On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:52:25 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Walter Maxwell wrote:
Jimmie, will you please translate 'ROTFLMAO' ?

Hey Walt, if you don't want to be an OF, you
need to QSY to the following web page: :-)

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/%5C

Thanks, Cecil, you just saved me from a fate worse than death. I've added the URL to my favorite list. Thanks
again.

Walt

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:47:30 -0400, "Jimmie D" wrote:


"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:43:54 -0400, "Jimmie D"
wrote:


"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:14:58 -0700, art wrote:

Art, I'm curious concerning what kind of mind-enhancing substance you
were
on when you wrote the above post.
As far as I can tell, this post concerns the coaxial dipole. However, I
don't discern any relationship between
your post and the coaxial dipole.

What does "60 turns on a 2 foot former" have to do with the coaxial
dipole?

And what is the "barrell" that you can leave on the ground or put on
the
top of the tower for rotation
purposes? Rotation of an 80-meter dipole with a barrell on the top of
the
tower? Art, you have been smoking
too much liquid polyurethane in your Gaussian pipe.

Walt, W2DU


ROTFLMAO

Jimmie

Jimmie, will you please translate 'ROTFLMAO' ? My dimwitted brain can't
figure out what you mean.

Walt, W2DU

Rolling On The Floor Llaughing My Ass Off

I getting over surgery
Im easily entertained when Ive been taking oxycodone(percocet)


Thanks, Jimmie, for the translation. In addition, Cecil directed me to the acronym dictionary, where I also
found it.

Hope your recovery from surgery goes well. I'm still recovering (very slowly) from spinal surgery performed in
April, so I'm well familiar with oxycodone.

Walt

Well, I just put up a 'coaxial' dipole, but I'm easily confused...
I got the diagram out and laid it on the floor and then some coax, and
some insulators, and some wire, and my big ol soldering iron
( about a 1000 watts used for soldering copper pipes back in my auto
company days)
And then I went to wrestlin with the devil...
After the solder smoke and fumes cleared and my eyes quit waterin, I
Looked around and lo to behold it was a dipole...
But the durned coax was runnin from the center to the rig and the wire
wuz runnin from one end insulator to tother one... Didn't look nothin
like the diagram... Well, I'm not one to go against the current so I
decided to put it up anyways just for fun...
So, I gets it up and I goes and checks the swear thing they all talk
about...
Seems there is a problem...
First I sets the swear meter to forward and adjust the knobby thing so
it reads full scale...
Then I tries the reflected setting and that's when the problem
begins...
The needle deflects all the way to zero and when I looks at the funny
looking Bird chart with the kinda diagonal lines running up and down,
that says my swear ratio is 10 to 1... Looks like this 1.0:1 on
the chart.... Guess the printer made a typo...
Well, I decided to see if I could hook up with anyone before I pulled
it back down... There wuz this fella with a funny call sign, 3B7C
answered me... Now I need an dipole that will let me talk to Frank
over in Franklin County, so this coaxial dipole just ain't doing the
job at all...
Guess I gotta start all over agin...


denny / k8do

"Dale Parfitt" wrote in message
news:k7jHi.550$6o2.304@trnddc05...

Hello Bill,

I can understand that the coax dipoles you built are somewhat more
broadbanded than a simple dipole. However,
I suspect that you are unaware of the reason for the broadbanding. Sorry
to tell you, but it is achieved only
by the resistive losses in the coax, and not by the reactance obtained by
the two sections of shorted coax, as
incorrectly stated in several published articles.

I have made extensive measurements and calculations that prove my
statement above. I have reported these
measurements and calculations in both QST and in my book 'Reflections'.
The QST reference appears in the
Technical Correspondence, September 1976 issue, and in Chapter 18 in
Reflections. You can read Chapter 18 from
my web page at www.w2du.com.

On the other hand, realistic broadbanding, without the loss introduced by
the resistances in the coaxial
dipole, can be obtained by the 'cage' dipole, using several parallel
wires separated by spacers, as mentioned
other posts appearing in this thread.

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt et al,
I was going to point out the same flawed thinking. I believe Frank Witt
also published the analysis for the flawed reasoning of the bazooka stubs
correcting for the reactance of the dipole off resonance. He also
published coaxial stub designs that did work in QST and several of the
ARRL compendia.
It is amazing to me that the bazooka is still used given the alternatives.
One sight where thay are sold claims more gain too!

Dale W4OP


Hello Walt, Dale, et al

I thought we worked this out years ago.
The parallel-resonant network of the stubs lowers the SWR some very near
resonance by oscillating at the driven frequency and storing the small
amount of energy that would be reflected back otherwise, but a driven
circuit won't oscillate very far from resonance, and it does nothing for
bandwidth. That's due to loss, as Walt proved long ago. Increasing the
diameter of the radiator, as Walt pointed out, does work. There was a good
recent QST article on just such an antenna.

73
H.
NQ5H