Article: 226740 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:53:09 -0500 Message-ID: <12brelk76dlj901@corp.supernews.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> jawod wrote: > RHF wrote: > >> SC, >> >> Morris Code > > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226741 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: 5BTV Message-ID: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 06:10:07 GMT I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. -- Bart Article: 226742 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 18 Jul 2006 23:35:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1153290945.176667.305550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> jawod - Oops ! - You Are Right ~RHF . . . . jawod wrote: > RHF wrote: > > SC, > > > > Morris Code > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) Article: 226743 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 18 Jul 2006 23:55:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1153292127.825715.283790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> DGN, The Modern International Morse Code was invented by Friedrich Clemens Gerke in 1848 and first used for the Telegraphy between Hamburg and Cuxhaven in Germany. After some minor changes in 1865 it has been standardised at the International Telegraphy Congress in Paris (1865), and later normed by the ITU as International Morse Code. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code#Modern_International_Morse_code Vice the "American Morse Code" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Morse_code Also known as "Railroad" Morse Code -by- Samuel Finley Breese Morse http://en.wikipedia.orwiki/Samuel_Morse Morris-the-Cat knows Code : mew-meow-meow-mew mew mew meow-mew-mew meow-meow mew http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Humor/Cats/Morris.htm talk to the animals - they know code ~ RHF . . . David G. Nagel wrote: > jawod wrote: > > > RHF wrote: > > > >> SC, > >> > >> Morris Code > > > > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) > > > Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we > use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" > Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. > > Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226744 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 08:04:18 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153191637.682724.240470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <45lqb2569ph5f3vnpqhm287chma94billt@4ax.com> <1153260421.724125.141020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the > Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in > that Morse encoded spark > Actually that is not correct. Within the original meaning of CW, the Titanic used a CW transmitter. It was not a spark transmitter, the rf energy was produced by an alternator which provided 'continuous' rf power, hence CW. The output was not a damped wave that a spark transmitter would produce, but an interrupted 'continuous wave' (from the alternator). Regards Jeff Article: 226745 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question From: Dave Oldridge References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:34:11 GMT Ben Jackson wrote in news:slrnebqol9.1msk.ben@saturn.home.ben.com: > I've used a couple programs (vertload.exe and I think LODI) to design > a shortened, single band dipole antenna for 30m. Specifically I'm > interested in 10.149MHz. Ah, the good old 10.149 packet net? I used to run a node on there (VE1EI) a fey years ago. > The result is: > > --1m wire--[~34t 1.5" form 2" long, ~24uH]----2m wire----[center]--... > > The center would be a 1:1 current balun, twisting the wires together > and then taking 10-12 turns on FT50-61 (or if that won't fit, fewer > turns on FT50-43). > > The predicted resistive input impedance is 22 ohms. Vertload is just > simulating half the antenna (with 0 ohm ground loss) so its match info > is not useful. The other program called for a ".71uH matching coil" > for 50 feed, which I assume is to cancel a calculated -j45 reactive > component?? > > I would like to pre-calculate an approximate match to Z=50ohms which > I can put directly at the feed point and shrink-wrap with the balun. > Is there a way to do that, or is it too touchy to do without measuring > the actual antenna? > How high is this antenna and above what kind of ground? For 15m high, I get values of 21.21 microhenries and 9.85 picofarads across the feedpoint (you could make that out of a short coax stub). SWR would be 1.82 to 1 on 50 ohms, though. That could be improved upon by altering the length of the outer wires a bit and tuning the capacitor to match. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Article: 226746 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: deployable antenna From: Dave Oldridge References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:40:12 GMT jawod wrote in news:cb7b1$44bd15de$453d9423$21785 @FUSE.NET: > Now, I hope I get some reasonable responses to this (along with the > usual crap). > > I recall a toy my kids used to have and it made think of similar > technology to creating a "deployable" antenna. > > In this particular toy, a series of slightly S-shaped plastic bars were > linked together such that the entire ball could be collapsed into a > spider-like ball with all bars positioned radially from the center. > When pulled apart, all bars positioned circumferentially in a > bucky-ball-like sphere. I thought that was cool. > > Has anyone come across an antenna design with similar mechanism? > > I can envision a loop antenna that could be deployed after dark, for > example. It could be rotatable vertically or stationary horizontally. Short loops do not work very well with rotating parts in them. Mainly because such rotating parts have rather large resistance compared to the radiation resistance of the loop itself. It's bad enough if you use some pure conductor like the shield of LMR-400 coax or heliax. Now as an unfoldable section ABOVE a center loading coil, the idea might work. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Article: 226747 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Length & number of radials From: Dave Oldridge References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:50:34 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in news:16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com: > If you are considering a new vertical antenna, instead of guesswork > and copying somebody else's un-thought-out efforts, download program > RADIAL_3 from website below. > > The program assists with choosing an economic length and number of > shallow-buried ground radials. It takes a new look at how radials work > by considering them to be lossy, single-wire transmission lines, > open-circuit at the other end. > > RADIAL_3 is a self contained file, 55 kilibytes. Easy to use. No > training needed. Download in a few seconds and run immediately. Very nice. But one thing I have noticed is that radial effectiveness begins to fall off at a distance from the antenna very similar to its height. This seems to be due to capacitive coupling between the top of the antenna and the radials. Does your algorithm take this effect into consideration? I modelled an antenna I used to use and the results did seem consistent with the behaviour, though. Actually I used to use two of them, and actually had a gain over a single perfect-ground antenna. Not a LARGE gain, but still, useful. More useful was the fact that I could control the take-off angle and pattern to the point where the antenna actually sounded about 10db louder than a low dipole--at distances of 1000 mi or more. -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Article: 226748 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:48:14 +0000 From: Scott Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's Morris? Scott RHF wrote: > SC, > > Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission > -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? > - - - The Times They Are A Changing ! > > While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator > for Mastering Morris Code (CW). > > Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service. > > > Morris Code > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code > > Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in > and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave > > The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code > and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF > > Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO" > http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm > At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout > I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM > -but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag > "Semaphore" Signals Too ! > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication) > Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone > Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout. > > > just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF > . > . > . . > > Slow Code wrote: > >>fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote in >>news:fmmck-1607061316520001@ac9bfd05.ipt.aol.com: >> >> >>>In article , "Alun L. >>>Palmer" wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to >>>>send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on. >>> >>>I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was >>>based. >>> >>>Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating >>>a digital camera user: >>> >>>"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save >>>him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" >> >> >>Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film. >> >>Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it >>bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an >>improvement. >> >>SC > > Article: 226749 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> <12brelk76dlj901@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:52:00 GMT David G. Nagel wrote: > Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we > use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" > Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong. Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes. It is true that Sam's "American" Morse was different from "International" Morse in about a dozen characters but both used dots and dashes. Still, more characters were alike than were different. The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to distinguish the dots from the dashes. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226750 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 04:56:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1153310207.605252.255470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > David G. Nagel wrote: > > Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we > > use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code" > > Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based. > > Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to > record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an > ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound > of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong. > Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish > the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and > therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes. oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the day could do so? Article: 226751 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: 5BTV References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:03:25 GMT Bart Bailey wrote: > I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good > counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at > the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions > but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow > the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary > to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? > The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. At least three symmetrical radials are required for a close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive interference thus adding constructive interference to the vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226752 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:07:23 -0700 Message-ID: <1153310843.220381.261550@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> an old freind wrote: > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > > an old friend wrote: > > > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > > > get help sicko > > > > Poor Markie, he's the reason the country is dumbing down. > LOL I'm sure you get one when you look in the mirror. Article: 226753 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> <12brelk76dlj901@corp.supernews.com> <1153310207.605252.255470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <3opvg.70224$fb2.34545@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:15:59 GMT an old friend wrote: > oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it > by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the > day could do so? Please note that I didn't say ordinary human beings could read telegraph code. All I said was that ordinary human beings could distinguish between the sound of a dot and the sound of a dash. I think that's a pretty safe assumption with "ordinary" in the sense of an average human possessing average hearing abilities. I would bet that a dog could even be trained to distinguish a dot from a dash. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226754 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:16:58 -0700 Message-ID: <1153311417.976949.320310@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com wrote: > an old freind wrote: get help sicko Article: 226755 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 05:18:54 -0700 Message-ID: <1153311534.122551.258640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > an old friend wrote: > > oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it > > by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the > > day could do so? > > Please note that I didn't say ordinary human beings could read > telegraph code. All I said was that ordinary human beings could > distinguish between the sound of a dot and the sound of a dash. > > I think that's a pretty safe assumption with "ordinary" in the > sense of an average human possessing average hearing abilities. > I would bet that a dog could even be trained to distinguish a > dot from a dash. I stand corrected although the inclation was that ordinary people could read the code itself but the poit is made I think > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226756 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 19 Jul 2006 07:59:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153321143.964850.141630@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> n3ox.dan@gmail.com wrote: > 96 radials, 7MHz, antenna height 10.72m. Soil 500ohm*m, permittivity > 13\ > > Radials and antenna 1.024mm (18AWG), radials 3mm deep(surface) > Radial Length, %Efficiency > > 2m, 93.19% > 3m, 93.83% > 4m, 92.47% > 5m, 86.01% > 6m, 80.39% > 7m, 85.92% > 8m, 89.06% > 9m, 89.59% > 10m, 88.22% > 11m, 85.99% > 12m, 85.51% > 13m, 86.67% I sure wouldn't fully trust a NEC based program for buried wires, let alone a program someone just threw together without any verification at all. This is especially true when the answer looks so weird. Standing waves on a wire in contact with soil making efficiency go down as the wire length is increased? Give me a break! I seriously doubt any vertical antenna would be even close to 93% efficient with 7 foot long buried radials. A precise looking answer that gives us a warm fuzzy feeling makes the answer a good one, no matter how wrong the answer is. 73 Tom Article: 226757 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: 19 Jul 2006 08:05:30 -0700 Message-ID: <1153321530.566191.128860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Cecil Moore wrote: > My simulation indicated that the horizontal radials radiate > hardly any horizontally polarized radiation, unlike a horizontal > dipole antenna. That's true. But there's no way for me to separate the vertical > radiation of the radials from the vertical radiation of the > monopole. That's not true. You can look at the overall pattern and look at the effects on patterns with different radial systems to get an idea what direction and angle the radials might significantly radiate. Hence the pattern distortion as elevation angle is increased and decreased from an elevated or freespace vertical with two (or even to a much lesser extent four) radials. 73 Tom Article: 226758 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: A/B Switching Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:14:16 -0500 Message-ID: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same frequency. Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from 200 watts, will survive without damage? Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? Win, W0LZ Article: 226759 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Gregory MELLOTT" References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> <42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:30:50 GMT "dada" wrote in message news:42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com... > > How about mounting it rightside up but putting the mount in the top and > antenna on the bottom ? > > Joe > WB2JQT > The only problem is that the direction an postions on the controller will be reversed. For personal use probably no problem. Sincerely, Gregroy D. MELLOTT Article: 226760 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tam/WB2TT" References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> Subject: Re: A/B Switching Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:54:17 -0400 Message-ID: <7fydnSKm7MYCyCPZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com> "Win" wrote in message news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to > make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this > A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the > other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end > (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B > switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage > the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. > > I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some > point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same > frequency. > > Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from > 200 watts, will survive without damage? > > Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? > > Win, W0LZ I have an IC756 and FT847 going to the same (HF) A/B switch. No problems. You will want to do this on the input side of any amplifier. Tam/WB2TT Article: 226761 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> <1153321530.566191.128860@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:56:33 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: >> But there's no way for me to separate the vertical >> radiation of the radials from the vertical radiation of the >> monopole. > > That's not true. I make a statement about my personal abilities and you have the audacity to tell me it is not true???? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226762 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:48:47 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> I don't know about boundary conditions, but when I use this program to evaluate the following system: 3.62 Mhz, 18.3 meter height (simulating an inverted L with 25.4 ohms Rrad) Resistivity 25, Permittivity 25 2mm radials, 4mm antenna wire, radials 1 mm depth (actually #14 insulated wire, stapled to the lawn and sinking in gradually) ..it shows my predicted efficiency with (26) 50' long radials to be about 90%. My measurements indicated I am getting about 88%. Pretty good agreement. What causes me to cringe, is that the program shows that I can reduce the length of my radials from 16.1 meters to a little over 4 meters without losing ANY significant efficiency. Given everything else I've read over the years, that just seems to be way too good to be true. Now, I suppose I could rip up my 26 radials and shorten them all to about 5 meters and re-measure my efficiency, but that's a LOT of work (and it's 97 degrees out with a dew point in the mid 70's). Not going to happen. Here's the kicker... I have 1000' of remaining wire to put down (and I am going to add it). If this value of 4 or 5 meters (15 feet, let's say) is even remotely correct, I can put down 66 more radials (although they would be interlaced with the existing 26 longer ones of 50' each). Using my initial length of 50', I can put down 20 more radials, giving me a total of 46 radials 50' long. Reg, you program seems to be telling me that I would get the maximum benefit by putting in 66 more radials approximately 15' long, and that installing them at 50' would be wasting 35' of wire per radial, and reducing radial coverage as well. So...what should I do: 1. Add 66 greatly shortened radials (accepting Reg's program as correct) or 2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. I look forward to comments. ...hasan, N0AN Article: 226763 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:14:32 -0700 Message-ID: <71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:48:47 -0500, "hasan schiers" wrote: >So...what should I do: >2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. Hi Hasan, Build for the future. Anticipate working 160M. Enjoy the advantages (as slim as they may be) at 80M. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226764 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: 5BTV Message-ID: <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:17 GMT In Message-ID: posted on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:03:25 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Bart Bailey wrote: >> I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good >> counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at >> the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions >> but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow >> the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary >> to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? >> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. > >At least three symmetrical radials are required for a >close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are >elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive >interference thus adding constructive interference to the >vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are >also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. Thanks Cecil At this point I'm not afforded the geographical luxury of multiple radial placement, and am hoping any radiation at all will be better than none, thus am thinking that the solitary counterpoise will have to suffice. With my luck I'll likely have a prominent lobe out into the boonies where there aren't any stations, and a steep null right into choice DX. -- Bart Article: 226765 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Telamon Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:30:22 GMT In article , Scott wrote: > Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's > Morris? < Snip > He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to radio listening and scanner news groups. How about limiting Amateur subjects to the amateur news groups. -- Telamon Ventura, California Article: 226766 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: Re: A/B Switching Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:37:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> <7fydnSKm7MYCyCPZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@comcast.com> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:54:17 -0400, "Tam/WB2TT" wrote: > >"Win" wrote in message >news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >>I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to >> make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this >> A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the >> other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end >> (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B >> switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage >> the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. >> >> I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some >> point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same >> frequency. >> >> Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from >> 200 watts, will survive without damage? >> >> Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? >> >> Win, W0LZ > >I have an IC756 and FT847 going to the same (HF) A/B switch. No problems. >You will want to do this on the input side of any amplifier. > >Tam/WB2TT > Thanks, Tam. Good to know. I will check and see if the 746 and 756 have the same RF section. Win, W0LZ Article: 226767 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:03:16 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com> Good thinking, Richard, as I may try to get this inverted L to do 160 in the fall/winter by adding a trap to the 80m inverted L and extending the wire for 160m resonance. Incidentally, over the weekend I tried to add a 40m wire parallel to the 80m L...it was a complete failure. (I used a "fan" approach with 6" standoffs for the 33' vertical wire). I thought I might get 2 fer 1 at the feedpoint, but it just didn't work worth a darn. Very low noise level, signals were significantly weaker than my Carolina Windom 80 (on 40m) up 42'. I did work a few DX stations with it, but just not up to my expectations. A properly performing 40m 1/4 w vertical over very good soil and a full radial field as described in my prior message should have been outstanding. It wasn't. It was very hard to tune, showed no better than a 3:1 VSWR at resonance, and was only marginally better on a very few signals between sunset and sunrise. Very disappointing. So...your suggestion for 160m is a good one. I could do a trap pretty easily. If I wanted to try 40m with the same feedpoint, I could put a parallel tuned circuit at the feedpoint and run the 80m inverted L as a 40m half-wave. Of course, this requires switching at the feedpoint and I'm not sure I'd bother. I also have to get a 1.9 uH coil and 250 pf variable cap to do the tuned circuit (per ON4UN's Low Band DXing Handbook). I found an acceptable cap for 40 bucks and coil stock is readily available. I just have to get motivated and work out the relay switching. I wondered if I could EVALUATE the effectiveness of the 80m inverted L on 40m as a half wave, by temporarily taking an antenna tuner with wide range (T-network matches almost anything) out to the feedpoint and matching it there. If it hears well, and works ok at 300w (tuner limit), then it might be worth investing in the coil/cap/relays to switch a more standard high-Z feed in and out. What do you think? Thanks for your input. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Richard Clark" wrote in message news:71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com... > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:48:47 -0500, "hasan schiers" > wrote: > >>So...what should I do: >>2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. > > Hi Hasan, > > Build for the future. Anticipate working 160M. Enjoy the advantages > (as slim as they may be) at 80M. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226768 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: 5BTV Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:17 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: >>> I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good >>> counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at >>> the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions >>> but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow >>> the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary >>> to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? >>> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. >> >>At least three symmetrical radials are required for a >>close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are >>elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >>from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive >>interference thus adding constructive interference to the >>vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are >>also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. > >Thanks Cecil >At this point I'm not afforded the geographical luxury of multiple >radial placement, and am hoping any radiation at all will be better than >none, thus am thinking that the solitary counterpoise will have to >suffice. With my luck I'll likely have a prominent lobe out into the >boonies where there aren't any stations, and a steep null right into >choice DX. Hi Bart, Having noticed your question went unanswered, and that you have a very curious arrangement that begs discussion: Yes, the fanned out tuned radials are necessary for resonance (or at least reduce interaction during the tune process). This is because these types of antennas are especially designed for these very requirements. That, or ground mounting that allows the proximity of earth resistance to wash over the inherent Q that forces attention to radial lengths. You have chosen to mount up high, and that demands that attention to those lengths. This much should already be apparent with a SWR meter reading. Alternatively, this curious several hundred foot long "counterpoise" may give some relief to a raging SWR meter, but along with that comes unintended consequences. Given this "counterpoise" is easily ten times bigger than the "antenna" you may note that my usage of "quote" marks is to denote another irony. You have, in fact, a horizontal dipole with a vertically oriented, tuned, short half. The 5BTV is more the radial than it is the antenna. This is not to say that it affects performance poorly. In fact it may be a boon, but it certainly isn't going to be performing for the reasons you might ascribe to it. Let's just say this is an example of Ham Luck which proves radio is fun for not having critical requirements. Any pretense to gain and efficiencies being obtained through carefully balancing this "counterpoise" are sheer fantasy. You could as easily pull down the 5BTV, leave the "counterpoise" connected to the mast, and drive the mast to the same advantage. (Or leave the 5BTV up there as a sort of top-load.) If you want to resurrect the 5BTV's dignity that is now in shreds, follow the manufacturer's recommendations for installing tuned radials for each band, and attached at the correct point. Unfortunately, there's no promise of any increase of performance, but others may offer reports that confound my advice. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226769 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:46:55 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Length & number of radials References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> hasan schiers wrote: > >I wondered if I could EVALUATE the effectiveness of the 80m inverted L >on 40m as a half wave, by temporarily taking an antenna tuner with wide >range (T-network matches almost anything) out to the feedpoint and >matching it there. If it hears well, and works ok at 300w (tuner >limit), then it might be worth investing in the coil/cap/relays to >switch a more standard high-Z feed in and out. What do you think? > The configuration of 35ft vertical + 35ft (or so) horizontal worked well for me on 40m at the old QTH, and was quite effective on 80m DX. For 160m, I added a 100ft loading wire to bring the total length up to about 130ft, and that configuration doubled as an end-fed half-wave for 80m short-skip. Having a QRO auto-ATU made band changing easy, so it wasn't necessary to resonate the antenna on any band. However, the quarter-wave resonances on 80m and 160m could have been trimmed to length. Coming back to the difference between the 40m vertical quarter-wave and the bent half-wave, I compared the bare 35ft mast and the same mast with the added loading wire and didn't find much difference. For DX, the bent-half-wave should have been down on the quarter-wave (because some of the radiation was being wasted at high angles); but in contests, both antennas seemed to work the same regular DX stations. The bent half-wave was louder for short-skip, which meant more QRM at night, but made it easier to continue making low-point contacts during daylight hours. If you use an 80m trap, the antenna could still work on 40m but the horizontal section would be way over-long. Unless rapid band changing between 80m and 160m is a priority, I'd suggest you use a physical disconnect at the end of the 35ft horizontal section. (My setup made it very easy to loosen a rope and lower the connection into reach, so I used simple banana plugs, with snap links to add either wire or plain cord.) -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226770 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 12:02:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153335724.330428.82810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> an old freind wrote: > kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com wrote: > > an old freind wrote: > get help sicko Poor Markie! Article: 226771 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 12:00:08 -0700 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <71qsb2l4pbnlfd7ur0a77fv1pq0juk2onm@4ax.com> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:03:16 -0500, "hasan schiers" wrote: >Incidentally, over the weekend I tried to add a 40m wire parallel to the 80m >L...it was a complete failure. (I used a "fan" approach with 6" standoffs >for the 33' vertical wire). I thought I might get 2 fer 1 at the feedpoint, >but it just didn't work worth a darn. Hi Hasan, I must think that you were only slightly off in length, and that the proximity, even at 6 inches, is still proximal. >Very low noise level, signals were >significantly weaker than my Carolina Windom 80 (on 40m) up 42'. Not unlike many similar reports. >I did work >a few DX stations with it, but just not up to my expectations. A properly >performing 40m 1/4 w vertical over very good soil and a full radial field as >described in my prior message should have been outstanding. It wasn't. Some of those same reporters suggest split operation where the vertical is the radiator and a high horizontal is the receiving antenna. >I wondered if I could EVALUATE the effectiveness of the 80m inverted L on >40m as a half wave, by temporarily taking an antenna tuner with wide range >(T-network matches almost anything) out to the feedpoint and matching it >there. If it hears well, and works ok at 300w (tuner limit), then it might >be worth investing in the coil/cap/relays to switch a more standard high-Z >feed in and out. What do you think? I would encourage that, simply because you seem to be amenable to such a path already. Gaining experience is always a noble work. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226772 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153191637.682724.240470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <45lqb2569ph5f3vnpqhm287chma94billt@4ax.com> <1153260421.724125.141020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:27:18 -0400 On 18 Jul 2006 15:07:01 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: >a thread related not > >I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the >Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in >that Morse encoded spark For the duration of a dash, spark is CW. Maybe slightly damped, but still CW. Article: 226773 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) Subject: Re: deployable antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:28:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> In article <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net>, jawod wrote: > How would I fashion an approach to calculate resonance for any given > diameter under these circumstances? > > Yes, I'm probably not the brightest bulb in the pack, but it's still fun > to speculate...this is an AMATEUR group, afterall. John- Its hard for an old fogey like me to follow the details of this thread. To start with, I'm not familiar with the toys mentioned. Yet this type of discussion is conducive to creative thinking. You start with something that may be a bit fantastic, and end up with a good idea. My idea of a "deployable" antenna is a metal tape measure. Only it isn't a new idea. Many years back, Telex Hy-Gain produced a Model 18TD, Tape Doublet, 10 thru 80 meters portable antenna. There was also a military version, the Hy-Gain HA4000. See a discussion at http://www.qsl.net/n2ckh/HA4000.htm Fred K4DII Article: 226774 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <1153192328.628332.204860@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153260241.240723.217480@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:32:05 -0400 On 18 Jul 2006 15:04:01 -0700, "an old freind" wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> On 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700, "an old feind" >> wrote: >> >> Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a >> >> schematic and ask them to find a component by function. >> >I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the >> >component >> I said "by function". Not "locate the resistor", but "locate the >> balanced modulator circuitry". >you were vague I said, "ask them to find a component by function". That's only vague to those who don't understand simple English. > not my fault you can't express yourself Not in what you use for language but, then, I speak English. >nor is a EE needed to be ham and contrube to advancing the state of the >radio art No one said otherwise - but refusing to learn anything shouldn't be a criterion, and it certainly doesn't contribute to anything but sloth. >the tests needed to cover those things THEN >THEN they more os less needed to inculde Morse code (lathough it could >have been avoided but for the treaty) >times change >adapt or die Oh, I could pass a test on the technical aspects of communications as it's practiced today. Could you? (Rhetorical question - I know you couldn't.) And I don't mean could you memorize enough answers to pass. Article: 226775 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <762tb2hcuqrdtlnj0jnlht6f8736jkuijo@4ax.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:33:11 -0400 On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:21:22 -0500, "David G. Nagel" wrote: >Computer program was substituted for foreign language where I went to >college. Computer programming wasn't (as in, didn't exist), when I went to college. :) Except maybe at IBM. Article: 226776 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:33:34 -0400 On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:10:39 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >At Texas A&M in the late '50's, a BA in EE required a >foreign language but a BS didn't. Don't know why. Language is an art? Article: 226777 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 19 Jul 2006 12:32:21 -0700 Message-ID: <1153337541.613517.284650@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: may the lord bless and grant you reales from the mental illness that traps you Article: 226778 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Message-ID: <2h2tb25anl46jvkh0eq8jlnbsshtilmn4c@4ax.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:38:31 -0400 On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:48:14 +0000, Scott wrote: >Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's >Morris? Morris is also known as C. W. Katt. Article: 226779 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David" References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:33:29 +0100 Message-ID: However, I still think that with only the vertical element connected to the centre conductor, the vertical element radiates although not very well. With only the radials connected to the outer braid, the radials do not radiate. The RF live of the transceiver is normally connected to centre conductor, and the RF ground side (the 0V side) is normally connected to the braid. The outer of the connector on the transceiver is possibly connected internally to the case and mains Earth. Article: 226780 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: 5BTV Message-ID: <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:49:49 GMT In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:21:17 GMT, Bart Bailey wrote: >>>> I'm thinking of trying a 5BTV on a 30 foot pole with one good >>>> counterpoise about two thirds way up and a good earth stake ground at >>>> the bottom. I don't have room for an array of radials in all directions >>>> but am hoping the solitary long one at the twenty foot level will allow >>>> the thing to tune. Are the multiple fanned out radials really necessary >>>> to get resonance, or aren't they just to create a more uniform pattern? >>>> The one long counterpoise is several hundred feet long. >>> >>>At least three symmetrical radials are required for a >>>close to omnidirectional pattern when the radials are >>>elevated by an appreciable amount. The horizontal radiation >>>from symmetrical radials tends to cancel due to destructive >>>interference thus adding constructive interference to the >>>vertical radiation pattern. So the gain and efficiency are >>>also affected. Resonance may not be the only consideration. >> >>Thanks Cecil >>At this point I'm not afforded the geographical luxury of multiple >>radial placement, and am hoping any radiation at all will be better than >>none, thus am thinking that the solitary counterpoise will have to >>suffice. With my luck I'll likely have a prominent lobe out into the >>boonies where there aren't any stations, and a steep null right into >>choice DX. > >Hi Bart, > >Having noticed your question went unanswered, and that you have a very >curious arrangement that begs discussion: > >Yes, the fanned out tuned radials are necessary for resonance (or at >least reduce interaction during the tune process). RFI is definately one of my concerns with this make do arrangement. Last year when I had an inverted VEE for 6m, the RFI was horrendous, even set off my CO detector inside the shack. Going to the Diamond V-2000 (store bought) solved that nicely, however. > This is because >these types of antennas are especially designed for these very >requirements. That, or ground mounting that allows the proximity of >earth resistance to wash over the inherent Q that forces attention to >radial lengths. You have chosen to mount up high, The height is somewhat variable, as the mast can be collapsed to a single section, total height above ground would be about twenty feet, because it's placed on a second story back porch so as to reduce the temptation to vandalism. >and that demands >that attention to those lengths. This much should already be apparent >with a SWR meter reading. I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. >Alternatively, this curious several hundred foot long "counterpoise" >may give some relief to a raging SWR meter, but along with that comes >unintended consequences. Given this "counterpoise" is easily ten >times bigger than the "antenna" you may note that my usage of "quote" >marks is to denote another irony. You have, in fact, a horizontal >dipole with a vertically oriented, tuned, short half. The 5BTV is >more the radial than it is the antenna. You've stated exactly what I think will occur, that being that the 5BTV will serve as a tuned odd leg to a very ad hoc Windom of sorts. >This is not to say that it affects performance poorly. In fact it may >be a boon, but it certainly isn't going to be performing for the >reasons you might ascribe to it. Let's just say this is an example of >Ham Luck which proves radio is fun for not having critical >requirements. Any pretense to gain and efficiencies being obtained >through carefully balancing this "counterpoise" are sheer fantasy. Giving the tuner something to grasp within its ohmage range capabilities would satisfy my fantasy of 80m access from an inner city QTH >You >could as easily pull down the 5BTV, leave the "counterpoise" connected >to the mast, and drive the mast to the same advantage. (Or leave the >5BTV up there as a sort of top-load.) I've actually tried that using both a 1:1 and a 4:1 balun to fool the tuner into finding a sweet spot, but the longish counterpoise seems to get more noise than signal on any of the bands it will tune at all. >If you want to resurrect the 5BTV's dignity that is now in shreds, >follow the manufacturer's recommendations for installing tuned radials >for each band, and attached at the correct point. Unfortunately, >there's no promise of any increase of performance, but others may >offer reports that confound my advice. To install any radial more than about 5 feet long would require a fastener to a neighbor's gable, fat chance of that considering the constipated look on their faces whenever they glance skyward at what's up there now. >73's >Richard Clark, KB7QHC 73 de KM6RF -- Bart Article: 226781 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:06:55 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:33:29 +0100, "David" wrote: >However, I still think that with only the vertical element connected to the >centre conductor, the vertical element radiates although not very well. With >only the radials connected to the outer braid, the radials do not radiate. >The RF live of the transceiver is normally connected to centre conductor, >and the RF ground side (the 0V side) is normally connected to the braid. The >outer of the connector on the transceiver is possibly connected internally >to the case and mains Earth. Hi David, Only the slimmest margin of this comes close, and not enough to explain anything. 0V, ground, live, dead, hot, cold, or whatever you want to call it has long since disappeared from the scene at the other end of a cable or twin lead. Radials do not mimic these terms even if the illusion of continuity suggests otherwise. There is no "rf side" nor is there a "ground side" to appeal to. Such distinctions are reserved for very untechnical allusions. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226782 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 19 Jul 2006 14:12:41 -0700 Message-ID: <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Dear friends: Thank you very much for your answers. First of all: I agree with you, but my agreement is inductive, not experimental because I have not made my homework with that antenna... . I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... I think that it must have something true behind so many similar statements. In the radio club of my area they say to have compared one against another with clearly favorable results to the bazooka. I thought...: A plain dipole is not a monoband antenna, it is, in fact, a multiband antenna, it receives all the frequencies. But do let us imagine a plain dipole that had connected on its terminals a couple high Q tuned circuits. That system it would be really "monoband"... then, if we connect such a system to a poor receiver Would not it improve the reception perhaps?, eliminating by that way possible saturation sources or intermodulaci=F3n noises. Such a system, empirically it would seem a practically "more silent antenna" and it would explain, perhaps, the some results obtained by the colleagues. I say this because it is said that the bazooka possesses a syntony effect that transforms it into a true monoband device (I am not sure of it). It is only an arbitrary example of possible alternative explanations that, without violating the fundamental principles, can be compatibilized with the experiences of so many colleagues that sympathize with this antennas(some of which deserve my technical respect). I thank all your answers but I continue to the search of some explanation that endorses all the facts, just as the formidable article of Walter in reference to its bandwidth... I am for sure some of you will be able to help me to find a convincing explanation. =20 Thank you very much in adavnce Miguel Ghezzi (LU 6ETJ) Article: 226783 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> Message-ID: Al Klein wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:10:39 GMT, Cecil Moore > wrote: > > >>At Texas A&M in the late '50's, a BA in EE required a >>foreign language but a BS didn't. Don't know why. > > > Language is an art? Back in the olden days a BA degree focused on art, humanities, language, sociology, etc. Back in the olden days a BS degree focused on math, more math, physics, chemistry, biological sciences, etc. The basic difference was M A T H ... M O R E M A T H ... then four or more semesters of C A L C U L U S. In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...] Article: 226784 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:42:22 -0400 On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400, Dave wrote: >In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still >like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean >something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...] It's only been 43 years for me, but I've also forgotten some of the math and I also like to read about some of the humanities. But I still earn my living doing the BS stuff, although being a field anthropologist does sound interesting. Article: 226785 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David" References: <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:14:33 +0100 Message-ID: I agree that in the coax side, there is no real 0V because the current has a standing wave. But the transceiver has a DC power supply (normally 12V) that is controlled or modulated. One side of the power supply is regarded as 0V and connected to 0V rail of circuits. The modulated side is the RF live that is connected to the centre contact of transceiver output connector. In theory, while transceiver is transmitting, if I touched the outer of the output connector, I would not expect to get a shock or RF burn. If I touched the centre contact of output connector, then I would expect to get a shock or RF burn. Admittedly, I could touch the outer and find that I am close enough to the centre contact for RF to capacitively couple into me. In real life, I would never touch the output connector while the rig is transmitting. Does RF live and ground not exist on the output connector of the transceiver? Article: 226786 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:29:26 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> <282tb2hr85hgsp6lptjg14696gvkl05fg6@4ax.com> Message-ID: <-I6dnY5GqOfbLyPZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> Al Klein wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 17:19:52 -0400, Dave wrote: > > >>In fifty years I've forgotten most of that MATH and Calculus stuff, but I still >>like to read about the humanities, history, sociology. That must mean >>something. My degree, like Cecil's, is a BS [That does not stand for Bull S...] > > > It's only been 43 years for me, but I've also forgotten some of the > math and I also like to read about some of the humanities. But I > still earn my living doing the BS stuff, although being a field > anthropologist does sound interesting. I retired from the BS business in 2000. Now I'm an ordained minister, ordained in 1988 as a Catholic Deacon, and serve as Chaplain to the incarcerated in addition to parish responsibilities. Us old hams have diversified interests !! Article: 226787 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:41:55 -0000 Message-ID: <12btd9j3btcal41@corp.supernews.com> References: >I agree that in the coax side, there is no real 0V because the current has a >standing wave. But the transceiver has a DC power supply (normally 12V) that >is controlled or modulated. One side of the power supply is regarded as 0V >and connected to 0V rail of circuits. The modulated side is the RF live that >is connected to the centre contact of transceiver output connector. > >In theory, while transceiver is transmitting, if I touched the outer of the >output connector, I would not expect to get a shock or RF burn. If I touched >the centre contact of output connector, then I would expect to get a shock >or RF burn. Admittedly, I could touch the outer and find that I am close >enough to the centre contact for RF to capacitively couple into me. In real >life, I would never touch the output connector while the rig is >transmitting. > >Does RF live and ground not exist on the output connector of the >transceiver? "Live" and "ground" aren't absolute, universal things. These terms exist only in relation to a specific reference point, which you must choose. Yes, it's true that the outer rim of the coaxial connector is usually tied to the chassis of the transceiver, and that this chassis is also tied to your DC ground. So, the potential voltage between the connector and your body is usually low and it's not all that likely to shock you. However, this doesn't mean that this same thing is true at the other end of the coaxial cable (i.e. up at the antenna)! Although the far end of the coax braid is at (or very close to) DC ground, it's far enough away in RF terms (that is, in terms of wavelengths) that its voltage is going to be very different much of the time. Consider also the case in which your transceiver isn't "grounded" at all... it's sitting on a wooden table, powered by a battery, and the coax cable runs directly from it to the antenna. There's no "third wire" in the power cord, or other grounding wire connecting the transceiver to a water pipe or electric outlet or a grounding rod or anything like that. Let's further assume that your antenna is a vertical, with radials, elevated up on an insulated mast. Now, when you transmit - what's the voltage present at the base of each radial? If it's "0V", then why, and with respect to what? -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 226788 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:57:55 -0700 Message-ID: <43dtb2hou5rhcgsfea2ut9qg87pfcd9qet@4ax.com> References: <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:14:33 +0100, "David" wrote: >I agree that in the coax side, there is no real 0V because the current has a >standing wave. Hi Dave, This doesn't really make much sense. Even discounting that and trying to extrapolate your response, it isn't even 0V then and not true for SWR in general. >But the transceiver has a DC power supply (normally 12V) that >is controlled or modulated. A modulated power supply? Even if you mean regulated, it bears no resemblence to the topic. >One side of the power supply is regarded as 0V >and connected to 0V rail of circuits. The modulated side is the RF live that >is connected to the centre contact of transceiver output connector. It will, then, come as a surprise to you that the output of the transmitter comes from an AC coupled link. You may choose either wire in that link to go to any part of a ground system, or conversely, to what you consider to be the radiator. It makes no difference because there is no Ground Hot Cold Dead Live or any other distinction until you plant that wire. You can paint that wire turquoise in the belief that it is safe, and grab it at a later time to fry you. >In theory, while transceiver is transmitting, if I touched the outer of the >output connector, I would not expect to get a shock or RF burn. Expectations here are a belief system, not a proof. I suggest you stay away from situations that encourage such lethal presumptions. >If I touched >the centre contact of output connector, then I would expect to get a shock >or RF burn. Admittedly, I could touch the outer and find that I am close >enough to the centre contact for RF to capacitively couple into me. In real >life, I would never touch the output connector while the rig is >transmitting. > >Does RF live and ground not exist on the output connector of the >transceiver? There are no absolutes as you might expect. Plenty of correspondents here complain daily of problems stemming from what you might deny. If you worked your rig on 10M or 20M from the second story window, you are so far from ground, electrically, that its apparent proximity is only an illusion. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226789 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Miguel There are "eyewitness accounts" of all sorts of foolishness. If you build it perfectly a bazooka will show a decrease in SWR over a very small range either side of resonance (SWR = 1:1) when compared to a dipole. This is completely useless except as an academic exercise. Here's how it works: The antenna is a parallel-resonant network (the bazooka) in parallel with a series-resonant network(the dipole). The parallel resonant (tank circuit) network stores energy and will oscillate at it's DRIVEN frequency when driven near resonance, so it stores the energy that would otherwise be reflected as long as it oscillates. Go too far from resonance and it quits oscillating. This effect manifests itself at SWR of 1.2:1 or lower. It flattens the SWR curve very near resonance. The 2:1 bandwidth is unaffected except by the additional loss of the tank circuit sitting across the dipole feed point. What Walter Maxwell showed explicitly is that any increase in SWR bandwidth is entirely due to loss, if I recall correctly. So all the trouble of building a bazooka with both legs and the dipole resonant at exactly the same frequency is a waste of time. A simple dipole works a bit better and is *MUCH LESS* work and expen$e. 73 H. NQ5H "lu6etj" wrote in message news:1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... Dear friends: Thank you very much for your answers. First of all: I agree with you, but my agreement is inductive, not experimental because I have not made my homework with that antenna... . I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... I think that it must have something true behind so many similar statements. In the radio club of my area they say to have compared one against another with clearly favorable results to the bazooka. I thought...: A plain dipole is not a monoband antenna, it is, in fact, a multiband antenna, it receives all the frequencies. But do let us imagine a plain dipole that had connected on its terminals a couple high Q tuned circuits. That system it would be really "monoband"... then, if we connect such a system to a poor receiver Would not it improve the reception perhaps?, eliminating by that way possible saturation sources or intermodulación noises. Such a system, empirically it would seem a practically "more silent antenna" and it would explain, perhaps, the some results obtained by the colleagues. I say this because it is said that the bazooka possesses a syntony effect that transforms it into a true monoband device (I am not sure of it). It is only an arbitrary example of possible alternative explanations that, without violating the fundamental principles, can be compatibilized with the experiences of so many colleagues that sympathize with this antennas(some of which deserve my technical respect). I thank all your answers but I continue to the search of some explanation that endorses all the facts, just as the formidable article of Walter in reference to its bandwidth... I am for sure some of you will be able to help me to find a convincing explanation. Thank you very much in adavnce Miguel Ghezzi (LU 6ETJ) Article: 226790 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 16:44:19 -0700 Message-ID: <1153352659.407310.171810@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Slow Code wrote: > Telamon wrote in > news:telamon_spamshield-1A563C.10302219072006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com: > > > > He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to > > radio listening and scanner news groups. > > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. who would be sbe equiped to send such an SOS SC? you want to imporve the toene of NG get off your ass and stop troling looking for a fight bless you and grant new mental health to you soon Article: 226791 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:40:27 +0100 Message-ID: > What would NEC4 say? > Who or what is NEC4? Article: 226792 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:45:52 GMT Slow Code wrote: > SWL's should learn CW too. > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. SWL's normally listen to AM stations. How would they hear a CW station? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226793 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 16:53:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1153353216.895669.181590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. > > SWL's normally listen to AM stations. > How would they hear a CW station? CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226794 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:22:38 GMT lu6etj wrote: > But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are > enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With > the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and > this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... The Double Bazooka is probably quieter than a plain dipole because, unlike a plain dipole, there is a DC path between all points in the antenna thus minimizing the effects of precipitation static. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226795 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: <_KAvg.142548$S61.119428@edtnps90> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 01:11:22 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:cvudnXTTm-B6XiPZRVnytg@bt.com... > >> What would NEC4 say? >> > Who or what is NEC4? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_Electromagnetics_Code Article: 226796 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:17:00 -0500 Message-ID: <12btmcdajro5rd2@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:i1Avg.174556$F_3.117899@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > lu6etj wrote: >> But do I think: is it possible that all those friends that are >> enthusiastic of the bazooka are affirming foolishness? They say: -With >> the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole, and >> this affirmatiotn point to a better SNR... > > The Double Bazooka is probably quieter than a plain dipole > because, unlike a plain dipole, there is a DC path between > all points in the antenna thus minimizing the effects of > precipitation static. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp So a nice 2.5 K ohm resistor at the feed point of a dipole would be vastly less work. "With >> the bazooka we listen stations that we don't with the plain dipole" I doubt anyone can document that. Article: 226797 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:18:50 -0500 Message-ID: <12btmfqdm4f6q3c@corp.supernews.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> <_KAvg.142548$S61.119428@edtnps90> You need at least an odd number of 1/4 wavelengths to satisfy the boundary conditions. You need at least three to define a plane (or cone, if you want a 50 ohm feedpoint) 73 H. NQ5H Article: 226798 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "g. beat" <@> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500 Message-ID: "Bart Bailey" wrote in message news:44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil... > In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on > Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: > > I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, > we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, > might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. > Bart - Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT). The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !! IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your situation. You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical --- that does not require the radials field !! w9gb Article: 226799 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:50:13 +0100 Message-ID: "hasan schiers" wrote in message news:e9lnpg$det$1@news.netins.net... > I don't know about boundary conditions, but when I use this program to > evaluate the following system: > > 3.62 Mhz, 18.3 meter height (simulating an inverted L with 25.4 ohms Rrad) > > Resistivity 25, Permittivity 25 > > 2mm radials, 4mm antenna wire, radials 1 mm depth (actually #14 insulated > wire, stapled to the lawn and sinking in gradually) > > ..it shows my predicted efficiency with (26) 50' long radials to be about > 90%. > > My measurements indicated I am getting about 88%. Pretty good agreement. > ========================================= Yes Hasan, good agreement. How did you determine efficiency to THAT degree of accuracy? ========================================= > What causes me to cringe, is that the program shows that I can reduce the > length of my radials from 16.1 meters to a little over 4 meters without > losing ANY significant efficiency. Given everything else I've read over the > years, that just seems to be way too good to be true. ========================================= You've been reading books and magazines about rules-of-thumb written by old-wives. At 3.62 MHz and a radial length of 16 metres the attenuation approaches 100 decibels. So there's no current flowing in the radials beyond 5 metres. You can remove the excess 12 metres. They are not doing anything. What small current density there is beyond 5 metres is all flowing in the soil. The cross-sectional area of the soil carries the small current just as well as the radials. ========================================= > Now, I suppose I could rip up my 26 radials and shorten them all to about 5 > meters and re-measure my efficiency, but that's a LOT of work (and it's 97 > degrees out with a dew point in the mid 70's). Not going to happen. > > Here's the kicker... I have 1000' of remaining wire to put down (and I am > going to add it). If this value of 4 or 5 meters (15 feet, let's say) is > even remotely correct, I can put down 66 more radials (although they would > be interlaced with the existing 26 longer ones of 50' each). > > Using my initial length of 50', I can put down 20 more radials, giving me a > total of 46 radials 50' long. ========================================== Yes. Use the program to calculate efficiency with the extra 20 radials. Assume all the radials are 5 metres long. But you may not think the meagre 3% or 0.13dB in efficiency is worth all the labour and back-ache. By now you are beginning to appreciate how useful the program is. ========================================== > > Reg, you program seems to be telling me that I would get the maximum benefit > by putting in 66 more radials approximately 15' long, and that installing > them at 50' would be wasting 35' of wire per radial, and reducing radial > coverage as well. > > So...what should I do: > > 1. Add 66 greatly shortened radials (accepting Reg's program as correct) > > or > > 2. Add 20 radials, maintaining my 50' length that I originally used. > > I look forward to comments. ========================================== Hasan, if I were you I would lay some extra short radials between the existing long radials - and get some Sloan's liniment to be massaged into my back. But the increase in efficiency would be un-measurable. You are fortunate to have very low soil resistivity. Mine is about 70 ohm-metres and for years on the 160m band I have had 7 radials about 3 metres long plus an incoming lead water pipe. ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 226800 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:22:59 -0400 From: John Popelish Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> Message-ID: Fred McKenzie wrote: > John- > > Its hard for an old fogey like me to follow the details of this thread. > To start with, I'm not familiar with the toys mentioned. (snip) I think he might be talking about a Hoberman sphere: http://hoberman.com/fold/Sphere/sphere.htm Article: 226801 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Yuri Blanarovich" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:22:42 -0400 Reg wrote among other stuff: > You've been reading books and magazines about rules-of-thumb written > by old-wives. At 3.62 MHz and a radial length of 16 metres the > attenuation approaches 100 decibels. So there's no current flowing in > the radials beyond 5 metres. You can remove the excess 12 metres. > They are not doing anything. What small current density there is > beyond 5 metres is all flowing in the soil. The cross-sectional area > of the soil carries the small current just as well as the radials. > ========================================== > Yes. Use the program to calculate efficiency with the extra 20 > radials. Assume all the radials are 5 metres long. But you may not > think the meagre 3% or 0.13dB in efficiency is worth all the labour > and back-ache. By now you are beginning to appreciate how useful the > program is. > ========================================== Reg, NEC4 engine can accommodate on the ground or buried radials in modeling and calculating vertical antenna parameters and performance. I bet Roy has his hair standing up, or perhaps still trying to recover from the "appreciation" of your program, unless he is still running calculations :-) You are trivilializing, ignoring 100 years or so of vertical antenna research, measurements and misleading innocent users of your program. You might be right in calculating the resonant frequency of piece of wire in the dirt, but that is far from its contribution to the vertical antenna performance and efficiency. You better switch to some better quality vino and read up on the subject. :-) Yuri K3BU Article: 226802 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 19 Jul 2006 19:41:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153363263.979619.289230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Thanks Cecil I haven't experience with the antenna, a colleague suggest possibilitie in a RC meeting, but fans of bazooka insisted on "all wheather quieter" (in addition, on various internet selling sites bazooka it is offered being "less noisy"). I think if this was the case would be enough to install on plain dipole a RF ckoke or standard trifilar balun + a ckoke to ground on de rig. what do you think about? I have seen very well documented measurements about claims about "EH Antennas" (my predilect Roswell alien antenna :>)), but i haven't find anything similar about "silents bazookas" :>( Here, there are many "hard to die" myths, and I can=B4't deal alone with all of them, hi hi. SWR related are the mains but antenna gain specific myths run "elbow to elbow" 73's Miguel LU 6ETJ www.solred.com.ar/lu6etj Article: 226803 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:57:08 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153353216.895669.181590@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44bef104$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> an old freind wrote: > > CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw > gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS > You have, what we call in the midwest, a MORON CHIP problem. The part of your brain that keeps you from being a total moron, is broken. tom K0TAR Article: 226804 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BEF6DF.3090605@fuse.net> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:22:07 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> John Popelish wrote: > Fred McKenzie wrote: > >> John- >> >> Its hard for an old fogey like me to follow the details of this >> thread. To start with, I'm not familiar with the toys mentioned. > > (snip) > > I think he might be talking about a Hoberman sphere: > http://hoberman.com/fold/Sphere/sphere.htm Yes, My wife informs me that it is a Hoberman sphere. Thanks. Article: 226805 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 19 Jul 2006 20:44:11 -0700 Message-ID: <1153367051.402482.124650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Tom Ring wrote: > an old freind wrote: > > > > CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw > > gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS > > > > You have, what we call in the midwest, a MORON CHIP problem. > > The part of your brain that keeps you from being a total moron, is broken. Frankly I thining it is you that is missing something, asence of humor. I tend to supect form your posts it was surgiccaly removed at some point > > tom > K0TAR Article: 226806 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 19 Jul 2006 21:42:35 -0700 Message-ID: <1153370555.394879.4780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Here in Buenos Aires (near de Atlantic Ocean and the River Plate) it is a very humid area, our typical old wives phrase for all the illness is "lo que mata es la humedad" (what kills you is the humidity) ;>) (R to Adam I don't see your 2k5 answer, and R also to your doubts about a documented quieter performance, well, I am just searching for a documented falsehood of these extended claims, hi hi) Another antenna very reputed here as "quieter" it is a simple triangular loop, similar to Cecil's example, maybe the static explanation is OK. But... very few days at the year we have low humidity climate. (I never have burn a FET o MOS IC by touch them in my 38 years of continuated activity in electronics, but, yes, I kill various equipments by invert its polarity :>) ) Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in these conditions? cheers Miguel Article: 226807 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:56:29 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK Article: 226808 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 20 Jul 2006 01:09:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1153382997.351692.12600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. > - SWL's normally listen to AM stations. - How would they hear a CW station? > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp CM, Yes - Many Shortwave Radio Listener's (SWL's) do just that. Listen to the best "AM" International Shortwave Radio Broadcasters that they can 'hear' at their location. and morse code is not on their mind ~ RHF { just like 'html' is not on my mind as i simply type these words on rrs } . . . . Article: 226809 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 20 Jul 2006 01:14:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1153383279.604912.16680@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> an old freind wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > > Slow Code wrote: > > > SWL's should learn CW too. > > > You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending > > > an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. > > > > SWL's normally listen to AM stations. > > How would they hear a CW station? > - CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC - no matter the mode cw gets trough even without a tranmitter - for that vital signal SOS > > -- > > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp aof - not if no one is listening ~ RHF { radio - it's about communicating } Article: 226810 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bart Bailey Subject: Re: Hustler / Newtronics 5BTV Message-ID: <44c24eca.2012128@bart.spawar.mil> References: <44bdca47.760212@bart.spawar.mil> <44c9688e.8930969@bart.spawar.mil> <1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> <44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:45:52 GMT In Message-ID: posted on Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:23:07 -0500, "g. beat" <@> wrote: > >"Bart Bailey" wrote in message >news:44c19a48.3417774@bart.spawar.mil... >> In Message-ID:<1btsb2pkem8q6aqdalnm0472j79ocphfl9@4ax.com> posted on >> Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:44:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >> >> I haven't purchased it yet, but am on the verge of doing so, >> we'll see what the SWR situation is then. I'm not holding my breath, >> might have to load up the feedline etc. with snap around chokes. >> >Bart - > >Skip it an move on (DON'T BUY IT). >The radial field is 1/2 of the antenna - for a 1/4 wave vertical !! >IF $$ your problem, save your $$$ for the right antenna -- in your >situation. Geography is the problem. I only have a very small area available. >You would be better served purchasing a 1/2 wave vertical --- >that does not require the radials field !! That's some 60 odd feet on 80m right? I can't really go that high without guying which is just as restricted as radials are. ...and if you're going to suggest a self supporting tower, that does get into the financial consideration area. Thanks for the heads up in any case, I may still get the Hustler, I'll just lower my expectations for its performance. -- Bart Article: 226811 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:03:17 +0100 Message-ID: > NEC4 engine can accommodate on the ground or buried radials in modeling and > calculating vertical antenna parameters and performance. > ======================================= How many weeks of user training does NEC4 require? Hour many hours of work and imagination are required to enter input data? What is the purchase price of the latest version? Is it legally available to non-USA citizens? ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 226812 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Big Rich Soprano Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:25:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3fmub2tv9kvhmlmgflrcm7dijio47mgc4t@4ax.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> >Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's >Morris? Some fictitious cat... Article: 226813 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Big Rich Soprano Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:27:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> >> SWL's should learn CW too. >> You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending >> an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help. >SWL's normally listen to AM stations. >How would they hear a CW station? When i was a kid in the 60's a local ship to shore cw station could be heard just under the local AM broadcast band station my family listened to. That's what got my interest in radio going. The same thing happens on short wave if you detune it right... Article: 226814 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? From: "Alun L. Palmer" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: 20 Jul 2006 13:47:03 +0200 jawod wrote in news:44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net: > RHF wrote: >> SC, >> >> Morris Code > uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it > > (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) > Wasn't morris the cat in the TV ads who eat with his paws? Article: 226815 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:01:06 GMT Big Rich Soprano wrote: > When i was a kid in the 60's a local ship to shore cw station could be > heard just under the local AM broadcast band station my family > listened to. That's what got my interest in radio going. The same > thing happens on short wave if you detune it right... In that case the AM carrier is the BFO for the CW signal. How many SWL's are going to accidentally "detune it right" for the purpose of hearing an SOS? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226816 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 20 Jul 2006 05:03:10 -0700 Message-ID: <1153396990.480103.315760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Reg Edwards wrote: > You've been reading books and magazines about rules-of-thumb written > by old-wives. At 3.62 MHz and a radial length of 16 metres the > attenuation approaches 100 decibels. So there's no current flowing in > the radials beyond 5 metres. You can remove the excess 12 metres. > They are not doing anything. What small current density there is > beyond 5 metres is all flowing in the soil. The cross-sectional area > of the soil carries the small current just as well as the radials. How did you verify your program Reg? I can go outside right now and measure current in a 40 meter vertical radial system, and 100 feet from the base there is significant radial current. Your programs results also dramatically disagree with Brown, Lewis, and Epstein's data in one of the most comprehensive radial studies ever done. 73 tom Article: 226817 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 20 Jul 2006 05:11:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1153397502.554403.52800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> lu6etj wrote: > Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in > these conditions? No. It makes no difference at all. If you have a static build-up problem all you need do is install a leak resistance or a suitable RF choke to ground. One should have that in an antenna anyway. I have the choice of any antenna I want and unlimited space to install them. I often have several antenna types up for any one band at the very same time. I've had a coaxial dipole up along with another dipole the same height, and there is no noticeable difference in any aspect of performance. I've even removed the shorted wire connection (the center conductor connection past the feedpoint) and restored it, and the antenna performance remains virtually identical in both noise and bandwidth. 73 Tom Article: 226818 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153396990.480103.315760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:19:41 +0100 Message-ID: <0tadnX4De7dR6CLZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@bt.com> > Your programs results also dramatically disagree with Brown, Lewis, and > Epstein's data in one of the most comprehensive radial studies ever > done. > > 73 tom > ========================================= All three of B,L & E forgot to determine ground resistivity and permittivity. That's hardly comprehensive! ---- Reg. Article: 226819 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Message-ID: References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:33:42 -0400 On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:01:06 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >In that case the AM carrier is the BFO for the CW signal. >How many SWL's are going to accidentally "detune it right" >for the purpose of hearing an SOS? You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it just means ragged tone. Article: 226820 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153363263.979619.289230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153370555.394879.4780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153397502.554403.52800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:32:24 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > lu6etj wrote: >> Do you think that static precipitation it is a valid explanation in >> these conditions? > > No. It makes no difference at all. It certainly made a difference in the Arizona desert under conditions that cause precipitation static in a dipole with no DC path between the elements. Many hams have direct experience and have reported it. Here is a discussion of such over on eHam.net. http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/83174?ehamsid=87e9956f8473775c84a978db4ce15751 > If you have a static build-up problem all you need do is install a leak > resistance or a suitable RF choke to ground. One should have that in an > antenna anyway. But a lot of hams don't know that and run their dipoles with the two coax conductors DC isolated from each other. I'll bet the "plain dipoles" being described by lu6etj as noisy don't have a leak resistance. The Double Bazooka is automatically protected from static buildup between the elements as are loops, and folded dipoles. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226821 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <6gKvg.174657$F_3.5191@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:36:03 GMT Al Klein wrote: > You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's > extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is > strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as > noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it > just means ragged tone. So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when a BFO is not present? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226822 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dale Parfitt" References: <1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com> Subject: Re: A/B Switching Message-ID: <74Lvg.15453$A8.9001@trnddc02> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:56:35 GMT "Win" wrote in message news:1shsb291lfah62ofblabrjc6089l0d125u@4ax.com... >I recently put an A/B switch between my FT-1000 MPV and my IC-746 to > make comparisons between receivers. I would now like to leave this > A/B switch in line, as I would like to use one radio for CW, and the > other for SSB. The IC-746 is known for having a sensitive front end > (easy to damage). I am running 200 watts from the FT-1K. The A/B > switch grounds the unused port. My fear is that the FT-1K will damage > the front end of the IC-746, even as the IC-746 port is grounded. > > I have to assume, no matter how diligent I think I will be, at some > point in time, both receivers will be on the same band, near the same > frequency. > > Is it probable that the grounded loop to the 746, being 1/8 inch from > 200 watts, will survive without damage? > > Has anyone operated an IC-746 under these conditions? > > Win, W0LZ My concern would be the port- port isolation of the A/B switch. Depending on the mfg, they're all over the map. Dale W4OP Article: 226823 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:57:36 -0500 Message-ID: <12buve0hud7iu21@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> I think he's referring to the Maxwell of Maxwell's Equations. "Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message news:QOXmYVFdkyvEFAAY@ifwtech.co.uk... > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >>I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >>(both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" > > "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? > > > -- > 73 from Ian GM3SEK Article: 226824 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:21:50 GMT Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >> (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" > > "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? There's a false attribution above, Ian. It should be: > "lu6etj" wrote: >> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a >> fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article >> "Another look on reflections" -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226825 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:22:11 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Length & number of radials References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Reg Edwards wrote: > >> Your programs results also dramatically disagree with Brown, Lewis, >and >> Epstein's data in one of the most comprehensive radial studies ever >> done. >> >> 73 tom >> >========================================= > >All three of B,L & E forgot to determine ground resistivity and >permittivity. That's hardly comprehensive! > Do your predictions fit BL&E's measurements, or those of Sevick, for *any* assumed values of ground resistivity and permittivity? Also , please tell us more about the fan of 1.0m radials, on the ground, that will give ninety-several percent feedpoint efficiency. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226826 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:53:08 GMT Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: > >> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of Maxwell, >> (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on reflections" > > > "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? > > It's the royal "their." 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 226827 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:19:45 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Not vouching for "degree of accuracy", but here's how I estimate efficiency: (Known Rrad/Measured R at X=0) at the feedpoint. If my Inverted L has a predicted Rrad of 25.9 ohms and I measure the R at resonance as 29 ohms, the 3.1 ohms is return loss. This would indicate an approximate efficiency of 89%. It seems to me to be a fair approximation. When you have added as many radials as possible and watched the input R at the feedpoint (at resonance) drop asymptotically toward the predicted or "known" Rrad, your final "R" value is used in: Rrad/R. For a perfect ground Rrad = R I use an MFJ-269 antenna analyzer for the measurements. Have I gone astray? (aside from my starting value of Rrad, which I took from two sources: your rule of thumb formula for Inverted L's, and ON4UN's Low Band DX'ing Handbook). Both your formula and ON4UN agree as to the value of Rrad for my antenna. I'll replay to other aspects of your response in another post. 73 and thanks for the new program. As you can tell, I've been playing with it. As you can also tell, the implications with respect to length of radials required for good efficiency are causing my brain to cramp. ...hasan, N0AN "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:ZuydnULP8LzUfyPZRVnyrA@bt.com... > > ========================================= > Yes Hasan, good agreement. How did you determine efficiency to THAT > degree of accuracy? > ========================================= Article: 226828 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153363263.979619.289230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153370555.394879.4780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153397502.554403.52800@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:26:55 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > I've even removed the shorted wire connection (the center > conductor connection past the feedpoint) and restored it, and the > antenna performance remains virtually identical in both noise and > bandwidth. If these tests were not performed under precipitation static conditions, they obviously wouldn't show any difference. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226829 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:38:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Frank, How about posting a summary of them, for my example in an earlier post (I listed all the input values for Reg's program). I'd LOVE to have the data for my measurement verification!. If you need the my values I can send them to you for a run. I'd be very excited to see what NEC-4 says, and use them to validate my measurements. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Frank" wrote in message news:NTLvg.147445$771.19250@edtnps89... >> That is quite a bold statement and looks like trivilializing, ignoring >> the real workings of vertical antennas and radials! >> >> What would NEC4 say? >> >> 73 Yuri, K3BU > > NEC 4 produces significantly different results. I can provide NEC code > and NEC 4 output files if anybody is interested. > > 73, > > Frank > (VE6CB) > Article: 226830 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:03:14 -0500 Message-ID: References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Reg, I think you made a typo...if I go with the shorter 5 metre radials, I have enough wire to put in 66 more radials, not 20. If I stay with my existing 50' length per radial, then I have enough wire for 20 more. I have the wire. It won't be used for antennas. I have 200 more lawn staples, so there is no burying, they are "stapled" to the surface, soon to fall below the "thatch". My 1000' of copper wire has become too valuable to let sit on spools in the basement. (In case you haven't noticed, copper prices have gone through the roof!) So...I'll be putting down either (20) x 50 ft or (66) x 15 ft radials. Don't worry about my back. When you have a radial plate and a light hammer, stringing tons of radials is a piece of cake...paying for the copper (in the future) is going to generate pain elsewhere. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:ZuydnULP8LzUfyPZRVnyrA@bt.com... > ========================================== > Yes. Use the program to calculate efficiency with the extra 20 > radials. Assume all the radials are 5 metres long. But you may not > think the meagre 3% or 0.13dB in efficiency is worth all the labour > and back-ache. By now you are beginning to appreciate how useful the > program is. > ========================================== . > ========================================== > > Hasan, if I were you I would lay some extra short radials between the > existing long radials - and get some Sloan's liniment to be massaged > into my back. But the increase in efficiency would be un-measurable. > You are fortunate to have very low soil resistivity. Mine is about 70 > ohm-metres and for years on the 160m band I have had 7 radials about 3 > metres long plus an incoming lead water pipe. > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ > > Article: 226831 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <6x2cHZZaN6vEFAn5@ifwtech.co.uk> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:38:02 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: >Ian White GM3SEK wrote: >> H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >>> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a fan of >>>Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article "Another look on >>>reflections" >> "Their" article? Walt has a ghost writer? > >There's a false attribution above, Ian. It should be: > >> "lu6etj" wrote: >>> I knew the excellent article of Walter Maxwell, I am a >>> fan of Maxwell, (both Maxwells) from their famous article >>> "Another look on reflections" You're right, Cecil - my apologies to all concerned. -- 73 from Ia