Article: 227133 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Radial attenuation Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:16:30 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:22:38 +0100, "Reg Edwards" wrote: >and Richard Clark would again unjustly accuse me of trolling. ;o) Hi Reggie, Do those nails in your palms really 'urt that much? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC (rolling dice at the bottom of Reggie's posts) Article: 227134 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44C645A4.46D82830@shaw.ca> From: Irv Finkleman Subject: Re: Capacitors for HF Antenna References: <1153727139.482229.205720@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:23:40 GMT palaniappan chellappan wrote: > > Cecil Moore wrote: > > Bill Turner wrote: > > > You didn't give many details such as the bandwidth of the antenna, but > > > if you use the NP0 type ceramic capacitors you should be ok. Loops, > > > especially small ones, are notorious for narrow bandwidth and stable > > > caps are a must. > > > > I once used disc ceramic bypass caps to try to tune an > > antenna. They went up in flames. For a small loop, I > > would at least use doorknob quality caps. > > Thanks to all for replies, > Actually my requirement is to pump 4W into 1meter diameter loop > antenna. > I need to tune the antenna to resonance 13.56Mhz and then match it. > I using some fixed capacitors and variable capacitors of small range > for fine tuning. > Now i am using ceramic fixed and ceramic variable capacitors and found > that its performance is good (I am not sure, the problem may in my > transceiver also). > > I thinking of trying other capacitors, how about following combinations > mica fixed + mica variable > mica fixed + air variable > > Is it worth to buy mica capacitors ? > can i simply buy mica capacitors ? , i found some vendors selling rf > mica capacitors , > is there any big difference between them for HF frequency ? > > regards, > palani Try a short length of RG-8 or similar. Cut it longer than necessary and then prune it to length. Irv VE6BP -------------------------------------- Visit my HomePage at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv/index.html Visit my Baby Sofia website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv4/index.htm Visit my OLDTIMERS website at http://members.shaw.ca/finkirv5/index.htm -------------------- Irv Finkleman, Grampa/Ex-Navy/Old Fart/Ham Radio VE6BP Calgary, Alberta, Canada Article: 227135 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 25 Jul 2006 09:31:14 -0700 Message-ID: <1153845074.694631.112920@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> David G. Nagel wrote: > Al Klein wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:37:53 -0400, "clfe" > > wrote: > > > > > >>ago or better. How did the rep act like a snob? He turned to his bud who was > >>with him behind the table and ignored others "trying" to gain his attention > >>and talk to him about whatever. Oh - he may look and say Hi, but god forbid > >>you interrupt his conversation with his buddy. So much for the "MEET YOUR > >>ARRL REP HERE" > > > > > > Instead of canceling your membership you should have complained to > > Newington. I've known a lot of League reps - some are great, some are > > so-so and some are terrible. About the same mix as any large group of > > human beings. Canceling your membership didn't make the situation any > > better. > > > Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote > for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians. > > Dave WD9BDZ anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should inquire of Carl Stevenson Article: 227136 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Walter Maxwell Subject: Re: Radial attenuation Message-ID: References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:32:49 -0400 On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:22:38 +0100, "Reg Edwards" wrote: >Cecil, > >There has been a temporary improvement in my Alzeimer's affliction. > >The attenuation along a radial is given by = > >Attenuation = ( R / Ro + G * Ro ) / 2 nepers. > >Where - > >R = HF Conductor resistance. >G = Shunt leakance or conductance, related to soil conductivity. >Ro = Resistive component of line impedance Zo. > >One neper = 8.686 dB. > >If I published the source code you would be asking even more questions >and Richard Clark would again unjustly accuse me of trolling. ;o) >---- >Reg. > Hi Reg, I believe your temporary Alzhiemers affliction began some time ago, when you repeatedly reminded me that BLE forgot to indicate the ground conditions. Even though the conditions are irrelevant when sufficient radials effect a near-perfect ground, you either skimmed BLE too quickly, or the Alzhiemers effect had already taken place. I'm going to quote from two BLE pages below: "Fig 7 earth conductivity = 0.2 x 10^-4 mhos/cm^3 Fig 8 earth conductivity = 1.0 x 10^-4 mhos/cm^3 Fig 9 earth conductivity = 0.2 x 10^-4 mhos/cm^3 Fig 10 earth conductivity =1.0 x 10^-4 mhos/cm^3" "Fig 18 shows the distribution of earth loss for G = 22 degrees, and G = 88 degrees, for 15 and 113 radial wires, when the frequency was 3000 kilocycles and the earth conductivity is 0.2 x 10^-4 mhos per cm^3." It's true they didn't mention permittivity, but at least they did recognize conductivity, and reported it. On the other hand, concerning the difference in results between using BLE or Radials3, unless I missed the critical point somewhere along the way, perhaps the difference has been misunderstood, where Radials 3 shows usefulness drops off more quickly with distance from the radiator than BLE. As I understand it, when only a few radials are present, the longer length is unnecessary. I now quote again from BLE: "Fig. 6 shows the actual current in the earth for the same conditions. These diagrams show that the ground system consisting of only 15 radial wires need not be more than 0.1 wavelength long, while the system consisting of 113 radials is still effective out to 0.5 wavelength." Does this not agree with Reg's Radials3? If not, please tell me what I'm missing. (I do not have Radials3, and am only commenting from what I've read in the various posts.) Walt, W2DU Article: 227137 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:36:06 -0500 Message-ID: <12cci3kou98rq35@corp.supernews.com> References: <44C6294C.C57BD5EC@mred.com> In 1964 I passed the 13 WPM test on the first try at the Dallas FCC office. I was 14. There are plenty who can top that, I'm sure. The rulemakers "stabbed themselves in the back with their own ballpoints" (To quote an article from Electronics World in 1962.) when they created CB. But, as said article went on to point out, the industry needed a shot in the arm. That article has stuck in my head to this day. This isn't about creating the best operators, it's about selling the most junk and having the most votes. 73 H. NQ5H Article: 227138 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:37:55 -0500 Message-ID: <12cci71i2kp027d@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> This is hilarious. No matter in what context, it appears bazookas cause long threads. 73 H., NQ5H Article: 227139 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: ricknj10@hotmail.com (Rick) Subject: Re: Rotor Cable? Message-ID: <44c6478f.14504875@news.optonline.net> References: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:41:15 GMT Buy 300 feet of regular cable. The kind made for 100 foot runs. Do a quick check on the kitchen table. Measure the voltage at the motor, note the voltage drop in the cable. Rig up a transformer in series with the line to the rotor such that it kicks up the voltage. I did this successfully a while back. Yes it takes a little effort but works perfectly. As I remember I kicked up the 24 volts on a CDE rotor to about 30. The other wires in the cable are used for detecting the position of the rotor and can tolerate the long run. The other thing you can do if you have enough scrap romex or other copper wire is to parallel it with the rotor cable. Not necessary to have enough to go the entire 300 feet. For example, if you have enough of say #12 romex cable to go from the shack to the base of the tower, use it to parrallel the rotor cable and make your measurements. Use your head, experiment. It is just ohms law we are dealing with here, not rocket science. Good luck. Rick K2XT Article: 227140 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Richard Fry" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Subject: Re: Radial attenuation Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:03:13 -0500 Message-ID: <44c64e05_2@newsfeed.slurp.net> "Walter Maxwell" wrote > ... I now quote again from BLE: > "Fig. 6 shows the actual current in the earth for the same conditions. > These > diagrams show that the ground system consisting of only 15 radial wires > need not > be more than 0.1 wavelength long, while the system consisting of 113 > radials is > still effective out to 0.5 wavelength." > > Does this not agree with Reg's Radials3? If not, please tell me what I'm > missing. (I do not have Radials3, and am only commenting from what I've > read in > the various posts.) ___________ Possibly not. Here is a paste of one the early responses to the first thread started by Reg on this subject , which shows that with radials_3, radiation efficiency doesn't just stop improving with longer radials, it can also get worse. QUOTE Reg, a bit confused by these results from RADIAL_3 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% ?? Dan END QUOTE /RF Article: 227141 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Cutting cable length to match 1/4 wave 162 MHz antenna? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 10:02:31 -0700 Message-ID: <9chcc29p0isct558rn4vvq2sdhnrh1uv70@4ax.com> References: <59ywg.3365$bP5.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:38:04 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> wrote: >Does anybody know the input impedance of his receivers in use? Hi Helmut, Stand-alone receivers may differ, but in transceivers, the receive path, up to a point, is identical to the transmit path. As such, a 50 Ohm design is universal. Now, if there is any divergence from that value, you must expect that signal power is being reflected away from the detector. Certainly, any high Z active amplifier may be used, but in an untuned front end, this is hardly a virtue. Stand-alone receivers, like the R-390, can have higher Z inputs with tuned front ends. The R-390 includes what is called an antenna trimmer to further optimize the input. It also has two distinct antenna inputs, balanced and unbalanced. >How would you measure the input impedance? This takes a special signal generator with a known output Z. You simply place a series variable resistor in line, and watch the receiver's signal meter as you vary the resistance until half the voltage is observed. The input Z is the sum of the signal generator's output Z and the variable resistor's value. Take warning that a variable resistor's value is going to be the next difficult thing to determine. It is not simply a matter of measuring its value (or rotational angle) with a VOM. However, absolute accuracy is rarely needed in this regard and a VOM reading will be suitably close. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 227142 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <12cci71i2kp027d@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:10:02 GMT H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: > This is hilarious. > No matter in what context, it appears bazookas cause long threads. I don't remember the bazooka ever being discussed before in the context of precipitation static so it is essentially a brand new topic. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227143 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: 25 Jul 2006 10:12:17 -0700 Message-ID: <1153847537.309493.36530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > That's what you have to decide. > > SC SC - 10-4 Good Buddy ! :o) ~ RHF I give Honor and Respect to any Amateur Radio {Ham} Operator : Who has built and uses his own Receiver and CW Transmitter for regular CW use. I will gladly read their posts and listen to their arguments as to "Why" CW is important to the ARS. - BUT - "IF" all they have every done is bought ready-made equipment and claim that CW is necessary to the ARS - please don't waste my time. . . . . Article: 227144 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:44:02 -0500 Message-ID: <12ccm30e6qt3e67@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153343561.889811.229020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <12cci71i2kp027d@corp.supernews.com> Actually, I recall your mentioning it before, Cecil. But I'll be damned if I'll go search threads from near half a decade ago to prove it. Brand new topic or not, it involves bazookas. Cheers H. NQ5H "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:Kfsxg.137782$H71.54135@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com... > H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: >> This is hilarious. >> No matter in what context, it appears bazookas cause long threads. > > I don't remember the bazooka ever being discussed before > in the context of precipitation static so it is essentially > a brand new topic. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227145 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:10:52 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153847537.309493.36530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On 25 Jul 2006 10:12:17 -0700, "RHF" wrote: >I give Honor and Respect to any Amateur Radio {Ham} Operator : >Who has built and uses his own Receiver and CW Transmitter >for regular CW use. I will gladly read their posts and listen to >their arguments as to "Why" CW is important to the ARS. >- BUT - "IF" all they have every done is bought ready-made >equipment and claim that CW is necessary to the ARS >- please don't waste my time. ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different things. What does one have to do with the other? Did you build your own car? Dishwasher? Toaster? Razor? Bill, W6WRT Article: 227146 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Cutting cable length to match 1/4 wave 162 MHz antenna? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:12:44 -0700 Message-ID: References: <59ywg.3365$bP5.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:38:04 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> wrote: >Side note: >Did you note I left out the receiver? >Does anybody know the input impedance of his receivers in use? >How would you measure the input impedance? ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ I would think a MFJ SWR analyzer would do it. Haven't tried it, but can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227147 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Radial attenuation Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:11:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:32:49 -0400, Walter Maxwell wrote: > you either skimmed BLE too quickly, or the Alzhiemers >effect had already taken place. Hi Walt, Reggie's only defense against plagiarism (a charge he loves to bandy about) is claiming to have NOT read BLE. It mimics his railing against software users as intellectual cripples when he has a trove of software offered like dope to school children on the playground. Reggie, It is amazing how you can spit in the faces of those commending you for your software; and you do it with full vigor and glee. You may want to ponder your legacy as a maker of crutches (un-referenced executables) or leaving a testimony in open source code. Even with these positive examples you sneer at your source to gain the rhetorical advantage, and yes, that makes you a troll (and this is decidedly different from what the Brit's call eccentrics, or what we call characters). The one complaint I've heard frequently from you when you are asked to write something comprehensive (there are models in history from Heavysides that you similarly dismiss) is that there is not enough time. You seem to have plenty enough time to anticipate my banter, or to otherwise respond to/with trivialities. This has got to be the height of decadence. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 227148 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:26:07 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> <44c4bbd9_1@news.iprimus.com.au> <44c63c89_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: <9db61$44c66290$453d9423$19131@FUSE.NET> Maxwell Smart #99 wrote: > jawod wrote: > >> test wrote: >> >>> jawod wrote: >>> >>>> I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's >>>> QST. It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can >>>> model it on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through >>>> a dipole or two). >>>> >>>> I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard >>>> in a sort of temporary fashion. >>>> >>>> Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia >>>> over Alaska. >>>> >>>> Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first >>>> antenna build? >>>> >>>> I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to >>>> use RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an >>>> UNUN or Balun in the article. >>>> >>>> What do youse think? Thinks? >>>> >>>> John >>>> AB8WH >>>> >>>> PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) >>> >>> >>> This antenna was meant to be fed as a multiband antenna using open >>> wire feedline and a tuner. >>> >>> Its height dependent. The takeoff angle on 20 is high. I myself would >>> use a dipole with open wire feedline. However the authors intentions >>> was for a compact multiband antenna. If you have trees use the large >>> loop as in the ARRL antenna handbook. >>> >>> For a better antenna that feeds with open wire line and that has a >>> ideal low angle pattern on all band from 20 meters to 10. Look at the >>> horizontal magnetic slot antenna. You can find details in the latest >>> RSGB handbook. >>> >>> A good tuner for these antennas is the Balanced Tuner by Measures. >>> >>> >>> Pat >> >> Pat, >> Thanks for the input. >> I have a question. >> >> Why do you say that the antenna was meant to be fed using open wire >> feedline? >> >> In the article, it shows an SO239 bulkhead to be attached to RG8U cable. >> >> John >> AB8WH > > I Hope we talking about the same antenna? > > I am talking about the antenna in this months QST page 38 ZS6AAA > > "The Compact Quad Multiband Hf Antenna" August 2006 > > So i hope i have not crossed wires here. But this antenna is open wire > fed, supported on a single fibreglass pole. > > > Pat > > > Pat, Sorry OM, I was talking about the "Loosiana Loop", an inverted delta loop on a PVC mast. This one's on p. 32. Article: 227149 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: 25 Jul 2006 11:28:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1153852119.194366.137430@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Bill Turner wrote: > ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > > On 25 Jul 2006 10:12:17 -0700, "RHF" > wrote: > > >I give Honor and Respect to any Amateur Radio {Ham} Operator : > >Who has built and uses his own Receiver and CW Transmitter > >for regular CW use. I will gladly read their posts and listen to > >their arguments as to "Why" CW is important to the ARS. > >- BUT - "IF" all they have every done is bought ready-made > >equipment and claim that CW is necessary to the ARS > >- please don't waste my time. > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > > Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different > things. What does one have to do with the other? everything if you ask most of the CW advocates > > Did you build your own car? Dishwasher? Toaster? Razor? > > Bill, W6WRT Article: 227150 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:35:49 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Open-Sleeve Antenna Message-ID: I came across this in the ARRL Antenna Book (p. 7-21) 20th Edition. For such a simple set-up, why haven't I heard of anyone using it? I understand some commercial verticals use this design in some way. From what I have read, the open-sleeve design has a simple lambda/4 vertical with two side vertical elements of given d diameter and distance D from the center vertical (monopole). Given the improvement of SWR bandwidth shown, why isn't this a more popular approach? (or is it, and I just don't know it?) John AB8WH Article: 227151 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> <4jqxg.170368$771.62308@edtnps89> Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:44:03 GMT >> Cecil, that is what I did with NEC, and got an efficiency >> of about 35%. Using the ratio of Rr/(Rr+Rloss) >> produces a totally different answer. >> >> NEC 4 computes a normalized far field, at 1 m, in units >> of volts. NEC 2 incorrectly shows units of V/m. > > W7EL tells us that EZNEC doesn't display the surface > wave which obviously contains power. Would that affect > the efficiency using the integration technique? > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Good point Cecil, I forgot about the surface wave. Will have to find a way of including it. Frank Article: 227152 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test. Message-ID: References: <44C6294C.C57BD5EC@mred.com> <12cci3kou98rq35@corp.supernews.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:46:17 -0400 On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:36:06 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" wrote: >This isn't about creating the best operators, it's about selling the most >junk and having the most votes. But "the hobby will die" and "we need qualified operators" sounds so much nicer than "the manufacturers need more money". Article: 227153 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <44c59219$0$2926$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <084cc2pa83r32o3ibkvf3ac79o7npu4nfj@4ax.com> <12ccga7n3do8ta0@corp.supernews.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:02:11 -0400 On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:05:27 -0500, "David G. Nagel" wrote: >Remember also that most reps are elected by the few who bother to vote >for them. Most are unopposed. Sort of like politicians. And, like politics, those who don't vote deserve the representatives they get. Article: 227154 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: <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <44c59219$0$2926$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <084cc2pa83r32o3ibkvf3ac79o7npu4nfj@4ax.com> <12ccga7n3do8ta0@corp.supernews.com> <1153845074.694631.112920@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:02:49 -0400 On 25 Jul 2006 09:31:14 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: >anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should >inquire of Carl Stevenson Or Steve Mendelson? Article: 227155 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:00:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4iqcc2l2lqa7fg1mahoma3afors04qm8r8@4ax.com> References: <1153847537.309493.36530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153852119.194366.137430@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On 25 Jul 2006 11:28:39 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" wrote: >> Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different >> things. What does one have to do with the other? >everything if you ask most of the CW advocates ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ A non-answer. Try again. What does one have to do with the other? Bill, W6WRT Article: 227156 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:14:26 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? References: <1153847537.309493.36530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Bill Turner wrote: SNIPPED > > Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different > things. What does one have to do with the other? > > Did you build your own car? Dishwasher? Toaster? Razor? > > Bill, W6WRT :-) Bill, I had a master machinist work for me in the 1960s. He could make ANYTHING!! I asked him if he could make a car. Sure!! His reply: "All I need is a block of steel 6X6X20 feet, a large milling machine, and a large lathe." He was a Ham Radio Operator, Collins stuff of the 60s. /s/ DD W1MCE Article: 227157 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 25 Jul 2006 12:18:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1153855081.190895.69000@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On 25 Jul 2006 09:31:14 -0700, "an old friend" > wrote: > > >anyone that thinks you jion the ARRL and stand for office should > >inquire of Carl Stevenson > > Or Steve Mendelson? sorry don't know his story I Know Carl stried to stand for ARRL director (midalantic) and was refused a place on the ballot Article: 227158 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test. Date: 25 Jul 2006 12:19:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1153855197.865764.115610@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:36:06 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" > wrote: > > >This isn't about creating the best operators, it's about selling the most > >junk and having the most votes. > > But "the hobby will die" and "we need qualified operators" sounds so > much nicer than "the manufacturers need more money". the hobyy is dying have you been following the threads about ars numbers have you looked at the ages of folks at hamfests although yes the copmanies need a bigg enough market to stay in busness too Article: 227159 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: 25 Jul 2006 12:23:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1153855387.106686.133430@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Bill Turner wrote: > ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > > On 25 Jul 2006 11:28:39 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" > wrote: > > >> Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different > >> things. What does one have to do with the other? > > > >everything if you ask most of the CW advocates > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > > A non-answer. Try again. What does one have to do with the other? why try again? that is what is insited on by the CW advocates along with anybody that opposes the requirement is lazy or wnat to turn the ARS into CB no proof no evidence just mantras Id rather answer what does a CW test show about my abilty to operate on HF when I have no intention to ever use CW. I d love an answer to that question but I will nver get it either > > Bill, W6WRT Article: 227160 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dxAce Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:27:34 -0400 Message-ID: <44C670A6.43A73803@milestones.com> References: an old freind wrote: > Bill Turner wrote: > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > > > > On 25 Jul 2006 11:28:39 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" > > wrote: > > > > >> Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different > > >> things. What does one have to do with the other? > > > > > > >everything if you ask most of the CW advocates > > > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > > > > A non-answer. Try again. What does one have to do with the other? > why try again? > that is what is insited on by the CW advocates along with anybody that > opposes the requirement is lazy or wnat to turn the ARS into CB no > proof no evidence just mantras > > Id rather answer what does a CW test show about my abilty to operate on > HF when I have no intention to ever use CW. I d love an answer to that > question but I will nver get it either Face it, you're just lazy. (Besides being horribly retarded). Article: 227161 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: 25 Jul 2006 12:30:57 -0700 Message-ID: <1153855856.975478.152870@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: dxAce wrote: > an old freind wrote: > > > Bill Turner wrote: > > > ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > > > > > > On 25 Jul 2006 11:28:39 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different > > > >> things. What does one have to do with the other? > > > > > > > > > >everything if you ask most of the CW advocates > > > > > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > > > > > > A non-answer. Try again. What does one have to do with the other? > > why try again? > > that is what is insited on by the CW advocates along with anybody that > > opposes the requirement is lazy or wnat to turn the ARS into CB no > > proof no evidence just mantras > > > > Id rather answer what does a CW test show about my abilty to operate on > > HF when I have no intention to ever use CW. I d love an answer to that > > question but I will nver get it either > > Face it, you're just lazy. (Besides being horribly retarded). you are just the prooof I need to make my point about why the Hobby is in trouble Article: 227162 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:32:39 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you never took or passed a Code test. References: <44C6294C.C57BD5EC@mred.com> <12cci3kou98rq35@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Al Klein wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:36:06 -0500, "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" > wrote: > > >>This isn't about creating the best operators, it's about selling the most >>junk and having the most votes. > > > But "the hobby will die" and "we need qualified operators" sounds so > much nicer than "the manufacturers need more money". Listen! "THE MANUFACTURERS NEED MORE MONEY." "THE MANUFACTURERS NEED BIGGER MARKETS." "THE MANUFACTURERS NEED MORE ..." Design and manufacture of any electronics item requires a market to recover design costs, to recover manufacturing tooling costs, to cover distribution costs, to provide a return on investment, to provide a return on equity, to provide net profits to cover medical insurance, to provide net profits for stock retirement plans, to feed the engine of the economy. The cost of a single DSP chip that operates at high i.f. frequencies has to be recovered or the chip designer goes BANKRUPT. How many radios must be sold to recover a million dollar investment in a single chip? "THE MANUFACTURERS NEED BIGGER MARKETS." Follow the money. Understand our hobby/public service! Finally then, the question becomes not whether we are appliance operators [most of us are], but do we wish to advance the radio art? "How do we advance the radio art?" is a complex question with many answers. Is preserving historic skills part of the art? Is operating AM, when most HF is SSB, part of the art? Is ragchewing part of the art? Is EME part of the art? Is old fashioned RTTY part of the art? Is current digital communication part of the art [most of today's digital is actually ancient]? I say NO! But, taking the time, using the energy to learn, investing our money in technology and learning that technology is contributing to the art. Or, is it? /s/ DD W1MCE Article: 227163 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Walter Maxwell Subject: Re: Radial attenuation Message-ID: <1oscc2l66g8l0s1fdov2khphc0sfsumo83@4ax.com> References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:38:37 -0400 On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:11:28 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:32:49 -0400, Walter Maxwell >wrote: > >> you either skimmed BLE too quickly, or the Alzhiemers >>effect had already taken place. > >Hi Walt, > >Reggie's only defense against plagiarism (a charge he loves to bandy >about) is claiming to have NOT read BLE. It mimics his railing >against software users as intellectual cripples when he has a trove of >software offered like dope to school children on the playground. > >Reggie, > >It is amazing how you can spit in the faces of those commending you >for your software; and you do it with full vigor and glee. You may >want to ponder your legacy as a maker of crutches (un-referenced >executables) or leaving a testimony in open source code. Even with >these positive examples you sneer at your source to gain the >rhetorical advantage, and yes, that makes you a troll (and this is >decidedly different from what the Brit's call eccentrics, or what we >call characters). > >The one complaint I've heard frequently from you when you are asked to >write something comprehensive (there are models in history from >Heavysides that you similarly dismiss) is that there is not enough >time. You seem to have plenty enough time to anticipate my banter, or >to otherwise respond to/with trivialities. This has got to be the >height of decadence. > >73's >Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard, what a masterful discourse on Reggie's character, oops, I mean eccentricities! Quite similarly, your earlier admonition to his lack of appreciation of BLE in your stately defense of it as a document worthy of Lord Kelvin. Bravo! Walt, W2DU Article: 227164 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Cutting cable length to match 1/4 wave 162 MHz antenna? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:48:57 -0700 Message-ID: <9ctcc2dgp8k9qpkt8nhttoqmidambg1ufq@4ax.com> References: <59ywg.3365$bP5.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:12:44 -0700, Bill Turner wrote: >ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > >On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:38:04 +0200, Helmut Wabnig > <...._.--_.-_-..._-._.._--.@.-_---_-._*_.-_-> wrote: > >>Side note: >>Did you note I left out the receiver? >>Does anybody know the input impedance of his receivers in use? >>How would you measure the input impedance? > >------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > >I would think a MFJ SWR analyzer would do it. Haven't tried it, but >can't think of a reason why it wouldn't work. Hi Bill, Good suggestion. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 227165 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "cmdr buzz corey" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS Date: 25 Jul 2006 12:53:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1153857180.567775.169920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: an old idiot wrote: > sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts > are supposed to be Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is called a hobby. Article: 227166 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS Date: 25 Jul 2006 12:56:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1153857412.613487.278630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: cmdr buzz corey wrote: > an old idiot wrote: > > > sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts > > are supposed to be > > Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is > called a hobby. red herring alert Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules WE define Ham radio Article: 227167 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> <4jqxg.170368$771.62308@edtnps89> Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:58:03 GMT >> W7EL tells us that EZNEC doesn't display the surface >> wave which obviously contains power. Would that affect >> the efficiency using the integration technique? >> -- >> 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp > > Good point Cecil, I forgot about the surface wave. Will have to > find a way of including it. As usual, reading manuals would really help. It seems that I4, a four digit integer, in the RP card, can provide the necessary information. With a 9 m monopole, and 36 10 m radials, 25 mm below ground. All wires #14 AWG. The radiation efficiency is 32% at 8.07 MHz (Antenna resonant frequency). Frank RP 0 19 73 1002 -90 0 5.00000 5.00000 Article: 227168 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: 25 Jul 2006 13:40:18 -0700 Message-ID: <1153860018.027583.116140@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: BT - One Word : "Amateur" {Ham} as in Operator ~ RHF All 'others' for the most part are 'appliance operators' just like so many CB'ers - IMHO. . . . . Bill Turner wrote: > ORIGINAL MESSAGE: > > On 25 Jul 2006 11:28:39 -0700, "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" > wrote: > > >> Construction/design skills and operating skills are two different > >> things. What does one have to do with the other? > > > >everything if you ask most of the CW advocates > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > > A non-answer. Try again. What does one have to do with the other? > > Bill, W6WRT Article: 227169 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Timothy@tholtom.freeserve.co.uk Subject: Newbie Question: HELP!! Antenna Noise Date: 25 Jul 2006 13:54:49 -0700 Message-ID: <1153860889.661316.158250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> I decided to try one of the simplest of antennas, a quarter wave vertical for 20m supported by a roach pole. I live on the 9th (top) floor of an appartment block, with a balcony. The balcony is surrounded by a a metal railing which I decided to use as the counterpoise. I have a portable communications receiver with a small helical antenna. Obviously this gives limited performance with this antenna... Anyway, hooked up the antenna to 50 Ohm coax and connected the other end to the comms receiver. Result? Noise at about 8 S units, all but drowmning out the signal. If I remove the counterpoise, it's even worse, a howling sound. If I short the counterpoise and vertical, the signal is actually BETTER. If I go back to the little helical that comes with the comms receiver, then the noise VANISHES and the signal's not bad either!!! Question: What am I doing wrong? How can I improve the vertical (without moving)? Question: Are there any other antennas that would be better in this situation (9th floor appartment)? Magnetic Loop? Any help anyone can give would be MOST welcome!!!! Tim Article: 227170 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old feind" Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: 25 Jul 2006 14:17:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1153862256.387291.315870@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: RHF wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > That's what you have to decide. > > > > SC > > SC - 10-4 Good Buddy ! :o) ~ RHF > > I give Honor and Respect to any Amateur Radio {Ham} Operator : > Who has built and uses his own Receiver and CW Transmitter > for regular CW use. I will gladly read their posts and listen to > their arguments as to "Why" CW is important to the ARS. > - BUT - "IF" all they have every done is bought ready-made > equipment and claim that CW is necessary to the ARS > - please don't waste my time. BTW any coment on No tech has bulilt and uses (when he can someone else to talk ) a ^M AM rig one tube and all old type of design (based on an old ham 5 meter unit) > . > . > . . Article: 227171 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Newbie Question: HELP!! Antenna Noise Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:39:23 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153860889.661316.158250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> On 25 Jul 2006 13:54:49 -0700, Timothy@tholtom.freeserve.co.uk wrote: >I decided to try one of the simplest of antennas, a quarter wave >vertical for 20m supported by a roach pole. > >I live on the 9th (top) floor of an appartment block, with a balcony. >The balcony is surrounded by a a metal railing which I decided to use >as the counterpoise. > >I have a portable communications receiver with a small helical antenna. > Obviously this gives limited performance with this antenna... > >Anyway, hooked up the antenna to 50 Ohm coax and connected the other >end to the comms receiver. > >Result? Noise at about 8 S units, all but drowmning out the signal. >If I remove the counterpoise, it's even worse, a howling sound. If I >short the counterpoise and vertical, the signal is actually BETTER. If >I go back to the little helical that comes with the comms receiver, >then the noise VANISHES and the signal's not bad either!!! > >Question: What am I doing wrong? How can I improve the vertical >(without moving)? > >Question: Are there any other antennas that would be better in this >situation (9th floor appartment)? Magnetic Loop? > >Any help anyone can give would be MOST welcome!!!! > > >Tim Hi Tim, You give a very good description of your problem. There's more that could be said, but it starts very well. First, we can start with what is good. You get no noise and a good signal with your little helical. I presume this is a battery operated set, or could be battery operated. If not, connect it to an extension line (but try to go battery operated). Move your set to the balcony and see if the noise returns. If so, use the set to try and locate the noise. If not, then your problem is between where you are listening and where the new antenna is going to be. Try tracing that path back while monitoring on your set to see if any noise sources are along the way (this is unlikely, and shielded coax should take care of it). If so, we will discuss this below. If not, then my bet is your noise will be discovered in the next test. Put your set back into its usual operating area. Connect the coax to the set. Disconnect the coax from both the balcony and the antenna (the far end of the coax is just floating - don't let it touch any metal) and check for noise. If not, you are ready for the next test. If so, the problem may still be related to the next test, but I would bet your coax is connected to something metallic along the way. Connect JUST the coax shield to the rail of your balcony. If you get noise AND your set is plugged in (try this too, if you normally use it with AC power); then you have a ground loop, or conducted noise. You can retain the "ground" side of the antenna with the rail, if you insert a capacitor between the coax shield and the rail. However, this is a Hail Mary kinda of solution and will not be entirely satisfactory. If you don't get the noise through this one connection and finishing with a connection to the antenna does, then there is one more thing you can do. At the antenna end, coil the coax with about 8 - 12 turns around a coffee can or large canister or 2 liter pop bottle just before the bitter end where connections are made. If this reduces the noise, that noise is arriving from somewhere along the path and being coupled into the line at the antenna. Alternatively, your set may need grounding too. Problem here is that you are a long way from RF ground (9 floors away), and that need for ground is more a need for shielding around the set. All of this argues local noise, so it serves your interest to find it. One quick way is to kill power to the entire building and successively add it back until the noise reappears. This, of course, is a fantasy; but you could do it for your own apartment at the breaker panel. If you still have noise in a dead apartment (battery operation of course); then you have problematic neighbors. This still demands that you haul that set around snooping for the source of noise. If the noise went away, sometimes it arrives from a distant source (in the apartment) that SHARES the same breaker (other side of the wall?). If so, experiment with plugging your set into other outlets on different breakers (use an extension line so that you don't have to move the set). If we have to return to the balcony rail as the culprit, then build two antennas and connect one to the coax shield, one to the coax inner conductor, make the coil described above (or look for a 1:1 current balun), and make SURE that nothing touches the railing, electrically. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 227172 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nm5k@wt.net Subject: Re: Open-Sleeve Antenna Date: 25 Jul 2006 14:50:03 -0700 Message-ID: <1153864203.266672.55110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: jawod wrote: > I came across this in the ARRL Antenna Book (p. 7-21) 20th Edition. > > For such a simple set-up, why haven't I heard of anyone using it? > > I understand some commercial verticals use this design in some way. > > From what I have read, the open-sleeve design has a simple lambda/4 > vertical with two side vertical elements of given d diameter and > distance D from the center vertical (monopole). > > Given the improvement of SWR bandwidth shown, why isn't this a more > popular approach? (or is it, and I just don't know it?) > > John > AB8WH Sleeve vertical dipoles are quite common, but I don't get the description of two vertical side elements...?? The usual sleeve vertical is a 1/4 wave radiator, and a 1/4 wave tube, open on the bottom, as the lower half of the antenna. The better designs use a second 1/4 wave sleeve as a decoupling section. These antennas are pretty prone to common mode spillover if you don't use a lower decoupling section. The coax runs up the middle of both sleeves. The shield of the coax is connected to the top closed end of the lower decoupling sleeve. Open at the bottom, same as the sleeve above it that is the lower half of the antenna. A company named "Dodge" used to make those for many commercial users. IE: police, etc.. I think it was Dodge anyway.. The design has been around a long time. MK Article: 227173 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12btggnfvuof911@corp.supernews.com> <8VLvg.10483$2v.1274@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153433788.383801.90830@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153445174.176522.120710@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <12c27qui0r4ohb8@corp.supernews.com> <3e9xg.11685$2v.4048@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1153828704.177146.42840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <12cci71i2kp027d@corp.supernews.com> <12ccm30e6qt3e67@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:59:54 GMT > "Cecil Moore" wrote in message >> I don't remember the bazooka ever being discussed before >> in the context of precipitation static so it is essentially >> a brand new topic. H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H wrote: > Actually, I recall your mentioning it before, Cecil. Couldn't be. I didn't know what the schematic was for a double bazooka until I looked it up last week. The double bazooka uses the same techniques that are used on airplanes to reduce precipitation static. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227174 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:04:05 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: jawod wrote: > I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's QST. > It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can model it > on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a dipole or > two). > > I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in a > sort of temporary fashion. > > Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over > Alaska. > > Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first > antenna build? > > I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to use > RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an UNUN or > Balun in the article. > > What do youse think? Thinks? > > John > AB8WH > > PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) Well, here's something new...responding to my own post (sort of) As I started to collect parts needed for this antenna, I realize that lightweight aluminum tubing at 7/8, 3/4 and 5/8 inches is not available >from Loews. What's a good local source for aluminum tubing? Article: 227175 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Newbie Question: HELP!! Antenna Noise References: <1153860889.661316.158250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:10:32 GMT Timothy@tholtom.freeserve.co.uk wrote: > I decided to try one of the simplest of antennas, a quarter wave > vertical for 20m ... > Result? Noise at about 8 S units, all but drowmning out the signal. That corresponds to my experience with verticals at my QTH. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227176 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:15:01 -0700 Message-ID: References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:04:05 -0400, jawod wrote: >What's a good local source for aluminum tubing? Hi John, Look in the yellow pages for "metal shorts." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 227177 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Open-Sleeve Antenna References: <1153864203.266672.55110@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <3Mwxg.74656$Lm5.68328@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:17:35 GMT nm5k@wt.net wrote: > Sleeve vertical dipoles are quite common, but I don't get the > description of two vertical side elements...?? Actually, one doesn't even need two side elements. One element will function with the outside braid to turn the decoupling section into a balanced 1/4WL stub which functions essentially the same as the unbalanced 1/4WL decoupling sleeve. Such is illustrated on page 26-9, Fig 11, of my 15th edition of The ARRL Antenna Book. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 227178 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Open-Sleeve Antenna Date: 25 Jul 2006 15:19:32 -0700 Message-ID: <1153865972.604759.114020@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: The open sleeve that AB8WH is referencing is several very closely spaced elements of various lengths around a central element that is directly driven by the feedline. The other elements are very tightly coupled to the driven one because they're so close, and so it's a good construction for broadening SWR bandwidth (several overlapping resonances, elements almost the same length) or making a multi band antenna (several widely spaced resonances, elements widely different lengths) - - - - - - I think some HF multiband yagi manufacturers are using them... I don't remember who. Also, many of the wideband long boom VHF yagi designs have a director that ends up very closely spaced to the driven element, essentially an open sleeve... As to why you don't see more of them? I dunno, there are lots of ways to make a multiband antenna. You could do the same thing out of tubing but do it fan-dipole style and connect them all together. You could use traps and cut out the amount of tubing you need. As far as broadbanding, you typically only need it on the lower bands (80/75m comes to mind) and there you'd be talking the erection of two ~70 foot elements instead of one just to broaden your SWR curve even though running a 3:1 SWR on your line and using the tuner in the rig would add negligble loss. Better to take the other 70 feet of aluminum and space it a half wavelength away from the first and phase them into a broadside/endfire array. I think the dimensions are a bit critical like a parallel multiband dipole can be... lots of interaction between the elements. I don't think they've got much of a marketing advantage right now, either. Otherwise "open sleeve" would be an oft-heard buzzword in antenna ads something like "linear loaded" or "no lossy traps". Certainly an antenna construction worth knowing about, though... I thought about building one when I first saw it too. Also, I was playing with the possibility of adding a 2m yagi to my 6m moxon rectangle the driven element of which would be open sleeve coupled. Haven't had much success getting good front to back on 2m in the model though, so I haven't pursued it. That's not the fault of the open sleeveness... I think I need to start with a known good yagi design first. 73, Dan Article: 227179 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop Date: 25 Jul 2006 15:24:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1153866242.633382.134130@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> Which is also where you look if you're trying to protect the genetic integrity of possible future offspring while being exposed to significant electromagnetic radiation. Dan Article: 227180 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: jgboyles@aol.com Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop Date: 25 Jul 2006 15:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: <1153867547.794846.13800@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> jawod wrote: > jawod wrote: > > I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's QST. > > It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I can model it > > on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed through a dipole or > > two). > > > > I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard in a > > sort of temporary fashion. > > > > Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia over > > Alaska. > > > > Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my first > > antenna build? > > > > I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend to use > > RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention of an UNUN or > > Balun in the article. > > > > What do youse think? Thinks? > > > > John > > AB8WH > > > > PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) > Well, here's something new...responding to my own post (sort of) > > As I started to collect parts needed for this antenna, I realize that > lightweight aluminum tubing at 7/8, 3/4 and 5/8 inches is not available > from Loews. > > What's a good local source for aluminum tubing? If you can't find Aluminum, see if you can get emt conduit in lengths that will work. (heavy) Don't use Aluminum. Hams have been building Quads and Deltas for 60 years using bamboo or fibreglass, with the wire taped or ty-wrapped to the bamboo (fishing pole). You can get the fibreglass from Maxgain if you want to go that route. If you are dead set on duplicating the Author, try Texas Towers, they sell different lengths of Aluminum. Gary N4AST Article: 227181 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Rayburn" References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:18:03 -0400 Message-ID: Copper and aluminum Gutters work great!...If they only run across the front and back of the house you can connect them with a small wire across the roof to make for a nice long antenna! For example I'm hooked to the bottom of a downspout near the ground on my 3 story home....about 28 feet up the guttering starts and runs 25 feet across the back of the house......I connected a wire across the roof (60 feet long) to the end of the front gutter thats the same height and length. 166 feet of antenna in the shape of an upside down U ! I buried a couple of ground radials next to a fence for 160...80....40 and added a few short ones for 20 /15 and 10 about an inch deep in the yard.....works great with a tuner and is fantastic on the L and AM bands for reception as well! Other than a small 4 inch length of coax behind the house next to the garage door.....Its invisible! wrote in message news:1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for > about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical > antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about > antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house > and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, > any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? > Article: 227182 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:32:01 +0000 From: Maxwell Smart #99 Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop Looziana Loops!! References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> <44c4bbd9_1@news.iprimus.com.au> <44c63c89_1@news.iprimus.com.au> <9db61$44c66290$453d9423$19131@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: <44c6a9f8_1@news.iprimus.com.au> jawod wrote: > Maxwell Smart #99 wrote: >> jawod wrote: >> >>> test wrote: >>> >>>> jawod wrote: >>>> >>>>> I am considering building the Louisiana loop shown in this month's >>>>> QST. It is basically an inverted delta loop. I don't know if I >>>>> can model it on EZNEC (I guess I can...but I've only progressed >>>>> through a dipole or two). >>>>> >>>>> I actually intend to string it up among some trees in the backyard >>>>> in a sort of temporary fashion. >>>>> >>>>> Realizing the directionality involved, I will aim it toward Asia >>>>> over Alaska. >>>>> >>>>> Now, any caveats or recommendations or ? before I embark on my >>>>> first antenna build? >>>>> >>>>> I don't at present even know the feedpoint impedance but I intend >>>>> to use RG8U for feedline if that's possible. There is no mention >>>>> of an UNUN or Balun in the article. >>>>> >>>>> What do youse think? Thinks? >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> AB8WH >>>>> >>>>> PS, I'll give the hoberman sphere a rest for a while (hi) >>>> >>>> >>>> This antenna was meant to be fed as a multiband antenna using open >>>> wire feedline and a tuner. >>>> >>>> Its height dependent. The takeoff angle on 20 is high. I myself >>>> would use a dipole with open wire feedline. However the authors >>>> intentions was for a compact multiband antenna. If you have trees >>>> use the large loop as in the ARRL antenna handbook. >>>> >>>> For a better antenna that feeds with open wire line and that has a >>>> ideal low angle pattern on all band from 20 meters to 10. Look at >>>> the horizontal magnetic slot antenna. You can find details in the >>>> latest RSGB handbook. >>>> >>>> A good tuner for these antennas is the Balanced Tuner by Measures. >>>> >>>> >>>> Pat >>> >>> Pat, >>> Thanks for the input. >>> I have a question. >>> >>> Why do you say that the antenna was meant to be fed using open wire >>> feedline? >>> >>> In the article, it shows an SO239 bulkhead to be attached to RG8U cable. >>> >>> John >>> AB8WH >> >> I Hope we talking about the same antenna? >> >> I am talking about the antenna in this months QST page 38 ZS6AAA >> >> "The Compact Quad Multiband Hf Antenna" August 2006 >> >> So i hope i have not crossed wires here. But this antenna is open wire >> fed, supported on a single fibreglass pole. >> >> >> Pat >> >> >> > Pat, > Sorry OM, I was talking about the "Loosiana Loop", an inverted delta > loop on a PVC mast. This one's on p. 32. No wonder i got confused my brain spell checker did not recognise "Looziana" Pat Article: 227183 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:37:07 +0000 From: Maxwell Smart #99 Subject: Re: Open-Sleeve Antenna References: Message-ID: <44c6ab27_1@news.iprimus.com.au> jawod wrote: > I came across this in the ARRL Antenna Book (p. 7-21) 20th Edition. > > For such a simple set-up, why haven't I heard of anyone using it? > > I understand some commercial verticals use this design in some way. > > From what I have read, the open-sleeve design has a simple lambda/4 > vertical with two side vertical elements of given d diameter and > distance D from the center vertical (monopole). > > Given the improvement of SWR bandwidth shown, why isn't this a more > popular approach? (or is it, and I just don't know it?) > > John > AB8WH Look in ARRL Antenna Compendium Vol 5. It has a all band 40 to 10 meter parallel fed vertical, while not a open sleeve it can achieve the same objective all bands with no traps. This project is ground mounted. I just wonder what would happen to this all band wonder if raised off the ground? Maybe thats why we see all the Commercial antennas like Hygain and MFJ use all sorts of funny contraptions and transformers on the end of their versions of these antennas. The Hygain Hytower is a similar concept, however not open sleeve. Pat Article: 227184 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 25 Jul 2006 16:38:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1153870723.219035.156660@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > "Dee Flint" wrote in > news:FZ-dnYiba5WU-VjZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com: > > > > > Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in > > the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you > > want. > > > The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through > surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out > with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we > discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued > policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank > account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed. > Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The > ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if > you know anything about radio. you mean the ARRL gave in and tired to make a grab for what it thought it could get (coded extra) and failed opening to door for our final victory Article: 227185 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS From: Slow Code References: <1153785208.723816.64630@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153857180.567775.169920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153857412.613487.278630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <6Wxxg.4662$bP5.4054@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:36:34 GMT "an old freind" wrote in news:1153857412.613487.278630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > cmdr buzz corey wrote: >> an old idiot wrote: >> >> > sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts >> > are supposed to be >> >> Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is >> called a hobby. > red herring alert > > Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules > > WE define Ham radio And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy? Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment. Look at the childish bullshit you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor. That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have. Sc Article: 227186 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 25 Jul 2006 16:42:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1153870942.697911.93910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1153564701.965658.219410@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Slow Code wrote: > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in > news:slrnecbne9.muv.gsm@cable.mendelson.com: > > > Al Klein wrote: > > > > 73, > > > > Geoff. > > We don't have to leave or complain if we can improve licensing a little. > That's what's happening here. Striving for quality. indeed we drop the code testing and imporve the quaility right > SC Article: 227187 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: 25 Jul 2006 16:45:12 -0700 Message-ID: <1153871112.379896.76980@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > "g. beat" <@> wrote in > news:r7qdnc0nF6FqlVvZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com: > > > "Slow Code" wrote in message > > news:pVcxg.9475$vO.1554@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > >> > >> That's what you have to decide. > >> > >> SC > >> > > > > Personally, I would rather have the First Class and Second Class Radio > > Telephone back. Thank the broadcasters for lobbying to eliminate that > > requirement -- ironic that the industry has been sliding ever since (go > > figure) -- > > That's what happens when you lower standards, why hams don't realize that, > I'll never know. Maybe it's just laziness. no it happens because technolgy is marching on that Hams like you can't face that is the biggest thing wrong with the ARS today > > SC Article: 227188 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS Date: 25 Jul 2006 16:49:44 -0700 Message-ID: <1153871383.963476.205120@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > "an old freind" wrote in > news:1153857412.613487.278630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > cmdr buzz corey wrote: > >> an old idiot wrote: > >> > >> > sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts > >> > are supposed to be > >> > >> Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is > >> called a hobby. > > red herring alert > > > > Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules > > > > WE define Ham radio > > > And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy? if somebody realy wants to use 10 codes I don't care they make as much sense as Q codes > > Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment. if it isn't worth it to you to deal with the real world then turn in your license > Look at > the childish bullshit you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove > everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor. no guess you were not reading stev did it (with help from wismen with years of accusing his foes of various crimes > > That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more > like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have. if you are one of those preparig to leave than good riddance if you can learn some manners you are welcome to stay of course > > Sc Article: 227189 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 25 Jul 2006 16:55:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1153871751.171412.219570@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Slow Code wrote: > "an old freind" wrote in > news:1153785207.014583.244350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > code testing > > > > Look like for time on the CSSE I moay need to retake the general > > element but that isn't rough > > > Are you a life member of Handi-Hams? They got a spot for you on the short > bus. no handi ham is downright hostile to all the learn diabilities in my contacts with them > > Sc Article: 227190 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bowser" References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnls86c2ci3f5@corp.supernews.com> <0vrnb29675p1mcgqgdeljvbbbkji3vkbhl@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:56:18 -0000 My very first short wave experience ever was listening to HCJB on a 6 transistor BCB radio when I was 10 years old...I tweaked the tuning cap to get the thing as far as possible out of the broadcast band range and the overload from the rural above-ground telephone lines did the rest. Got me started thinking that there just might be radios in other countries, hi hi. "Buck" wrote in message news:0vrnb29675p1mcgqgdeljvbbbkji3vkbhl@4ax.com... > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:31:36 -0000, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) > wrote: > > >In article , > >Buck wrote: > > > >>There used to be radio antennas that plugged into the wall outlets. > >>They had a three pronged connector, but only one side was actually > >>electrically connected, the other prongs were plastic. I am not sure > >>what they did to isolate the electrical from the radio, but the > >>antenna used the house wiring for an antenna extension. > >> > >>This may be what he is looking for, something that coupled with the > >>electrical wires for a longer antenna. > > > >Ugh. Those things. "Turn your entire house into a gigantic > >television antenna!" > > > >These devices usually just couple one of the wires in the outlet to > >the antenna lead, using a small high-voltage capacitor. Component > >parts cost was a few cents, plus the cost of the plug, and (usually) > >some intricately-shaped plastic case meant to make the device look > >sophisticated. The case probably cost more than the guts, and the > >advertised price was far greater than either. > > > >From all I've heard, they generally gave poor performance for at least > >two reasons: > > > >- A house's power wiring is an excellent vehicle for RF noise and > > hash... harmonics from power-supply rectifier, broadband impulse > > noise from any AC motor with brushes, and so forth. Result: lots > > of static in the picture. > > > >- Multipath. The house wiring is of a complex shape, much larger > > than a typical TV antenna. The TV or radio signal is likely to be > > picked up by several different portions of the wiring, which will > > mix (with varying amounts of time delay) at the coupler. Result: > > a ghosty picture. > > > >To paraphrase a Monty Python sketch concerning a particular Australian > >table wine: "This is not a technology for using. This is a > >technology for laying down and avoiding." > > > That sounds like what I was describing. I had an experience once > where there was a drop cord hanging in a loop shape from a power line > that lit up a boat pier about 100 feet long or so. When I put my > shortwave radio near it, I had tremendous reception on MW or SW. I > didn't need to even use the antenna on the radio. I figure there was > about 300 total feet of wire the way it was run. Had a great night > fishing and listening to SWB. > > Buck > -- > 73 for now > Buck > N4PGW Article: 227191 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> <4jqxg.170368$771.62308@edtnps89> Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:52:35 +0100 Message-ID: "Frank's" wrote > >> W7EL tells us that EZNEC doesn't display the surface > >> wave which obviously contains power. Would that affect > >> the efficiency using the integration technique? ====================================== The surface or ground wave is the most important fraction of total radiated power. The correct radiation pattern of a vertical antenna shows maximum radiation along the ground. Angle of maximum radiation = 0 degrees. When deducing efficiency, to omit power radiated along the ground from the hemispherical integration will result in serious error. ( Efficiency by NEC4 ) / ( Efficiency by formula ) = 0.38 I can imagine other losses in addition to loss in the radials but to have the other losses several times greater is a bit much. Where are these large losses? Are they in the soil surface - the only other candidate? ---- Reg. Article: 227192 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Open-Sleeve Antenna Date: 25 Jul 2006 17:20:40 -0700 Message-ID: <1153873240.087451.237240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: The commercial manufacturers use all kinds of contraptions to make their antennas look like something you have to buy instead of build. Article: 227193 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jack Ricci" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:21:59 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1153785208.723816.64630@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153857180.567775.169920@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153857412.613487.278630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <6Wxxg.4662$bP5.4054@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Regarding Ham Hobby : ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... Jack "Slow Code" wrote in message news:6Wxxg.4662$bP5.4054@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > "an old freind" wrote in > news:1153857412.613487.278630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > >> >> cmdr buzz corey wrote: >>> an old idiot wrote: >>> >>> > sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts >>> > are supposed to be >>> >>> Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is >>> called a hobby. >> red herring alert >> >> Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules >> >> WE define Ham radio > > > And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy? > > Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment. Look at > the childish bullshit you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove > everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor. > > That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more > like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have. > > Sc Article: 227194 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency Date: 25 Jul 2006 17:50:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1153875043.542959.107250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> This thread is getting interesting... Reg, your point that the resonant radial effects are more pronounced at higher frequencies makes me think that a small experiment might be in order. A 21MHz or so ground mounted monopole with a small radial field would be a minimal investment in materials to do a BLE style empirical investigation, at least compared to that at 3MHz. It wouldn't be a minimal investment in time but might be an interesting experiment. Given that it would be an epic challenge to measure field strength at a grid of points on a hemisphere surrounding the monopole, I imagine a single point field strength measurement would be an acceptable metric? Thoughts on doing the measurement? I guess BLE would be a good guide for the empiricist. Dan Article: 227195 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dee Flint" References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:59:30 -0400 Message-ID: "Slow Code" wrote in message news:SVxxg.4658$bP5.2159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > "Dee Flint" wrote in > news:FZ-dnYiba5WU-VjZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com: > >> >> "Slow Code" wrote in message >> news:uVcxg.9478$vO.5615@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> "Brian Hill" wrote in news:8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga: >>> >>>> >>>> "Al Klein" wrote in message >>>> news:gijob2paistn335sjmffjab7mv493cmm3g@4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Al Klein wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. >>>>> >>>>>>Ahh...but I did, once >>>>> >>>>> But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. >>>>> >>>>>>proving that one has little to do with the other. >>>>> >>>>> And that you have little to do with this conversation. >>>> >>>> You can argue till your blue in the face but CW requirement will be >>>> gone sooner or later. I fully understand the points of the pro CW guys >>>> but it's just the sign of the times. >>>> >>>> BH >>> >>> >>> We have to keep trying to save Ham radio while we still can because >>> once it's all the way in the shitter it will be even harder to pull >>> back out & clean up. >>> >>> A Ham who'll stand for nothing will sit for anything. I won't accept >>> more dumbing down. >>> >>> >>> Help save Ham radio: >>> >>> >>> 1- No more automatic renewals. Individuals must retest and pass all >>> elements required for their license class every ten years. >>> >> >> No reason to. This has never existed in the history of amateur radio >> and there is no reason to think it would improve things. > > > Yah friggen right, NOT! Continuing to stay knowledgable and re-testing > won't improve things? Sheesh!! What's your problem then, If licensees > remembered what was on their exams ten years ago passing the exams again > should be a breeze. Of course, if they don't rememeber, they'll have to > study again. This will make better hams. And the fact that this > requirement has never existed in the history of ham radio doesn't make it > a bad idea. You're just Lazy. > > Not hardly. Every time they change the pool, I get an up-to-date study guide just to keep current and see what's new. Could pass the test any day of the week and twice on Sunday. By the way the exam has changed in 10 years. There is some common stuff but there is also new stuff. However, the biggest problem would be manpower for conducting the tests. Based on the current number of hams, that would be over 60,000 people retesting every year. The existing test system (and the prior systems when things were administered by the FCC) were all designed around the single testing concept. Essentially, it would mean almost every VE team would need to conduct test sessions weekly or hold huge test sessions monthly. There just aren't enough of us to do that. Plus many facilities now charge for the use of the facility. And the bigger the room, the higher the fee. >>> >>> 2- The passing score for written exams needs to be raised to 85%. >>> >> >> Might be OK. > > > Thank you. > > >>> >>> 3- Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. >>> >> >> Probably wouldn't make a real difference either way. > > > It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can > exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff > allowing you better enjoyment of the service. > I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already know it at a basic level. The filter argument, I consider totally bogus. Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the criteria for determining if it should be tested. > >>> >>> 4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. >>> >> >> Probably wouldn't make any difference. > > Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep > studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade > after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be > bad? > In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to contribute anyway. > >>> >>> 5- Cancel your ARRL membership until they decide to work to improve >>> things and stop them from proposing ham radio that is like CB. >>> >> >> Terrible idea. The only way to get ARRL to change is to get involved in >> the politics of ARRL and work to try to effect the changes that you >> want. > > > The ARRL knew what it's members wanted before restructuring through > surveys of the membership, then did you read the proposal that came out > with? Totally opposite of the feeling of the membership. Google it, we > discussed it long and hard years ago when RRAP groupies actually argued > policy. The ARRL is only interested in padding the corporate bank > account, they don't care about the quality of amateurs getting licensed. > Our HF bands can sound like CB if means the ARRL can get more money. The > ARRL BOD stapped Hiram Percy Maxim in the back. The ARRL doesn't care if > you know anything about radio. > So why don't you go run for office and promote your platform? Or form your own lobbying group? Complaining here won't get it done. If you want your platform to prevail, the YOU have to do the work to convince people. While the ARRL proposal was not what I wanted, it did indeed reflect some of the things that a significant percentage wanted. As far as the ARRL padding the corporate bank account, if that is true, then you need to report them to the IRS as non-profit organizations are not allowed to do this. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Article: 227196 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:15:55 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: QST's Louisiana Loop References: <84cc2$44c28fbc$453d9423$18240@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: <689d8$44c6c299$453d9423$11166@FUSE.NET> Richard Clark wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:04:05 -0400, jawod wrote: > > >>What's a good local source for aluminum tubing? > > > Hi John, > > Look in the yellow pages for "metal shorts." > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Whenever I wear metal shorts, my impedance goes WAY up. My wife's permissivity is not up for discussion. Article: 227197 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Newbie Question: HELP!! Antenna Noise Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:19:17 -0700 Message-ID: <12cdgou17te3laa@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153860889.661316.158250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Most small portable receivers are designed to be used with a small antenna. When you connect a large antenna, they can be overwhelmed by signals which are much stronger than they're designed to handle. These can be far from the frequency you're trying to listen to, but the overloaded receiver front end generates many signals at many frequencies, often where you're trying to listen. I've found that when I connect a typical scanner or HT type receiver to a decent dipole, I need to add about 20 dB attenuation between the antenna and receiver before the receiver-generated spurs drop to a tolerable level. This might not be your problem, but I think the chances are good that it is. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Timothy@tholtom.freeserve.co.uk wrote: > I decided to try one of the simplest of antennas, a quarter wave > vertical for 20m supported by a roach pole. > > I live on the 9th (top) floor of an appartment block, with a balcony. > The balcony is surrounded by a a metal railing which I decided to use > as the counterpoise. > > I have a portable communications receiver with a small helical antenna. > Obviously this gives limited performance with this antenna... > > Anyway, hooked up the antenna to 50 Ohm coax and connected the other > end to the comms receiver. > > Result? Noise at about 8 S units, all but drowmning out the signal. > If I remove the counterpoise, it's even worse, a howling sound. If I > short the counterpoise and vertical, the signal is actually BETTER. If > I go back to the little helical that comes with the comms receiver, > then the noise VANISHES and the signal's not bad either!!! > > Question: What am I doing wrong? How can I improve the vertical > (without moving)? > > Question: Are there any other antennas that would be better in this > situation (9th floor appartment)? Magnetic Loop? > > Any help anyone can give would be MOST welcome!!!! > > > Tim > Article: 227198 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old feind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700 Message-ID: <1153887013.410181.76520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Dee Flint wrote: > "Slow Code" wrote in message > news:SVxxg.4658$bP5.2159@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Dee Flint" wrote in > > news:FZ-dnYiba5WU-VjZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com: > > > > It DOES make a difference. It maintains the number of ways we can > > exchange information, and as a filter to keep out some of the riff-raff > > allowing you better enjoyment of the service. > > > > I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if > they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of > radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary > hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already > know it at a basic level. meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone as mode welfare > > The filter argument, I consider totally bogus. because > > Code is either a basic part of ham radio or it is not. That should be the > criteria for determining if it should be tested. Dee do you seriously support the implied postion that if we end Code tesing we should indeed end Code USE? > > > > >>> > >>> 4- Make the no-code license one year non-renewable. > >>> > >> > >> Probably wouldn't make any difference. > > > > Of course it WILL make a difference! It creates an incentive to keep > > studying and building on radio knowledge & skill by requiring an upgrade > > after a year. And we end up with more knowledgable hams. How can that be > > bad? > > > > In today's climate, it will not be an incentive. Those who want to upgrade > don't need the non-renewability clause. The rest will simply let their > licenses lapse. Those who would let it lapse aren't on the air enough to > contribute anyway. thanks a lot btch Article: 227199 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: You're not a real ham if you if you keep advocating killing the ARS Date: 25 Jul 2006 21:13:41 -0700 Message-ID: <1153887221.771922.128340@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Jack Ricci wrote: > Regarding Ham Hobby : > > ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- > ... ... --- ... ... --- ... ... --- ... maybe sent that Slow code otherwise known as Mr Stupid (his own choice of nick will getit but I doubt it > > Jack > > "Slow Code" wrote in message > news:6Wxxg.4662$bP5.4054@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "an old freind" wrote in > > news:1153857412.613487.278630@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > > >> > >> cmdr buzz corey wrote: > >>> an old idiot wrote: > >>> > >>> > sure it is a hobby with service related aspects rather the Boy Scouts > >>> > are supposed to be > >>> > >>> Cite one place in part 97, which defines amateur radio, where it is > >>> called a hobby. > >> red herring alert > >> > >> Part 97 does not define Ham radio, Part 97 defines the rules > >> > >> WE define Ham radio > > > > > > And you want ham radio defined like CB. Ten-Four Good-buddy? > > > > Dumbing things down cheapens it, and destroys others enjoyment. Look at > > the childish bullshit you do in RRAP. You and the other rejects drove > > everyone away with all your retarded bathroom hummor. > > > > That's want will happen with on our HF bands, as it sounds more and more > > like CB, good hams will give up on it and leave. Many already have. > > > > Sc Article: 227200 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:14:32 -0500 Message-ID: <12cdr19v6ef346@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Rayburn wrote: > Copper and aluminum Gutters work great!...If they only run across the front > and back of the house you can connect them with a small wire across the roof > to make for a nice long antenna! > > For example I'm hooked to the bottom of a downspout near the ground on my 3 > story home....about 28 feet up the guttering starts and runs 25 feet across > the back of the house......I connected a wire across the roof (60 feet long) > to the end of the front gutter thats the same height and length. > > 166 feet of antenna in the shape of an upside down U ! > > I buried a couple of ground radials next to a fence for 160...80....40 and > added a few short ones for 20 /15 and 10 about an inch deep in the > yard.....works great with a tuner and is fantastic on the L and AM bands for > reception as well! > > Other than a small 4 inch length of coax behind the house next to the garage > door.....Its invisible! > wrote in message > news:1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >>Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for >>about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical >>antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about >>antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house >>and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, >>any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? >> > > > Congress just passed and the President signed a Federal Law that stops the CC&R cops from prohibiting flying the American Flag on your property. This means you can have a flag pole (antenna). :) Dave WD9BDZ Article: 227201 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Eric F. Richards Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:31:20 -0600 Message-ID: References: <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <1153789149.679540.21960@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "Sal M. Onella" wrote: > > I wonder: Did the radio amateur community go through anything like this for > the transition away from spark? > Yes, they did. -- 73, Eric F. Richards, KB0YDN, efricha@dim.com "A few old diehards still blazoned 'Spark Forever!' on their QSL cards..." - from "200 Meters & Down", copyright 1936, ARRL From Nevermind Sat Jul 29 12:02:18 EDT 2006 Article: 227202 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:42:33 -0500 From: Nevermind (Nevermind@hotmail.com) Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Icom 746PRO X-Newsreader: NewsLeecher v3.7 Final (http://www.newsleecher.com) Message-ID: <_KSdnVbqJ9Ykb1vZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:42:33 -0500 Lines: 13 X-Trace: sv3-pH0kfmSmCaDpgIMM0ZIfd2pD+n1q5AGtA/MYaNCCtBMHBN9XewZ9eXSOFiqvxVwZgyO6e5wx77/0R62!RRmZL+T8FUfoqVLod6brsvULM6jLHw9VVEeIFj628FU1AgKlLXyyO7owsIFrDxHaBRAzgank X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Path: news.unc.edu!elk.ncren.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: news0.isis.unc.edu rec.radio.amateur.antenna:227202 Has anyone purchased a recent ICOM 746PRO radio, and had any problems? I would like to buy one soon, but there seemed to be alot of problems in the early models. I was just wondering how the newer models were holding up. -- --------------------------------- --- -- - Posted with NewsLeecher v3.7 Final Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet ------------------- ----- ---- -- - Article: 227203 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank's" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> <4jqxg.170368$771.62308@edtnps89> Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency Message-ID: <_FCxg.133334$A8.100770@clgrps12> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:00:42 GMT "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:vO-dnVy3APdgMlvZRVnyhg@bt.com... > > "Frank's" wrote >> >> W7EL tells us that EZNEC doesn't display the surface >> >> wave which obviously contains power. Would that affect >> >> the efficiency using the integration technique? > ====================================== > > The surface or ground wave is the most important fraction of total > radiated power. The correct radiation pattern of a vertical antenna > shows maximum radiation along the ground. Angle of maximum radiation = > 0 degrees. > > When deducing efficiency, to omit power radiated along the ground from > the hemispherical integration will result in serious error. > > ( Efficiency by NEC4 ) / ( Efficiency by formula ) = 0.38 > > I can imagine other losses in addition to loss in the radials but to > have the other losses several times greater is a bit much. Where are > these large losses? Are they in the soil surface - the only other > candidate? > ---- > Reg. Correct Reg, I had thought the modified RP card considered ground wave, but it does not. I am working on a combined integration including the surface wave, which should provide a more accurate indication of the overall efficiency. I will also attempt the analysis of various lengths of radial wires. Frank Article: 227204 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com Subject: Re: bless you and may you find peace Date: 26 Jul 2006 04:41:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1153914087.277023.157290@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> an old freind wrote: > Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: > > an old freind wrote: > > > Hey Stupid wrote: > > > > "an_old_friend" wrote in > > > > news:1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > > > Look like for time on the CSSE I moay need to retake the general > > > element but that isn't rough > > > > Except you didn't pass it, the VE session sheet proves it. > get over it Mr turd Then quit lying about passing, Mr. Queer. Article: 227205 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com Subject: Re: is there anybody out thereable to operate CW that would honestly confused a JT65 sig with cw? Date: 26 Jul 2006 04:42:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1153914164.987324.219000@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> an old freind wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > "an old freind" wrote in > > news:1153785207.014583.244350@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > > code testing > > > > > > Look like for time on the CSSE I moay need to retake the general > > > element but that isn't rough > > > > > > Are you a life member of Handi-Hams? They got a spot for you on the short > > bus. BWHAHAHAHAHA! > no handi ham is downright hostile to all the learn diabilities in my > contacts with them That's because you are a fraud and they know you aren't disabled just illiterate. Article: 227206 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers If Necesssary. Date: 26 Jul 2006 05:07:15 -0700 Message-ID: <1153915635.643905.252110@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <1153222719.097047.12500@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> an old freind wrote: > Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: > > an old friend wrote: > > > bless > > > > Hey Markie, hear from any state workers recently? BWHAHAHAHAHA! > had a chat with county worker but he was with the road crew So you blow road crew guys on the side of road? Article: 227207 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: <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> <8m6xg.49$Mi2.28@fe03.lga> <1153887013.410181.76520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:21:03 -0400 On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind" wrote: >Dee Flint wrote: >> I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if >> they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of >> radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary >> hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already >> know it at a basic level. >meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone >as mode welfare As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence to pass a real test. Article: 227208 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 05:29:37 -0700 Message-ID: <12ceo1pplv8v4c2@corp.supernews.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> David wrote: > 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? Begin with a self-contained, battery-powered transmitter. Put a large metal plate on the ground, stand on the plate, and set the radio on the plate. Touch the radio. No burn. Touch the center conductor. Burn. Just like you said. But now put the radio on top of an insulator, and connect the center conductor of the antenna connector to the metal plate. Touch the center conductor. No burn. Touch the radio. Burn. Whoa -- you got burned from "0V" -- the "cold" side! No fair! Finally, insulate the radio and disconnect the center conductor from the plate. Hold on to the radio and touch the center conductor. Burn. Hold on to a wire going to the center conductor. No burn. Touch the radio while you're holding the wire. Burn. You don't prevent a shock by declaring or "regarding" something to be ground or "0V". You do it by connecting it to the same potential as your body. And declaring it to be "live" doesn't cause the burn -- what causes it is that you're touching something that's at a different potential than your body. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 227209 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Icom 746PRO From: Bert Hyman References: <_KSdnVbqJ9Ykb1vZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com> <44c90e0d.3216510@bart.spawar.mil> Message-ID: Date: 26 Jul 2006 12:59:30 GMT me2@privacy.net (Bart Bailey) wrote in news:44c90e0d.3216510@bart.spawar.mil: > In Message-ID:<_KSdnVbqJ9Ykb1vZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com> > posted on Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:42:33 -0500, Nevermind wrote: > >>Has anyone purchased a recent ICOM 746PRO radio, and had any >>problems? I would like to buy one soon, but there seemed to be alot >>of problems in the early models. I was just wondering how the newer >>models were holding up. > > I don't think there are any 'newer' 746 models, I pretty sure he's talking about recent production, not a new variant. > maybe you're thinking of the 756 Pro models > the latest being the IC-756 Pro3. -- Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com Article: 227210 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Icom 746PRO Message-ID: References: <_KSdnVbqJ9Ykb1vZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:25:33 GMT On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:42:33 -0500, Nevermind (Nevermind@hotmail.com) wrote: >Has anyone purchased a recent ICOM 746PRO radio, and had any >problems? I would like to buy one soon, but there seemed to be alot >of problems in the early models. I was just wondering how the newer >models were holding up. You can check the recent reviews on eHam.net. Also, at the Icom site, they give a lot of ifs/ands/whats in regard to what they've done to beef up certain circuits that were blowing out, but it sounds like you still have to be careful. bob k5qwg Article: 227211 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: mike Subject: Gem Quad Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:27:27 +0100 Message-ID: <2arec29sf7s6801tct4r766ujfppffg4ru@4ax.com> Hi Would anyone using a 2 or 3 element Gem Quad please get in touch to compare notes. Thanks de Mike G4KHG mikeg4khb@btinternet.com Article: 227212 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:11:18 -0500 Message-ID: <16568-44C79426-1070@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net> References: Slow Code wrote: "That`s what happens when you lower standards,----." Technological progress eliminates the need for operator expertise and close equipment supervision. A First Class Licensed Radiotelephone Operator is no longer justified or needed to constantly supervise a type-accepted broadcast transamitter designed to only operate when it is operating within the rules (no challenge with modern technology). A less technically adept person can tell if operation is normal. Amateur operation is different. Equipment need not be type-accepted, but it must adhere to the rules just the same. An amateur operator is licensed as such and that defines the "amateur radio operator". The "ham" may or may not be interested in experimentation. The only requirement is that he not violate the rules. Difference between amateur and CB radio is CB can be used in business. Amateur radio cannot. CW radiotelegraphy was obsolete when radiotelephony appeared. This is similar to obsolescence of the horse when the motor vehicle appeared. Communications and transportation have moved on but Morse and horse fanatics linger. Amateur radio appliance operators are fine so long as the rules are enforced. We should seek them and welcome them to the hobby. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 227213 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers If Necesssary. Date: 26 Jul 2006 09:47:33 -0700 Message-ID: <1153932453.938671.304910@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153222719.097047.12500@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com wrote: may the lord bless and grant you pecae from the mental illness that traps you Article: 227214 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: may the lord bless and grant you pecae from the mental illness that traps you Date: 26 Jul 2006 09:49:16 -0700 Message-ID: <1153932556.725448.110530@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: may the lord bless and grant you pecae from the mental illness that traps you Article: 227215 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 26 Jul 2006 10:02:44 -0700 Message-ID: <1153933364.118890.188000@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On 25 Jul 2006 21:10:13 -0700, "an old feind" > wrote: > > >Dee Flint wrote: > > >> I believe in keeping a basic test simply because a person can't determine if > >> they will like code until they've tried it. Plus it is one of the basics of > >> radio. If they have the basics and have thus learned it is not a big, scary > >> hurdle, they will be willing to pursue it in the future since they already > >> know it at a basic level. > > >meaning you basicaly belive that the Mode must be forced on everyone > >as mode welfare > > As opposed to making a ham license something anyone can get merely by > asking for one - because, like you, they don't have the intelligence > to pass a real test. no one hass advocated giving a license away except of course procoders like yourself Funny I can mange ee qso's (second one last night) and yet you inist I am unintelgent based on my inabilty to serve as a modem, a machine funtion Article: 227216 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <1bOdnTnoDO8PslzZRVnyuA@bt.com> <2_OdnX7zdY6gVFzZRVny3w@bt.com> <4jqxg.170368$771.62308@edtnps89> <1153875043.542959.107250@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Radiating Efficiency Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:43:23 +0100 Message-ID: Dan wrote - > A 21MHz or so ground mounted monopole with a small radial field would > be a minimal investment in materials to do a BLE style empirical > investigation, at least compared to that at 3MHz. It wouldn't be a > minimal investment in time but might be an interesting experiment. > > Given that it would be an epic challenge to measure field strength at a > grid of points on a hemisphere surrounding the monopole, I imagine a > single point field strength measurement would be an acceptable metric? > Thoughts on doing the measurement? I guess BLE would be a good guide > for the empiricist. > ======================================== The results of such experiments would probably generate far less interest than BLE's original work and would not be of great use. But somebody might possibly create a reputation out of it. To repeat BLE's experiments at HF, and to be of use, would require measurements to be made over a wide range of frequencies, over various lengths of radials, over various numbers of radials, over a range of soil resistivities and over a range of soil permittivities. Complexity and cost would be enormous. Financial returns would be relatively small. Who would invest in such a project? How many people wishing to erect a 28 MHz vertical over a set of radials need more knowledge than what already exists. Even CB-ers could do it! It would be far more economic, with a guessed understanding of how radials work, to write and dedicate a computer program to do the job. With a little more tidying-up, program Radial_3 would do. And it's FREE to USA citizens. No licence required! ;o) ---- Reg. Article: 227217 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:02:58 -0700 Message-ID: <6ebfc2plbt9ov3o11b2ua1d7cnplitn9jk@4ax.com> References: <1153847537.309493.36530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153852119.194366.137430@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4iqcc2l2lqa7fg1mahoma3afors04qm8r8@4ax.com> <1153855387.106686.133430@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <44C670A6.43A73803@milestones.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:27:34 -0400, dxAce wrote: >Face it, you're just lazy. ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ Laziness is not the issue. It's a question of results gained for the effort expended. Nearly everyone will put a LOT of effort into something if they perceive a useful return on their efforts. CW donesn't so that for most people. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227218 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:05:42 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153847537.309493.36530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 15:14:26 -0400, Dave wrote: >Bill, I had a master machinist work for me in the 1960s. He could make ANYTHING!! > >I asked him if he could make a car. Sure!! His reply: "All I need is a block of >steel 6X6X20 feet, a large milling machine, and a large lathe." > >He was a Ham Radio Operator, Collins stuff of the 60s. > >/s/ DD W1MCE ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ The question was not if you "could" build you own car, it was "did" you. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227219 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Icom 746PRO Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:11:22 -0700 Message-ID: <60cfc21h9i92qkpciiqo2i3pcad9qi7g5a@4ax.com> References: <_KSdnVbqJ9Ykb1vZnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:42:33 -0500, Nevermind (Nevermind@hotmail.com) wrote: >Has anyone purchased a recent ICOM 746PRO radio, and had any >problems? I would like to buy one soon, but there seemed to be alot >of problems in the early models. I was just wondering how the newer >models were holding up. ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ If you go to the Icom website, they acknowledge the problem and have a serial number posted, after which the problem is fixed. That serial number happened a long time ago, so recent production should be ok. Just verify the serial number. Bill, W6WRT Article: 227220 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Choices, Choices, Choices... CW or CB? Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:11:55 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1153847537.309493.36530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1153852119.194366.137430@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4iqcc2l2lqa7fg1mahoma3afors04qm8r8@4ax.com> <1153860018.027583.116140@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On 25 Jul 2006 13:40:18 -0700, "RHF" wrote: >BT - One Word : "Amateur" {Ham} as in Operator ~ RHF > >All 'others' for the most part are 'appliance operators' >just like so many CB'ers - IMHO. > . ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ Nope. It's "Amateur Radio Operator", not "Amateur Radio Constructor". I'll ask again: What does construction skill have to do with operator skill? Bill, W6WRT Article: 227221 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "NA" Subject: FS Antenna coupler Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:17:04 GMT I have a what looks like a military coupler. Housed in aluminum that is made to evacuate. Motor driven vacuum variable and inductor. I will e-mail photos upon request. $300 plus shipping >from 96701 -- Jim WH6Q Article: 227222 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Howard W3CQH" References: <1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: neighborhood antenna restrictions Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:02:25 -0400 Message-ID: Be sure that the Gutters are not grounded. If you have Aluminum Siding, the gutters maybe attached to the siding. A quick check with an ohmmeter should verify that. Other wise the gutters make a great antenna. "Rayburn" wrote in message news:e204b$44c6a6ab$8b371d4a$30394@ALLTEL.NET... > Copper and aluminum Gutters work great!...If they only run across the > front and back of the house you can connect them with a small wire across > the roof to make for a nice long antenna! > > For example I'm hooked to the bottom of a downspout near the ground on my > 3 story home....about 28 feet up the guttering starts and runs 25 feet > across the back of the house......I connected a wire across the roof (60 > feet long) to the end of the front gutter thats the same height and > length. > > 166 feet of antenna in the shape of an upside down U ! > > I buried a couple of ground radials next to a fence for 160...80....40 and > added a few short ones for 20 /15 and 10 about an inch deep in the > yard.....works great with a tuner and is fantastic on the L and AM bands > for reception as well! > > Other than a small 4 inch length of coax behind the house next to the > garage door.....Its invisible! > wrote in message > news:1153692686.342597.27820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... >> Help. I've been licensed since 1967, but I haven't been active for >> about 20 years. I just bought a FT-101EE with a Cushcraft R4 vertical >> antenna, however there are restrictions in my subdivision about >> antennas. I'm thinking my best bet may be a long wire between my house >> and a neighbor's tree with a tuner. I know this is an ago old battle, >> any ideas for an inconspicuous HF antenna? >> > > Article: 227223 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: kb9rqz_child_molester@yahoo.com Subject: Re: may the lord bless and grant you pecae from the mental illness that traps you Date: 26 Jul 2006 12:18:25 -0700 Message-ID: <1153941505.185318.89570@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1153685459.215393.83880@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> an old freind wrote: > may the lord bless and grant you pecae from the mental illness that > traps you May you die in a horrible accident because of brake failure. Article: 227224 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: peewee_lloyd_davies