to measure it. In some old issue of Scientific American there's an article showing how to make a simple gadget to measure the electric charge on a raindrop (about .3 volt, average). I expect you could use the same idea to measure the charge on a dust particle during a dust storm. Then you'd have to calculate. That shouldn't be too hard for you to do, Cecil, you're an engineer. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225274 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question References: <4qq0929thgvlki52avsj8qqjs61l8ktf9n@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:12:05 GMT Ht 1000 handhelds (not to be confused with the Mt-1000/ht-600) uses a SMA connector to its rubber duck antenns. therefore, get a sma male to a BNC male, (or other standard fitting) for an adaptor! The MT1000, and HT 600 series has a adaptor available from motorola. As info, Jim NN7K Bob Miller wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400, Mike wrote: > > >>Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to >>install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can >>someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help >>me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would >>like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... > > > If this is a business service radio, I'd imagine most Motorola or > business radio dealers would have a "base station" type of antenna you > could hook to the walkie talkie with the proper cable and connector. > > bob > k5qwg Article: 225275 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question References: <4qq0929thgvlki52avsj8qqjs61l8ktf9n@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:26:29 GMT OOPS , tis a SMA FEMALE connector you want! (this also works for signal generator/wattmeter) to a ( BNC/or UHF) adaptor ! About $10 bux for high quality, but maybe cheaper for the nickel plated variety -- Jim Jim - NN7K wrote: > Ht 1000 handhelds (not to be confused with the Mt-1000/ht-600) uses a > SMA connector to its rubber > duck antenns. therefore, get a sma male to a BNC > male, (or other standard fitting) for an adaptor! > The MT1000, and HT 600 series has a adaptor available from motorola. As > info, Jim NN7K > > Bob Miller wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400, Mike wrote: >> >> >>> Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to >>> install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can >>> someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help >>> me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would >>> like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... >> >> >> >> If this is a business service radio, I'd imagine most Motorola or >> business radio dealers would have a "base station" type of antenna you >> could hook to the walkie talkie with the proper cable and connector. >> >> bob >> k5qwg Article: 225276 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Hill" References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:38:53 -0500 "Morse or ReMorse" wrote in message news:7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Modernizing ham radio: > > No more CW, easier to pass written exams. We Should change the > names: Tech, General & Extra too. No sense hanging with the > dinosaurs when there's no need to be proficient at anything > anymore: > > Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class > > Appliance Operator 3rd Class, No Class > > Now Ten twenty-seven to channel one nine to get a preview of the new > classes. I'm ten seven. Any one got a ten thirty-six hello. > > Sorry for the CB lingo, I'm just getting practiced up so I can understand > people when the CW test goes away. > > You really want modernization? > > > Remorse Don't be chickenshit. Be a man and put your name to it! Since you cross posted it to three million groups. BH Article: 225277 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "James Crow" References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:54:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4490a26c$0$3582$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "Zombie Wolf" wrote in message news:FpGdneoOz8-3NA3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com... > Sure I want modernization. I dont have to put up with any of it. I havent > been on the air for at least ten years. I renewed the license, then put it > away. > The ham bands are gonna go away, and soon. They are gonna go the same way > that respect for your fellow amateur went, cooperation went, etc. The FCC > has a vested interest in shutting the ham bands down, since their funding > got cut years ago. BPL looked like a winning plan to shut it all down so > they could sell it off, but that flopped, since it also interfered with > other emergency services, like police and fire. so, the easiest way to > shut it down for good is to just hand it over to the cb crowd. They will > make a complete mess out of it, and they wont waste any time doing it, > either. > > Then the FCC can improve their funding, considerably. Just think, the > fines from the violations alone will come to millions. Did you really > think that the FCC was looking for "new innovations and inventions" coming > out of ham radio ? This is the digital age, guy. > In the meantime, enjoy these tirades from folks about the "fat-amateur". > Me, I pump iron every day, and could probably knock most of them on their > keester without even breaking a sweat, and im twice their age. The irony > of them opening their mouths has not escaped me, these new, modern > "sensitive" guys that are doing 99% of the ranting on this subject. It > begs the question: Just which pair of their mother's panties are they > wearing today ? Ham Radio started to suck about ten years ago, and it is > going to continue the downhill slide. Get tused to it. > > And before you start in on me, lemme tell ya fella, i was a cw operator, > and i also built most of my own stuff. It just ain't worth it any more. > Period. > > > "Morse or ReMorse" wrote in message > news:7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> Modernizing ham radio: >> >> No more CW, easier to pass written exams. We Should change the >> names: Tech, General & Extra too. No sense hanging with the >> dinosaurs when there's no need to be proficient at anything >> anymore: >> >> Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class >> >> Appliance Operator 3rd Class, No Class >> >> Now Ten twenty-seven to channel one nine to get a preview of the new >> classes. I'm ten seven. Any one got a ten thirty-six hello. >> >> Sorry for the CB lingo, I'm just getting practiced up so I can understand >> people when the CW test goes away. >> >> You really want modernization? >> >> >> Remorse > well said,sir. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Article: 225278 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:04:28 -0500 Message-ID: <1291cgtkguuhv43@corp.supernews.com> References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Zombie Wolf" wrote in message news:FpGdneoOz8-3NA3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com... > Sure I want modernization. I dont have to put up with any of it. I havent > been on the air for at least ten years. I renewed the license, then put it > away. > The ham bands are gonna go away, and soon. They are gonna go the same way > that respect for your fellow amateur went, cooperation went, etc. The FCC > has a vested interest in shutting the ham bands down, since their funding > got cut years ago. BPL looked like a winning plan to shut it all down so > they could sell it off, but that flopped, since it also interfered with > other emergency services, like police and fire. so, the easiest way to > shut it down for good is to just hand it over to the cb crowd. They will > make a complete mess out of it, and they wont waste any time doing it, > either. > > Then the FCC can improve their funding, considerably. Just think, the > fines from the violations alone will come to millions. Did you really > think that the FCC was looking for "new innovations and inventions" coming > out of ham radio ? This is the digital age, guy. I doubt that the CBer would take over on all bands. One of the attractions of CB is the cost of equipment. The FCC will probably sell off the unused bandwidths to private organizations such as cell companies and repeaters for the service industry to name a few. They can then be done with all the headaches with ham/cb enforcement and concentrate on other, more lucrative areas, such as Janet Jackson's half time nipple exposure. Article: 225279 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "VE2CJW" Subject: Don't do what I did. Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:38:25 -0400 I thought I had a coax problem. Every time I tried to check the dc resistance of a length of coax not connected to anything, I always got a reading around 1.25 meg. This is not a short nor open line so I checked another length and got similar results, so I was really baffled. The odd thing is that both of these coaxes work perfectly when connected to an antenna. I finally found out what I was doing wrong. I was using probes that I had to hold with my fingers, so I was really measuring the dc resistance between my fingers. After watching my fingers, I get infinite dc resistance like I should. This one really baffled me for some time, I don't wish something like that to happen again. 73 Mike. Article: 225280 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <4f3kg.147932$F_3.68346@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:04:48 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > How do you know that? Simple physics. I don't believe in magic. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225281 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:14:27 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4490c283$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Morse or ReMorse wrote: > Modernizing ham radio: > > No more CW, easier to pass written exams. We Should change the > names: Tech, General & Extra too. No sense hanging with the > dinosaurs when there's no need to be proficient at anything > anymore: > > Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class > > Appliance Operator 3rd Class, No Class > > Now Ten twenty-seven to channel one nine to get a preview of the new > classes. I'm ten seven. Any one got a ten thirty-six hello. > > Sorry for the CB lingo, I'm just getting practiced up so I can understand > people when the CW test goes away. > > You really want modernization? > > > Remorse GOAT Which means GO Away Troll, for those that aren't up on the equivalent of morse code on newsgroups. tom K0TAR Article: 225282 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:16:30 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Of course if I viewed the world through a 80 meter dipole at 50 feet > with only dust to worry about and never talked to the fellow at NASA, > or if I never had multiple antennas on multiple tall towers or worked > on all those commercial systems, I might agree with Cecil. When the only tool one has is a corona hammer, all problems look like corona nails. Fortunately, I am familiar with both corona problems and dry-air wind-driven charged particle problems. > All the problems I saw related to corona. At least that's what you assumed. Just because all the cars parked in your driveway are white doesn't mean all the cars in the world are white. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225283 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <4f3kg.147932$F_3.68346@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:53:28 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> How do you know that? > > > Simple physics. I don't believe in magic. I thought simple physics was magic. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225284 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:00:00 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >> Of course if I viewed the world through a 80 meter dipole at 50 feet >> with only dust to worry about and never talked to the fellow at NASA, >> or if I never had multiple antennas on multiple tall towers or worked >> on all those commercial systems, I might agree with Cecil. > > > When the only tool one has is a corona hammer, all problems > look like corona nails. Fortunately, I am familiar with both > corona problems and dry-air wind-driven charged particle > problems. > >> All the problems I saw related to corona. > > > At least that's what you assumed. Just because all the cars > parked in your driveway are white doesn't mean all the cars > in the world are white. Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what most of the sources say. Tom says height makes all the difference. That would make a lot of sense given the way the earth's electric field is structured. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225285 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:18:30 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging the > antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what most > of the sources say. The argument is not what it is called. The argument is whether charged dry-air dust particles can transfer charge to bare-wire antennas. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225286 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <4490D314.3050001@fuse.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:25:08 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Zombie Wolf wrote: > > > Are you tellin'us all the zombie troof? PS, I love ham radio all over again (missing for 30 years) I'm building an Elecraft K-2, having a great time. Monitoring the bands on a Grundig...sounds good to me. Not the same as 30 years ago, but then again, Frank Zappa is dead, too. John AB8WH Article: 225287 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:08:44 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging >> the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what >> most >> of the sources say. > > > The argument is not what it is called. The argument is whether > charged dry-air dust particles can transfer charge to bare-wire > antennas. Man, you guys really crack me up. I must admit I kinda enjoy reading your posts, though. \There must be some source citing experimental evidence of charged particles in a dust storm transferring their charges to a collector of some sort (antenna). I alluded earlier to a practical use of such collection... Cecil, you said you have no idea how many Joules were represented (or something along those lines). Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken? Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more charges transferred per unit time. If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs is only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work? What was the other issue: number of particles versus the charge per particle? Got me. As the particles are swept off the surface of the desert, would their charge (per particle) be distributed (as Gauss or some other )? I would think the # particles would be more important. If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded? perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence more charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this Voltage? I guess I can't part with my trickle charger idea. You guys have at it. Thanks for letting me butt in. John Article: 225288 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Message-ID: References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <4490c283$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:37:35 -0400 On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:14:27 -0500, Tom Ring wrote: >Which means GO Away Troll, for those that aren't up on the equivalent of >morse code on newsgroups. I forget his call, he used to live in Neptune, NJ, but he ended his transmissions with "No lids, no kids, no space cadets". I guess that's a more colorful version of GOAT .... .. Article: 225289 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Sal M. Onella" References: <448B2227.2090601@fuse.net> <4H6jg.28755$QP4.3723@fed1read12> Subject: Re: Have any of you mailed this to your ARRL Division directors and SM's yet? Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:43:36 -0700 "Michael Coslo" wrote in message news:e6n4t5$16n4$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... > Sal M. Onella wrote: > > "Michael Coslo" wrote in message > > news:e6jvip$1a4e$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... > >> Sal M. Onella wrote: > > > > < snip > > >>> I learn new tricks every day. Morse Code isn't one of them. > >> > >> The real issue is probably that HF privileges are probably just not that > >> important to you. > > > > < snip > > > > > Thanks for explaining it so clearly. That just makes everything right. > > > > > > > Hey, no prob. I WAS BEING SARCASTIC AND I THINK IT WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD > It isn't an insult to anyone to say that HF access isn't important > enough to them that they will take the time and effort to learn Morse > code. YES IT IS. I'VE WASTED HUNDREDS OF HOURS TRYING TO LEARN MORSE CODE AND I CAN'T DO IT. YOU'VE TRIVIALIZED ALL MY ANGER AND FRUSTRATION. YOU DISMISSED FIFTEEN YEARS OF FRUITLESS EFFORT IN TWO HURTFUL SENTENCES. YOU'RE NO HELP. Article: 225290 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:18:14 -0700 Message-ID: <1291rcqk2o9f2f9@corp.supernews.com> References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> jawod wrote: > . . . > Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's > needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken? Joules (energy) per unit time is power, not voltage. > > Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There > should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more charges > transferred per unit time. Charge per unit time is current. > If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs is > only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work? The joule is a unit of energy. Work is energy, so it can also be expressed in joules. > . . . > If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an > antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded? An antenna creates an electrostatic field if charged, but an electromagnetic field only if that charge is being accelerated, that is, if it carries current which changes with time. > perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume > would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence more > charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this Voltage? No, charge per unit time is current. >. . . It's impossible to contribute much to the understanding of complex phenomena without first gaining an understanding of the most basic principles. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 225291 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:44:51 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > > >>have been charged up to high voltages by natural means. You might want >>to read the articles, Cecil, before you speculate. It could only improve >>your mind. >>73, >>Tom Donaly, KA6RUH > > > .....or doing some actual experiments like I have done. > > 73 Tom > That would be even better, although I'm not sure it's legal in Texas. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225292 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:02:11 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging the > antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what most > of the sources say. It is my understanding that the air around a conductor must ionize for it to be defined as corona. Obviously, there is a time when charge is transferred to the antenna before ionization (corona) occurs. Corona is defined as a discharge function. The charging function must necessarily occur before corona. If the charge is not allowed to accumulate up to the ionization level, corona will not occur, by definition. Precipitation static occurs before the corona threshold is reached. For what it's worth, here's what the 2000 ARRL Handbook says: "Precipitation Static and Corona Discharge" "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge on contact with an antenna." "Electrical fields under thunderstorms are sufficient to place many objects such as trees, hair and antennas, into corona discharge." Although not stated explicitly, seems to me there is a strong implication that precipitation static is not strong enough to ionize the air, i.e. not strong enough to cause corona to exist. Indeed, the arcing at a coax connector or the DC grounding of an antenna may be enough to prevent ionization and corona during a precipitation static episode. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225293 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: OT: Needed: Kenwood TS-180 user manual Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:15:47 -0400 Needed: Kenwood TS-180 user manual Please let me know if someone has one they are willing to part with or scan for me. Thanks Buck N4PGW -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 225294 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:55:50 GMT jawod wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > >> Tom Donaly wrote: >> >>> Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging >>> the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's >>> what most >>> of the sources say. >> >> >> >> The argument is not what it is called. The argument is whether >> charged dry-air dust particles can transfer charge to bare-wire >> antennas. > > Man, you guys really crack me up. I must admit I kinda enjoy reading > your posts, though. > > \There must be some source citing experimental evidence of charged > particles in a dust storm transferring their charges to a collector of > some sort (antenna). I alluded earlier to a practical use of such > collection... > Cecil, you said you have no idea how many Joules were represented (or > something along those lines). > > Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's > needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken? > > Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There > should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more charges > transferred per unit time. > > If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs is > only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work? > > What was the other issue: number of particles versus the charge per > particle? Got me. > > As the particles are swept off the surface of the desert, would their > charge (per particle) be distributed (as Gauss or some other )? > > I would think the # particles would be more important. > > If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an > antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded? > perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume > would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence more > charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this Voltage? > > I guess I can't part with my trickle charger idea. > > You guys have at it. Thanks for letting me butt in. > > John There was once an article in the old Scientific American Amateur Scientist section about using the earth's electric field to power various static electric motors. Just build a motor from one of the simple designs on the web; using a weather balloon, run a wire up 300 feet or so (should give you 9000 volts or so on a clear day); attach your motor between the wire and ground, and, once the wire charges up, the motor turns. You won't get much work out of it, but it'll run a long time. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225295 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:23 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging >> the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what >> most >> of the sources say. > > > It is my understanding that the air around a conductor must > ionize for it to be defined as corona. Obviously, there is > a time when charge is transferred to the antenna before > ionization (corona) occurs. Corona is defined as a discharge > function. The charging function must necessarily occur before > corona. If the charge is not allowed to accumulate up to the > ionization level, corona will not occur, by definition. > Precipitation static occurs before the corona threshold is > reached. For what it's worth, here's what the 2000 ARRL > Handbook says: > > "Precipitation Static and Corona Discharge" > > "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise > that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including > snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes > or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge > on contact with an antenna." > > "Electrical fields under thunderstorms are sufficient to place > many objects such as trees, hair and antennas, into corona > discharge." > > Although not stated explicitly, seems to me there is a strong > implication that precipitation static is not strong enough to > ionize the air, i.e. not strong enough to cause corona to exist. > Indeed, the arcing at a coax connector or the DC grounding of > an antenna may be enough to prevent ionization and corona > during a precipitation static episode. Cecil, you can do a web search for "precipitation static," and "Saint Elmo's fire," to find out what most people think precipitation static is. Before I'd believe that each little raindrop makes a noise as it strikes the antenna, I'd want to see an experiment showing this. Most of the sources on the web, at least, don't mention it, but generally agree with Tom about the cause of the problem. You can read all that for yourself. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225296 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:40:42 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Cecil, you can do a web search for "precipitation static," and > "Saint Elmo's fire," to find out what most people think > precipitation static is. Before I'd believe that each little > raindrop makes a noise as it strikes the antenna, I'd want to > see an experiment showing this. It's only raindrops having a charge different from the antenna that make the noise and I have previously explained the mechanism of charge equalization between the two dipole elements through the link. Seems to me only magical thinking would result in each and every raindrop having a charge exactly equal to the antenna upon which it is falling. I'd like to see you come up with a proof for such an assertion. > Most of the sources on the > web, at least, don't mention it, but generally agree with > Tom about the cause of the problem. You can read all that > for yourself. I have read it for myself and *nothing* I have read agrees with W8JI. Corona doesn't exist until ionization takes place. Precipitation static and even arcing do not require any corona to exist. Here's a web page that explains the difference between arcing and corona discharge including a gray area called "brush discharges". http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/mrstatic.html Please notice that arcing at a coax connector doesn't require corona at all. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225297 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:42:40 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Cecil, you can do a web search for "precipitation static," and >> "Saint Elmo's fire," to find out what most people think >> precipitation static is. Before I'd believe that each little >> raindrop makes a noise as it strikes the antenna, I'd want to >> see an experiment showing this. > > > It's only raindrops having a charge different from > the antenna that make the noise and I have previously > explained the mechanism of charge equalization between > the two dipole elements through the link. > > Seems to me only magical thinking would result in each > and every raindrop having a charge exactly equal to the > antenna upon which it is falling. I'd like to see you > come up with a proof for such an assertion. > >> Most of the sources on the >> web, at least, don't mention it, but generally agree with >> Tom about the cause of the problem. You can read all that >> for yourself. > > > I have read it for myself and *nothing* I have read agrees > with W8JI. Corona doesn't exist until ionization takes > place. Precipitation static and even arcing do not require > any corona to exist. Here's a web page that explains the > difference between arcing and corona discharge including > a gray area called "brush discharges". > > http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/mrstatic.html > > Please notice that arcing at a coax connector doesn't require > corona at all. Cecil, show me your experiments. You can ratiocinate your head off and you still won't be any closer to the truth. Tell me how I can spray water drops on my antenna and make a noise in my receiver as each drop hits the antenna. Can you do it? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225298 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:47:31 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > show me your experiments. You can ratiocinate your head > off and you still won't be any closer to the truth. Tell me how I > can spray water drops on my antenna and make a noise in my > receiver as each drop hits the antenna. Can you do it? No, I think it is up to you to prove that each and every raindrop that falls has exactly the same charge as any antenna upon which it might fall. Which means that you must prove that all antennas being rained upon have identical unchanging charges. That is what would have to be true for you to be correct. Sorry Tom, please peddle your magical thinking to someone else. What do you think about the 2000 ARRL Handbook quote? "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes or even wind-blown dust, transferring a small electrical charge on contact with an antenna." The physics of charged particles has been understood for a century or so. I am not going to waste my time proving those known and accepted facts of physics. It is up to you and W8JI to prove a century of physics knowledge to be wrong. Good luck on proving that all static is caused by corona discharge even in the absence of the necessary ionization that defines the word "corona". -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225299 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Wide bandwidth ladder line J-pole for 6-Meters Message-ID: References: <5ZWdnbe8ZP27NBHZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:01:52 GMT On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:27:14 -0700, "Chuck Olson" wrote: > >"Steve N." wrote in message >news:e6n2i3$pf0$1@avnika.corp.mot.com... >> >> "Chuck Olson" wrote in message >> news:Ts-dndx_b-BRkBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > Today I clipped out the connection I had made at the bottom of the >> radiator, >> > and the SWR bandwidth remained 2MHz as is was with the connection. The >> group >> > of SWR measurements moved up an average of 150 KHz from my readings with >> the >> > connection, but otherwise the performance of the "Slim Jim" >configuration >> is >> > identical. The length of the gap may now serve as a tuning mechanism, >> which >> > wasn't a feature with the bottom connection, and the archives show some >> > builders made good use of that facility. Thanks for spotting the >> similarity, >> > Jeff. My 6M antenna will no doubt be better for it. >> > 73, Chuck >> >> >> Chuck, >> I searched on Slim-Jim. Let me see if I understand correctly. >> Slim-Jim is a twin-lead or ladder-line type J antenna with the *top* of >the >> half-wave (dual conductor) radiator ends connected. >> Yours has the bottom of the 1/2 wave ends connected. > >Yes, I conncted both top and bottom of the radiator to the previously >floating wire, and when I removed the bottom connection, the SWR bandwidth >remained as before, so the bottom connection does not appear to be >necessary.