"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
aunwin wrote:
So Cecil, that is what I mean about supplying relevant data ...

Well, in a nutshell, I route my dipole such that the four 11 dBi lobes on
10m are aimed at the English speaking land masses of the world. That works
like a charm (for me). If I ever have trouble reading someone, I switch
over

Cecil now you have decided to add to your original statement regarding
comparisons
and whoa you switch over to other means of communication when this antenna
lets you down so badly , so having a back up like a phone makes the antenna
worthwhile as a comparison with other antennas and you are admitting your
previous info was misleading at best.
to my rotatable dipole with only a 9 dBi gain and TOA of 10 deg to see if
the QSO can be improved. I seriously doubt that any vertical monopole can
beat my rotatable dipole with 9dBi gain and TOA of 10 degrees. I also
doubt that any two element vertical phased array can beat 9 dBi at 10 deg
Now you are at it again, you didn't mention anything about the length of
your "simple dipole and yet you doubt that any two element ( why two
elements) can beat 9 dbi at 10 degrees. You are suddenly believing your own
misleading words, since you play games with the lengths in a simple diameter
others can play the same silly game, two vertical elements surely can beat
your antenna if they follow your rules,an element or dipole description in
no way places a restriction on length. So your response is not just a
nutshell as you stated, you are just playing nuts. But you are not alone
inthis comparison game,somebody stated he read somewhere that the dipole was
such and such efficient which is absolutely silly if that is all you
remember since you have to know efficiency over what! Surely he could have
introduced some thoughts of his own like compared to a broom stick but no,
suffice enough that he read that little bit in a book!
Again nothing personal but I agree with Mark these discussions are not
worthy of you when ambiguety is deliberately inserted purely to win a debate
rather than advance the cause of science. Cecil you are smart enough to
discuss most things on its merits, why stoop to the level of some who prefer
to supply monologues onEHantennas
or something else to prove theycan fill a page with garbage and trick others
to read it ?
Best regards and I do mean it as this is not meant to be a personal attack
Art



TOA.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

aunwin wrote:
Cecil you are smart enough to discuss most things on its merits, ...

Well, in a nutshell, Art, a vertical has to overcome an s7 noise
level at my QTH to hear anything. The dipole only has to overcome
an s4 noise level.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
You do understand that a standing wave pattern is NOT a plot of
instantaneous voltages or currents, right?

It is whatever you define it to be, Jim.

If that's what you think, then the answer is you don't know what a
standing wave pattern is, and there really is nothing further I can
discuss with you on the subject.

I know what a standing wave pattern is, Jim, and it is nothing that
can be put on a sheet of paper. It is a dynamically changing pattern.
Anything on paper is just a freeze-frame snapshot. I am surprised that
you don't know that.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Tdonaly wrote:
What's that you said about ad hominem attacks, Cecil?

The last part of "ad hominem" means "to the man", Tom, not
to the Flat Earth *Society*. An ad hominem attack, by definition,
is aimed at an individual, not at a group.

If you have to sink to misrepresenting other people's ideas in order to "win"
your argument, you've actually admitted that you've lost.

I treat people the way I am first treated by them, Tom. If one
wants me to treat him like a decent human being, then one has
to act decently. There are a number of people on this newsgroup
who act decently and a number who don't.

I notice that instead of just admitting that a real-world physically
large loading coil can occupy 1/2 wavelength, you are having to resort
to accusations of ad hominem attacks as a diversion away from that
central issue.

Falsely accusing me of an ad hominem attack when I rag on the Flat
Earth Society *is* an ad hominem attack so "you've actually admitted
that you've lost." Your words, copied and pasted from above. Hint:
Be civil to me and I'll be civil to you.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

a veritable font of flat earth socialist semantic nonsense:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 10:52:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Falsely accusing me of an ad hominem attack when I rag on the Flat
Earth Society *is* an ad hominem attack so "you've actually admitted
that you've lost."

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:07:41 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
It's not ad hominem if it's true

Richard Clark wrote:
a veritable font of flat earth socialist semantic nonsense:

In accordance with the subject of this thread. But it's
libertarian, not socialist. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:
a veritable font of flat earth socialist semantic nonsense:



What does the "socialist" crap have to do here?
Another twisted tangent of smokey mirrors to obscure the reality?

IMWTK

Yuri

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Anything on paper is just a freeze-frame snapshot."

Yes, as a-c alternates, standing-waves stand.

Standing-wave ratio=SWR

SWR = Emax/Emin, or SWR = Imax / Imin. The ratio is the same for volts
or amps.

SWR expresses the magnitude of the reflection coefficient.

Reflection coefficient= Rho
Rho=(ZL/Zo)-1 / (ZL/Zo)+1

There are no volts or amps in the expression for Rho, so it is
independent of signal strength. Though we may find SWR with a voltage
probe, SWR is only indicating severity of mismatch which is a function
of impedance ratios and is independent volts, amps, and power.

So long as you are consistent in using rms, peak, or even instantaneous
values at the same point in the cycle of voltage or current, SWR values
can be good. A good SWR meter reading does not depend on signal
strength.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 21 Feb 2004 19:13:25 GMT, oUsama (Yuri Blanarovich)
wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
a veritable font of flat earth socialist semantic nonsense:
What does the "socialist" crap have to do here?
Perhaps you could elaborate...
Another twisted tangent of smokey mirrors to obscure the reality?
So ALL of this thread reads. Thanks for not drifting off topic. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"aunwin" wrote in message
If given the the gain at 90 degrees would you interpret that as having zero
over the horizon at say 15 degrees ?. Zero at 30 degrees? I would say that
if an antenna is a cloud warmer it does not necessarily discriminate against
low angle signals so it is not or should not be a statement of derisement.

It's simple to check using eznec. One advantage eznec has over some
other programs as far as the plot...
You do a far field plot, and look at the pattern plot. You will see
max gain at a certain angle. At that angle , at the top of the plot,
you will see a little green ball. You can "grab" that green ball or
marker and drag it down to whatever angle you want to look at. You
could check overhead, at 20 degrees, 10, 5, or whatever angle you want
to see.


Frankly this business of comparing antennas is pretty stupid UNLESS one
prescribes a specific object .

That ain't no joke... MK