antenna
 

Out of desperation, I thought I'd post SOMETHING (ANYTHING) with the
word "antenna" in it.

I am preparing to set up a 2nd wire antenna at approx 90 degrees from my
G5RV. This antenna is a purchased folded dipole from DX
Engineering. It'll be connected to 400 ohm twin lead to a 4:1 Balun (DX
Engineering again) and then RG8/U into the shack.

Is it better to place it 90 degrees from the center or from one of the
ends? The ARRL Antenna Book shows both methods.

Thanks to ANYONE that answers "en forme"

John
AB8O

antenna
 

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:56:04 -0500, jawod wrote:

I am preparing to set up a 2nd wire antenna at approx 90 degrees from my
G5RV. This antenna is a purchased folded dipole from DX
Engineering. It'll be connected to 400 ohm twin lead to a 4:1 Balun (DX
Engineering again) and then RG8/U into the shack.

Is it better to place it 90 degrees from the center or from one of the
ends? The ARRL Antenna Book shows both methods.

Hi John,

Why all the care for technical description, and then form a question
appealing to aesthetics? Better?

"Better" is the parent to all answers both planned and ill-conceived.
I am forced to fill in the rhetorical blank left there as to you
meaning "would there be any impact that exceeds 1dB on way or the
other if the antenna were placed, say, diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably not.

However, this direct answer returns us to the semantic word-chase of
just what is meant by "better" and to what degree it is measured.

Another fill in the rhetorical blank: "would it affect the tune of
both/either to more than 10KHz? if the antenna were placed, say,
diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably, but "better" is relative to the distance in terms of
wavelength, and as the G5RV is a multiband antenna, and the new one
comes without pedigree, then that relativity is strained.

However, you do not express any inclination for the diagonal, but it
comes by association with center placement vs. end placement. The
crossed antennas of dipoles find each in the other's null; however,
what of dipoles crossed not like an X but rather like a T, or an L?

Interesting question that could be easily examined in 10 minutes by
the free version of EZNEC. My aesthetics demand a 1db variation or a
10Khz shift. They are met on the one, but not the other - this says
nothing of your sense of "better." The T and the X lead, whereas the
L and especially the diagonal push the envelope.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

antenna
 

Way to go Richard... That'll teach im to post anything about
antennas...

John, my immediate inclination without giving it any hard thought would
be to have them cross near the center lines as opposed to ends...
Now, I don't know about this using a balun as a transmatch... I
personally would not do that, but you may be perfectly happy with it -
especially if you only operate on one portion of the band and get the
antenna or feedline tuned so you have minimal reactance... BTW, you
will love the folded dipoles, they are just happy antennas...

denny / k8do

antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:56:04 -0500, jawod wrote:


I am preparing to set up a 2nd wire antenna at approx 90 degrees from my
G5RV. This antenna is a purchased folded dipole from DX
Engineering. It'll be connected to 400 ohm twin lead to a 4:1 Balun (DX
Engineering again) and then RG8/U into the shack.

Is it better to place it 90 degrees from the center or from one of the
ends? The ARRL Antenna Book shows both methods.


Hi John,

Why all the care for technical description, and then form a question
appealing to aesthetics? Better?

"Better" is the parent to all answers both planned and ill-conceived.
I am forced to fill in the rhetorical blank left there as to you
meaning "would there be any impact that exceeds 1dB on way or the
other if the antenna were placed, say, diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably not.

However, this direct answer returns us to the semantic word-chase of
just what is meant by "better" and to what degree it is measured.

Another fill in the rhetorical blank: "would it affect the tune of
both/either to more than 10KHz? if the antenna were placed, say,
diagonally to the G5RV."

Probably, but "better" is relative to the distance in terms of
wavelength, and as the G5RV is a multiband antenna, and the new one
comes without pedigree, then that relativity is strained.

However, you do not express any inclination for the diagonal, but it
comes by association with center placement vs. end placement. The
crossed antennas of dipoles find each in the other's null; however,
what of dipoles crossed not like an X but rather like a T, or an L?

Interesting question that could be easily examined in 10 minutes by
the free version of EZNEC. My aesthetics demand a 1db variation or a
10Khz shift. They are met on the one, but not the other - this says
nothing of your sense of "better." The T and the X lead, whereas the
L and especially the diagonal push the envelope.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Richard

"You shore do talk pretty" :)

I meant "better" as in which arrangement looks best strung with
Christmas lights, of course.

Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis, I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one). I use an iMac. It won't do EZNEC (unfortunately).

BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?

and by "work" I mean ...

John
AB8O

antenna
 

Denny wrote:
Way to go Richard... That'll teach im to post anything about
antennas...

John, my immediate inclination without giving it any hard thought would
be to have them cross near the center lines as opposed to ends...
Now, I don't know about this using a balun as a transmatch... I
personally would not do that, but you may be perfectly happy with it -
especially if you only operate on one portion of the band and get the
antenna or feedline tuned so you have minimal reactance... BTW, you
will love the folded dipoles, they are just happy antennas...

denny / k8do

Thanks, Denny

You know, I used the folded dipole first, but I think the G5RV
outperforms it, but not on 30M and not on 17M, two bands I have interest
in. Frankly my own interest in placement, while not trivial, is not
that important...I just missed antenna threads in the group.

John
AB8O

antenna
 

jawod wrote:
You know, I used the folded dipole first, but I think the G5RV
outperforms it, but not on 30M and not on 17M, ...

http://www.vk1od.net/G5RV/

shows why the standard G5RV doesn't work well on 30m, 17m,
and 10m. If you want 30m operation, shorten the matching
section to about 20.5 feet. If you want 17m operation,
lengthen the matching section to about 37 feet. EZNEC
says that will give you a 50 ohm SWR of ~3:1 on 30m and
~2:1 on 17m. When I was running a G5RV, I had pluggable
lengths of ladder-line so I could vary the length of the
matching section from 20 feet to 36 feet for good
performance on all HF bands. Somebody (I forget who) used
remote controlled relays to accomplish the "tuning".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

antenna
 

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:52:20 -0500, jawod wrote:

Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis,

It is a reciprocal (analysis/expression) characteristic inherent to
successful engineering; others use tea leaves (couched in trade argot)
to present results of dubious quality.

I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one).

Hi John,

You obviously have never read an Intel hardware manual (circa MDS-80).

BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?

This is something YOU should investigate. Mac now uses that
one-and-the-same Intel engine. It is suggested in the press that it
runs both operating systems. It costs more to do the same thing, but
you get that cool logo. I prefer OpenSource servers, applications,
and Linux. I haven't bought a M$ product in this millennium having
experienced the Windows Me platform (Chairman Bill's fin du cercle
joke on us all).

As I pointed out earlier, your question is answered in 10 minutes to
all variations that I offered. That analysis even gives degrees of
"better" as expressed in KHz and dB (quantifiable engineering terms
commonly used in serious antenna discussion). As a spoiler, I will
offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB. Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.

You still haven't offered us what the qualified term "better" means to
YOU.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:52:20 -0500, jawod wrote:


Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis,


It is a reciprocal (analysis/expression) characteristic inherent to
successful engineering; others use tea leaves (couched in trade argot)
to present results of dubious quality.


I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one).


Hi John,

You obviously have never read an Intel hardware manual (circa MDS-80).


BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?


This is something YOU should investigate. Mac now uses that
one-and-the-same Intel engine. It is suggested in the press that it
runs both operating systems. It costs more to do the same thing, but
you get that cool logo. I prefer OpenSource servers, applications,
and Linux. I haven't bought a M$ product in this millennium having
experienced the Windows Me platform (Chairman Bill's fin du cercle
joke on us all).

As I pointed out earlier, your question is answered in 10 minutes to
all variations that I offered. That analysis even gives degrees of
"better" as expressed in KHz and dB (quantifiable engineering terms
commonly used in serious antenna discussion).


As a spoiler, I will
offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB.

darn, I guess forming my initials is out of the question.

Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.

You still haven't offered us what the qualified term "better" means to
YOU.
yes, I did.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Rave on, OM, rave on. Meanwhile, I've got an antenna to put up.

Thanks for all the "help"

and by "help" I mean ...

antenna
 

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:27:03 -0500, jawod wrote:
You still haven't offered us what the qualified term "better" means to
YOU.
yes, I did.
I meant "better" as in which arrangement looks best strung with
Christmas lights, of course.

You were right, initially, to pose this as a thread of desperation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

antenna
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:52:20 -0500, jawod wrote:

Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis,

It is a reciprocal (analysis/expression) characteristic inherent to
successful engineering; others use tea leaves (couched in trade argot)
to present results of dubious quality.

I imagine you use a
Microsoft product (at least conversing with you is similar to using
one).

Hi John,

You obviously have never read an Intel hardware manual (circa MDS-80).

BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?

This is something YOU should investigate. Mac now uses that
one-and-the-same Intel engine. It is suggested in the press that it
runs both operating systems. It costs more to do the same thing, but
you get that cool logo.

For everyone's notes: EZnec runs quite nicely on an Intel based iMac.


I prefer OpenSource servers, applications,
and Linux. I haven't bought a M$ product in this millennium having
experienced the Windows Me platform (Chairman Bill's fin du cercle
joke on us all).

I work both Microsoft, OSX, and am learning Linux.

Not that it was asked for, but my experience has been that MS OS is
great if you have paid support staff to make it run, Linux is nice, but
every once in a while, it kicks us back to 1985, (sorry - unforgivable
in 2006) and when I absolutely have to get it done with a minimum of..
what is the technical term? Oh yeah - with a minimum of peckering
around, I'll use OSX any day.

And my G5 Mac is cool to look at too - inside and out.




As I pointed out earlier, your question is answered in 10 minutes to
all variations that I offered. That analysis even gives degrees of
"better" as expressed in KHz and dB (quantifiable engineering terms
commonly used in serious antenna discussion).

Of course one can get the answer from a modeling program. Of course,
the modeling program won't tell *why*.

Here is a video of me trying to get a modeling program to tell me why my
antenna design worked like it said...

http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html



As a spoiler, I will
offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB. Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.


Now that's better!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

Mr. Clark, me thinks you best get back on your medications om !!!!



--James--

antenna
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:52:20 -0500, jawod wrote:

Based upon your microscopic linguistic analysis,


It is a reciprocal (analysis/expression) characteristic inherent to
successful engineering; others use tea leaves (couched in trade argot)
to present results of dubious quality.

I imagine you use a Microsoft product (at least conversing with you
is similar to using one).


Hi John,

You obviously have never read an Intel hardware manual (circa MDS-80).

BTW (seriously), will the new Mac products work with EZNEC?


This is something YOU should investigate. Mac now uses that
one-and-the-same Intel engine. It is suggested in the press that it
runs both operating systems. It costs more to do the same thing, but
you get that cool logo.


For everyone's notes: EZnec runs quite nicely on an Intel based iMac.


I prefer OpenSource servers, applications,
and Linux. I haven't bought a M$ product in this millennium having
experienced the Windows Me platform (Chairman Bill's fin du cercle
joke on us all).


I work both Microsoft, OSX, and am learning Linux.

Not that it was asked for, but my experience has been that MS OS is
great if you have paid support staff to make it run, Linux is nice, but
every once in a while, it kicks us back to 1985, (sorry - unforgivable
in 2006) and when I absolutely have to get it done with a minimum of..
what is the technical term? Oh yeah - with a minimum of peckering
around, I'll use OSX any day.

And my G5 Mac is cool to look at too - inside and out.




As I pointed out earlier, your question is answered in 10 minutes to
all variations that I offered. That analysis even gives degrees of
"better" as expressed in KHz and dB (quantifiable engineering terms
commonly used in serious antenna discussion).


Of course one can get the answer from a modeling program. Of course,
the modeling program won't tell *why*.

Here is a video of me trying to get a modeling program to tell me why my
antenna design worked like it said...

http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html



As a spoiler, I will

offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB. Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.



Now that's better!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
Mike,
That is about the funniest video I've seen in some time! In German, no
less!


Thanks

John
AB8O

antenna
 

Michael Coslo wrote:


I work both Microsoft, OSX, and am learning Linux.

Not that it was asked for, but my experience has been that MS OS is
great if you have paid support staff to make it run, Linux is nice, but
every once in a while, it kicks us back to 1985, (sorry - unforgivable
in 2006) and when I absolutely have to get it done with a minimum of..

How so? Interested in your perspective on the 1985ish Linux issues.

And I have found that it takes less paid staff to support a number of
linux servers than the same number of 2K or 2K3 servers. Clicking is
much tougher to automate than simply writing scripts and adding them to
crontab.

tom
K0TAR

antenna
 

jawod wrote in :

Michael Coslo wrote:

Some snippage

Of course one can get the answer from a modeling program. Of
course,
the modeling program won't tell *why*.

Here is a video of me trying to get a modeling program to tell me why
my antenna design worked like it said...

http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html



As a spoiler, I will

offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB. Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.



Now that's better!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
Mike,
That is about the funniest video I've seen in some time! In German,
no less!

I know quite a few people who cannot make it through the thing!

Thanks

Hey! BTW, once you get used to Richard's prose, he's enjoyable to
read, and there is truth in his ministrations.

73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

Mike:

You may be quite right, Richard may not be all bad (I imagine a cadence
to his words--much like a drill instructors voice too!)

But anyone which likes Shakespeare? Ewwwwwww!

JS

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
6...
jawod wrote in :

Michael Coslo wrote:

Some snippage

Of course one can get the answer from a modeling program. Of
course,
the modeling program won't tell *why*.

Here is a video of me trying to get a modeling program to tell me
why
my antenna design worked like it said...

http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html



As a spoiler, I will

offer that the diagonal placement seriously disrupts both
resonance
AND gain to the tune of 100s of KHz and 3-4 dB. Of course, the
qualifier "seriously" was meaningful only to me; that is, until I
quantified it.



Now that's better!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -
Mike,
That is about the funniest video I've seen in some time! In German,
no less!

I know quite a few people who cannot make it through the thing!

Thanks

Hey! BTW, once you get used to Richard's prose, he's enjoyable to
read, and there is truth in his ministrations.

73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

Tom Ring wrote in
:

Michael Coslo wrote:


I work both Microsoft, OSX, and am learning Linux.

Not that it was asked for, but my experience has been that MS OS
is
great if you have paid support staff to make it run, Linux is nice,
but every once in a while, it kicks us back to 1985, (sorry -
unforgivable in 2006) and when I absolutely have to get it done with
a minimum of..

How so? Interested in your perspective on the 1985ish Linux issues.


My perspective is that of an OS that occasionally makes me work as if it
was 1985. More on that below.



And I have found that it takes less paid staff to support a number of
linux servers than the same number of 2K or 2K3 servers. Clicking is
much tougher to automate than simply writing scripts and adding them
to crontab.

Ahh, the perspective issue! Agreed that getting to the command line
is a more efficient method, even on an Xserve. But I have to deal
with situations where I have to get a piece of hardware, anstall and
use it and any software needed, and meet a deadline.A real short
one. With the PC, we usually find that we have hardware limitations
(always cured by spending a few K), with Linux, we can spend a lot
of time looking for drivers, installing a program is always
exciting, and usually the deadline has come and gone in either case.

I use the Mac because I work with a computer, not get a computer to
work. I'll gladly concede that the other platforms/OS's are much
superior - certainly they must be, because they require a support
staff that knows many interesting and arcane things, and I just plug
away, meeting deadlines.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

"John Smith" wrote in news:ekj6ar$nfb$1
@news.ndhu.edu.tw:

Mike:

You may be quite right, Richard may not be all bad (I imagine a cadence
to his words--much like a drill instructors voice too!)

But anyone which likes Shakespeare? Ewwwwwww!


"Pause awhile, And let my counsel sway you in this case."


(whispering.... I think he might be an English Major)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

Mike:

There was a time when linux expected all hardware to know its job and
have the internal software (firmware instructions actually) to do its
job and leave the OS free to use its processor cycles much more
efficiently. Linux ran like a race car back then, and the command line
as opposed to the processor cycle glutton of the GUI aided this
tremendously (or, I don't need all those cutsie windows, icons, themes
and sounds!)

Windows tries to encompass and contain all the software necessary to do
all things (mostly as dll's, ocx code, etc.) No better example of this
exists, which I can think of, than the "software modem" as opposed to
the hardware modem. The OS must handle all data
compaction/encryption/de-encryption/de-compaction/"error
checking"/sending/receiving/etc. and slows other processes down to
accomplish this (or, why is my word processor dragging when the modem is
on?), for the software modem. The hardware modem just does it all and
hands data to the OS, or takes data from it for processing and sending.
The 56K USRobotics Courier External modem was the prime example of such
a hardware modem and contained its own processor and it was identical (I
think) to the processor used in the first IBM computers (second
generation actually, first generation used the 8086;s)--intel 80186's?
This was one powerful modem! It's speed unmatched by any of the day...

Now, both linux and windows are growing towards a common ground where
both OS's will contain all this software and become bogged down handling
all the processes for all the hardware--not good in my opinion. But, it
gives us cheap computers (the hardware is just basically ports and
mechanics.)

Put simply, a hardware techs' job is to speed up computers operations by
magnitudes. A software tech's job is to slow down the computers
operation by magnitudes. You see this before your eyes, each year
computer hardware is 10x faster, each year the OS is 10x slower, which
results in very little if any net gain in "actual user speed", best seen
when waiting for the OS to boot up!

My next favorite gripe is the retail takeover of the internet. I don't
come here to buy things. Why not create a .ret (dot ret) in addition to
..com, .net, .org? Then banish all sales to .ret addresses so my google
searches don't return tons of useless chinese junk for purchase. If I
ever want to buy online I will know to search for .ret sites! Oh well.

JS

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
6...
Tom Ring wrote in
:

Michael Coslo wrote:


I work both Microsoft, OSX, and am learning Linux.

Not that it was asked for, but my experience has been that MS
OS
is
great if you have paid support staff to make it run, Linux is nice,
but every once in a while, it kicks us back to 1985, (sorry -
unforgivable in 2006) and when I absolutely have to get it done
with
a minimum of..

How so? Interested in your perspective on the 1985ish Linux issues.


My perspective is that of an OS that occasionally makes me work as if
it
was 1985. More on that below.



And I have found that it takes less paid staff to support a number
of
linux servers than the same number of 2K or 2K3 servers. Clicking
is
much tougher to automate than simply writing scripts and adding them
to crontab.

Ahh, the perspective issue! Agreed that getting to the command
line
is a more efficient method, even on an Xserve. But I have to deal
with situations where I have to get a piece of hardware, anstall
and
use it and any software needed, and meet a deadline.A real short
one. With the PC, we usually find that we have hardware
limitations
(always cured by spending a few K), with Linux, we can spend a lot
of time looking for drivers, installing a program is always
exciting, and usually the deadline has come and gone in either
case.

I use the Mac because I work with a computer, not get a computer
to
work. I'll gladly concede that the other platforms/OS's are much
superior - certainly they must be, because they require a support
staff that knows many interesting and arcane things, and I just
plug
away, meeting deadlines.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

This is not a forum for operating systems... Let us get back on
topic, folks...

denny

John Smith wrote:
Mike:

There was a time when linux expected all hardware to know its job and
have the internal software (firmware instructions actually) to do its
job and leave the OS free to use its processor cycles much more
efficiently. Linux ran like a race car back then, and the command line
as opposed to the processor cycle glutton of the GUI aided this
tremendously (or, I don't need all those cutsie windows, icons, themes
and sounds!)

Windows tries to encompass and contain all the software necessary to do
all things (mostly as dll's, ocx code, etc.) No better example of this
exists, which I can think of, than the "software modem" as opposed to
the hardware modem. The OS must handle all data
compaction/encryption/de-encryption/de-compaction/"error
checking"/sending/receiving/etc. and slows other processes down to
accomplish this (or, why is my word processor dragging when the modem is
on?), for the software modem. The hardware modem just does it all and
hands data to the OS, or takes data from it for processing and sending.
The 56K USRobotics Courier External modem was the prime example of such
a hardware modem and contained its own processor and it was identical (I
think) to the processor used in the first IBM computers (second
generation actually, first generation used the 8086;s)--intel 80186's?
This was one powerful modem! It's speed unmatched by any of the day...

Now, both linux and windows are growing towards a common ground where
both OS's will contain all this software and become bogged down handling
all the processes for all the hardware--not good in my opinion. But, it
gives us cheap computers (the hardware is just basically ports and
mechanics.)

Put simply, a hardware techs' job is to speed up computers operations by
magnitudes. A software tech's job is to slow down the computers
operation by magnitudes. You see this before your eyes, each year
computer hardware is 10x faster, each year the OS is 10x slower, which
results in very little if any net gain in "actual user speed", best seen
when waiting for the OS to boot up!

My next favorite gripe is the retail takeover of the internet. I don't
come here to buy things. Why not create a .ret (dot ret) in addition to
.com, .net, .org? Then banish all sales to .ret addresses so my google
searches don't return tons of useless chinese junk for purchase. If I
ever want to buy online I will know to search for .ret sites! Oh well.

JS

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
6...
Tom Ring wrote in
:

Michael Coslo wrote:


I work both Microsoft, OSX, and am learning Linux.

Not that it was asked for, but my experience has been that MS
OS
is
great if you have paid support staff to make it run, Linux is nice,
but every once in a while, it kicks us back to 1985, (sorry -
unforgivable in 2006) and when I absolutely have to get it done
with
a minimum of..

How so? Interested in your perspective on the 1985ish Linux issues.


My perspective is that of an OS that occasionally makes me work as if
it
was 1985. More on that below.



And I have found that it takes less paid staff to support a number
of
linux servers than the same number of 2K or 2K3 servers. Clicking
is
much tougher to automate than simply writing scripts and adding them
to crontab.

Ahh, the perspective issue! Agreed that getting to the command
line
is a more efficient method, even on an Xserve. But I have to deal
with situations where I have to get a piece of hardware, anstall
and
use it and any software needed, and meet a deadline.A real short
one. With the PC, we usually find that we have hardware
limitations
(always cured by spending a few K), with Linux, we can spend a lot
of time looking for drivers, installing a program is always
exciting, and usually the deadline has come and gone in either
case.

I use the Mac because I work with a computer, not get a computer
to
work. I'll gladly concede that the other platforms/OS's are much
superior - certainly they must be, because they require a support
staff that knows many interesting and arcane things, and I just
plug
away, meeting deadlines.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

Mike Coslo wrote:


Ahh, the perspective issue! Agreed that getting to the command line
is a more efficient method, even on an Xserve. But I have to deal
with situations where I have to get a piece of hardware, anstall and
use it and any software needed, and meet a deadline.A real short
one. With the PC, we usually find that we have hardware limitations
(always cured by spending a few K), with Linux, we can spend a lot
of time looking for drivers, installing a program is always
exciting, and usually the deadline has come and gone in either case.

I use the Mac because I work with a computer, not get a computer to
work. I'll gladly concede that the other platforms/OS's are much
superior - certainly they must be, because they require a support
staff that knows many interesting and arcane things, and I just plug
away, meeting deadlines.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Well, I guess I'm lucky in that respect, I just need to keep the email,
web, DNS, etc. running. The hardware involved is never an issue, since
the ethernet card is about all the OS has to find drivers for, and
installations of current RHEL and its derivatives are a snap to perform.
RAID is the most important "odd" hardware in my world, and it is
thankfully transparent to the OS in most cases.

tom
K0TAR

antenna
 

Denny wrote:
This is not a forum for operating systems... Let us get back on
topic, folks...

Still, a better topic to read than most of the dreck on here.

I am homebrewing (if that term isn't overkill) a dipole and am using PVC
joints...a T in the middle and straight connectors for the ends. Will
these need to be treated (painted, etc) for UV protection?

Richard, feel free to give this one a pass. :)
You're a good guy, it's just that your prose borders on word salad
sometimes (hold the pedantic dressing)

John
AB8O

antenna
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
Hey! BTW, once you get used to Richard's prose, he's enjoyable to
read, and there is truth in his ministrations.

Even the part about reflections from non-reflective
glass being brighter than the surface of the sun? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

antenna
 

John Smith wrote:
The 56K USRobotics Courier External modem was the prime example of such
a hardware modem and contained its own processor and it was identical (I
think) to the processor used in the first IBM computers (second
generation actually, first generation used the 8086;s)--intel 80186's?

You are probably thinking of the 8088 (8-bit bus) used
in the low-end version of the first IBM PC. But the
"first IBM computers" were not solid-state. :-) Back
in the 50's, the IBM-650 computers used dual triodes
with a magnetic drum as the memory. The logic was
bi-quinary, somewhat like an abacus.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

antenna
 

Cecil:

I am trying to imagine a USRobotics modem the size of my garage!
Probably was the 8088, a '186 would have been a bit of an overkill for
56K and a phone line (but the 8088 probably had head-room left over!)

Regards,
JS

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
om...
John Smith wrote:
The 56K USRobotics Courier External modem was the prime example of
such
a hardware modem and contained its own processor and it was
identical (I
think) to the processor used in the first IBM computers (second
generation actually, first generation used the 8086;s)--intel
80186's?

You are probably thinking of the 8088 (8-bit bus) used
in the low-end version of the first IBM PC. But the
"first IBM computers" were not solid-state. :-) Back
in the 50's, the IBM-650 computers used dual triodes
with a magnetic drum as the memory. The logic was
bi-quinary, somewhat like an abacus.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

antenna
 

jawod wrote:
I am homebrewing (if that term isn't overkill) a dipole and am using PVC
joints...a T in the middle and straight connectors for the ends. Will
these need to be treated (painted, etc) for UV protection?

My experience: White PVC turns brittle under
TX and AZ UV rays.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

antenna
 

I have unpainted PVC poles up in Michigan and they have held up for
years with just a bit of powdering of the surface... If you are using
the dipole for a year or three leave it bare... If you think it may be
up for decades, spray with a dark color paint to block UV...


denny

antenna
 

Denny wrote:
This is not a forum for operating systems... Let us get back on
topic, folks...


Hey Denny! Why dontcya go tell the crossposters to shut up too!


Plonk me please!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
Hey! BTW, once you get used to Richard's prose, he's enjoyable to
read, and there is truth in his ministrations.

Even the part about reflections from non-reflective
glass being brighter than the surface of the sun? :-)

Don't recall that one, Cecil.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

antenna
 

GREY PVC

jawod wrote:
Denny wrote:

This is not a forum for operating systems... Let us get back on
topic, folks...


Still, a better topic to read than most of the dreck on here.

I am homebrewing (if that term isn't overkill) a dipole and am using PVC
joints...a T in the middle and straight connectors for the ends. Will
these need to be treated (painted, etc) for UV protection?

Richard, feel free to give this one a pass. :)
You're a good guy, it's just that your prose borders on word salad
sometimes (hold the pedantic dressing)

John
AB8O