On Sep 16, 12:58*am, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 3:33 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small
antennas

You are probably correct if you are speaking about "small" antennas as
they relate to HF.

No longer is there that much demand for shortwave bands to communicate
with, as you well know. This is the information age and the relative
bandwidth of HF is so small is to render HF useless, even for simple
email if widespread usage were desired. There's not much money in it.

Amateur Radio has been dying for decades ... just a fact. *Only the
reasons are debatable.



No money, no research.

I believe the AM Broadcast Band is very much alive and well ... they
would greatly appreciate a "small antenna."

No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m.
They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs.



Even if you had a shoebox 160m antenna that worked, your market would
quickly reach saturation point. You might get an enthusiastic
reception by the readers of CQ magazine or be honored by the folks at
ARRL but not much more. Is that why you are trying to link your
antenna "discoveries" to finding the holy grail of the Grand
Unification Theory?

Actually, I see no reason for HF to not be any-more-LESS usable than any
other RF Frequency. *Digital voice has simply not been adopted because
of the expense in replacing all the analog equipment with digital
equipment ... something which is sure to be "fixed" in the future ...

John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier
with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would
you locate the side bands? (________ and ________)

wrote:

...
No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m.
They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs.

No, the AM Broadcast Band is the MW band, ~.5Mc to ~1.800Mc ... not
related to happenings in the 40m amateur band at all ...



John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier
with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would
you locate the side bands? (________ and ________)


A nut would attempt that ... others would modulate the 50Mhz signal ...
and 49.993 to 50.007 ... in a perfect world.

Really, you need a beginners group ... :-( Won't your mom play with you
today?

JS

On Sep 16, 3:33*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m.
They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs.

No, the AM Broadcast Band is the MW band, ~.5Mc to ~1.800Mc ... not
related to happenings in the 40m amateur band at all ...

But I qualified the statement by saying anything above 200m (in
wavelegth) which you faithfully quoted above. Minus 2 points for
John.


John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier
with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would
you locate the side bands? (________ and ________)

A nut would attempt that ... others would modulate the 50Mhz signal ...
and 49.993 to 50.007 ... in a perfect world.

OK, now, since 50MHz is being modulated, how much bandwidth will each
sideband occupy? Cannot be done, John. HF frequencies can only handle
insignificant amounts of data information making them useless in
today's digital age.

THAT is why (to answer the original question) nobody gives a damn
about small antennas on HF frequencies. The data we are transferring
today goes far beyond a simple 10KHz voice communication on a small
section of spectrum. Even a single analog TV channel occupies 5MHz
which I think would cover the entire HF spectrum if it were tried.
There are some exceptional HF digital applications which society can
find useful in extremely limited applications such as sail mail but
even that is quite disruptive due to the wide chunk of HF it occupies
for a single email transmission.

Really, you need a beginners group ... :-( *Won't your mom play with you
today?

RRAP IS a beginners group John.

wrote:

...
No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m.
They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs.


John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier
with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would
you locate the side bands? (________ and ________)


Yanno'? This is all closely related to the "Personal Attack Ploy."
(also, known by other names)

However, this one goes, "I will think up an extremely complex trick
question from my gorgeously, exquisitely, intellectual mind. I will
then trip up the "mark" with my beautiful complex and deep plan, and use
this error on "subject A" to prove his statement on past "subject B" is
wrong, by sheer implication ... " I see this used on Cecil OFTEN, and
by the same ignoramuses a LOT ... I often wonder, "Is anyone here aware
enough to wonder if I see this or not? If others here notice, or not?"
ROFLOL!

Most of us tried this in grade/high-school, did not find we got the
results we expected, abandoned it, and moved on ...

You may wish to consider the same, or not ... however, I do see, with
the "resources" available here, this childish ploy is VERY much alive
and well! And, I have noticed it is accepted as being effective, by
those ignorant to what it really reflects ... like the petty workings of
their small minds!

Somehow, this all reminds of a gathering of old men at a botchiball
court!, "elmering" a new "Botchiball Recruit." scratches-head

Regards,
JS

On Sep 16, 4:09*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
...
No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m.
They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs.

John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier
with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would
you locate the side bands? (________ and ________)

Yanno'? *This is all closely related to the "Personal Attack Ploy."
(also, known by other names)

However, this one goes, "I will think up an extremely complex trick
question from my gorgeously, exquisitely, intellectual mind. *I will
then trip up the "mark" with my beautiful complex and deep plan, and use
this error on "subject A" to prove his statement on past "subject B" is
wrong, by sheer implication ... " *I see this used on Cecil OFTEN, and
by the same ignoramuses a LOT ... I often wonder, "Is anyone here aware
enough to wonder if I see this or not? *If others here notice, or not?"
* ROFLOL!

Most of us tried this in grade/high-school, did not find we got the
results we expected, abandoned it, and moved on ...

You may wish to consider the same, or not ... however, I do see, with
the "resources" available here, this childish ploy is VERY much alive
and well! *And, I have noticed it is accepted as being effective, by
those ignorant to what it really reflects ... like the petty workings of
their small minds!

Somehow, this all reminds of a gathering of old men at a botchiball
court!, "elmering" a new "Botchiball Recruit." *scratches-head

Regards,
JS

heh heh...but we have it documented in this thread. You fell for it
the first time and after your posted your answer you saw what you call
the "trick" after thinking about it. Actually, I was only trying to
cut through the BS to let you see for yourself why HF is not so
valuable in today's information age in which only GHz level
frequencies and above are useful for practical quantities of
information transfer. But you did catch it, albeit your were a little
slow on the pick up.

writes:

John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier
with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would
you locate the side bands? (________ and ________)

If we interpret this as a signal occupying the spectrum from DC to 28
kHz, we need about 1800 bits/Hz. Mathematically, this isn't
impossible, but according to the Shannon/Hartley theorem, we need an
SNR of 2^1800, or more than 5400 dB. Assuming noise of -120 dBm, the
signal has to 5250 dBW, og 10^525 W. Making detection circuitry work
at this power level would be a challange, as it is the equivalent of more
than 10^498 suns, 10^486 milky ways or 10^475 observable universes.

73
Jon LA4RT

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:33:35 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small
antennas

You might want to look at the IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation. Most issues are full of articles on new ideas on how to
design and model small antennas that can be effectively crammed into a
cell phone or PDA. Same with antennas that fit in missiles, inside
UAV's, and other tight locations. It's not a trivial exercise as
smart phones may soon have many more radios inside (Cellular, Wi-fi,
cellular data, Bluegoof, AM/FM/TV/Mobile-HDTV, 915MHz for TV remote
control), and WiMax).

Unless I missed something, your rants seem to lack any specifics,
URL's, references, examples, substantiation, and most obvious, are
lacking in numbers. If you want to enhance your credibility, I
suggest you do some reading and searching, before manufacturing yet
another wasted rant and denunciation.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Art Unwin wrote:
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small
antennas

I'm interested, Art. I have a small antenna for 432 MHz and an even
smaller one for 1296 MHz.

Dave K8MN

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small
antennas

only for very high frequencies.

where did art go, bad wx coming again, could use some entertainment!

"Dave" wrote in message
...

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small
antennas

only for very high frequencies.

where did art go, bad wx coming again, could use some entertainment!

Do we dare try to resurrect Chip?