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."


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 ...

Regards,
JS

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:

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

Yeah, your "beautiful intellect" strikes again, my gawd, how inspiring
.... when you say "above", I think "cycles", if you say length, I think
"meters" ... but, if you hang around idiots--I can see how you'd expect
different ... yawn


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.


OK. Now my turn. If I have an idiot in my right hand, you show up, and
I place you in my right hand, how many idiots do I have in my right
hand? (ahhh, I'll give you the answer ... I KNOW you won't get it--ONE!
You WERE the idiot!) ROFLOL -- (don't apologize for NOT getting the
joke ... I understand. grin)

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.

Frankly, I care greatly, immensely about small antennas -- I could not
run a rig without a small/stealth antenna. Of course, your statement
becomes quite true if you ignore all like me, the MW band, cell phones,
personal computers, wifi, remote tire gauges, bluetooth, remote
devices, gps, etc., etc., etc. (consider this an endless list, really!)

And, indeed the lengths you are prepared to go--the insane arguments you
are prepared to argue, the insane stands you are prepared to defend ...
well, you will excuse me from my responsibilities there ... I have prior
appointments ... ROFLOL--AGAIN!

Brother, you are a joke, you will fit in well with some here ... I
already got your name on that list ... even "the slow witted" will
eventually deduce you--take care ... but then, you are fun to toy with.

Regards,
JS

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.

wrote:

...
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.

No, it was all done to show your small mind ... gawd I'd hate to be you
when you finally realize how "fish-bowlish" your world appears to some
.... DEEP-FROWN

Regards,
best-of-luck,
JS

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