Gee. . . You're sure a cheery fellow.
I was mostly interested in the Historic Art of the darn thing. I
well know it's majorly "Out Dated", but if one does things for the
pure enjoyment of it, then I guess it's not the issue of performance,
but art, which is also defined by retrieving a wonderful time from out
of our past. I'm just a stupid romantic at heat. . . And I enjoy
being so.
Thanks for the info though. I guess some how I got the information
backwards, but then again, I also see a great many views on the
subject of a fat conductor. . . Me thinks the subject still isn't
closed due to that simple fact that nobody really yet knows for sure.

73's
Rob



On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:11:10 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:06:06 -0700, Joe Bloe
wrote:

The Caged Di-Pole is supposed to be very well suited for weak signal
reception.

Hi Rob,

"Supposed to be" is how fairy tales end; they start with "Once upon a
time."

I know that a Yagi can do very well in this regard, but
its the art of it that I'm interested in, and as far as I can see,
it's almost an lost aspect of HAM radio nowadays.

Does anybody remember these things?

More than those who can explain why, when push comes to shove. Hence
your complete introduction should have read:
Once upon a time the Caged Di-Pole was supposed to be very well
suited for weak signal reception.

The only attribute of a (uncommon) cage structure is wider bandwidth
than a (common) thin wire antenna. This is not the same as bringing
more sensitivity. The exertion of building one, and then erecting it
probably induces a wishful sense of dream fulfillment.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:14:21 -0700, Joe Bloe
wrote:

Gee. . . You're sure a cheery fellow.
I was mostly interested in the Historic Art of the darn thing. I
well know it's majorly "Out Dated", but if one does things for the
pure enjoyment of it, then I guess it's not the issue of performance,
but art, which is also defined by retrieving a wonderful time from out
of our past. I'm just a stupid romantic at heat. . . And I enjoy
being so.

Hi Rob,

One does not have to be:
1. Stupid;
2. Romantic;
or
3. Out Dated
to use a cage properly.

Me thinks the subject still isn't
closed due to that simple fact that nobody really yet knows for sure.

Visit:
http://home.comcast.net/~kb7qhc/ante.../Cage/cage.htm
to see just how much work you have to go to (the picture explains that
easily enough), to know for sure (it isn't really all that
mysterious), and to get it right (not hard in the least).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Joe Bloe wrote:
Gee. . . You're sure a cheery fellow.

Hi Rob - Richard has a way with words. Stick with him, and you'll start
to enjoy it, once you get used to the prose.


I was mostly interested in the Historic Art of the darn thing. I
well know it's majorly "Out Dated", but if one does things for the
pure enjoyment of it, then I guess it's not the issue of performance,
but art, which is also defined by retrieving a wonderful time from out
of our past. I'm just a stupid romantic at heat. . . And I enjoy
being so.

It is a viable antenna, and not outdated. It might help you eke out a
bit more bandwidth on 80/75 meters. And as far as I am concerned, it is
plenty cool looking too.


Okay, so you are a romantic. I have a little bit of that in me too! Try
these on for size:


Make and use some real open line feeder. This stuff is cool, works
really well, and has a real retro look to boot. Most of the time we use
plastic spacers these days, but if you want to be authentic, you could
use wood dowels soaked in hot paraffin.

Of course you'll need a tuner for that setup. How about an "open faced
tuner"? Wind the coil on a suitable form, and use clips to attach to it
to tune. Make everything pretty, and you'll have a nice nostalgia type
station that also works. I'd suggest that the tuner have a plexiglass
cover for safety.

Old school, You bet. Very very cool though.

Thanks for the info though. I guess some how I got the information
backwards, but then again, I also see a great many views on the
subject of a fat conductor. . . Me thinks the subject still isn't
closed due to that simple fact that nobody really yet knows for sure.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -