John Smith wrote:
Ever heard of amplifed rabbit ears?

I bought one, a Phillips MANT310/MNT310F - didn't work
as well as the non-amplified RS one I already had.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Ever heard of amplifed rabbit ears?

I bought one, a Phillips MANT310/MNT310F - didn't work
as well as the non-amplified RS one I already had.

Actually, I had to construct my own with a broadband MMIC device, to get
decent functionality ... however, my mother has an el-cheapo unit she
purchased from some yard sale, it/they work surprisingly well!

Location, reflections, etc. can vary ones experience greatly--but hey,
they usually beat a wire coat hanger! :-)

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:31:05 -0800, John Smith wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
My current UHF antenna is a 14" Radio Shack clip lead clipped from the
center of my coax to the venetian blind. I have to hand-adjust it for
the channel, weather conditions, phase of the moon, etc. I can do this
because I can _see_ an indication of signal strength.

LOL ... talk about trolls! That HAS TO BE THE BEST TROLL OPENING LINE I
HAVE EVER SEEN!

Hey, "John Smith", why don't you go outside and play
hide-and-go-****-yourself?

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

...
Hey, "John Smith", why don't you go outside and play
hide-and-go-****-yourself?

Cheers!
Rich


LOL ...

Darn, you just can't get decent psychiatric help with your food stamps,
can you? :-(

Regards,
JS

Try a bowtie (like the one that came with sets) 5 inches in front of a piece
of hardware cloth. Most of the boxes (which are almost free after the FCC
rebate) have a signal strength bar (although with a 3-5 sec. delay)

Years ago they used to make one as a magazine rack that you could pick up
and move around.


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
My current UHF antenna is a 14" Radio Shack clip lead clipped from the
center of my coax to the venetian blind. I have to hand-adjust it
for the channel, weather conditions, phase of the moon, etc. I can
do this because I can _see_ an indication of signal strength.

Well, with this new Fascist "No More Free TV" crap, I'm gonna need
a real UHF antenna. My budget is exceedingly limited, but I have
a supply of materials (GTAW filler rod, with some coppery-colored
coating, so it solders like a dream, and is as stiff as piano wire)
to build an antenna with.

But I've been searching the web for some weeks now, and I can't
seem to find any kind of formula, except there was this program
I downloaded - LPDA.EXE, which runs on DOS. Unfortunately, it's
in Russian or Polish or Uzbekistani - one of those East Yurp
languages. Here's a screen snap:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/...rog-Output.gif

Which I went through pretty much by-guess-and-by-gosh - can
anybody read that stuff?

There are a lot of factors I don't know about, like "Tau", and
all of the specific designs on the web are flat - something is
telling me I want one of those pyramid-shaped ones, but I really
don't know the difference (between that and flat) - it's probably
something to do with bandwidth or F/B ratio or whatever.

My local library has no ARRL Antenna Book (!), and did I mention
I have a seriously limited budget?

So, how do I pursue this? It'd be nice to have a program that will
calculate the whole thing for me, but am I dreaming? If I want to
send myself to Log-Periodic School, where should I start?

Or, does anyone have a UHF-TV log-periodic design that they'd share? :-)

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:45:19 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

But I've been searching the web for some weeks now, and I can't
seem to find any kind of formula, except there was this program
I downloaded - LPDA.EXE, which runs on DOS. Unfortunately, it's
in Russian or Polish or Uzbekistani - one of those East Yurp
languages. Here's a screen snap:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/...rog-Output.gif

Which I went through pretty much by-guess-and-by-gosh - can
anybody read that stuff?

Hi Rich,

Someone else has already provided the translation, so that will take
care of some of the wholes in data entry and reading.

There are a lot of factors I don't know about, like "Tau", and
all of the specific designs on the web are flat - something is
telling me I want one of those pyramid-shaped ones, but I really
don't know the difference (between that and flat) - it's probably
something to do with bandwidth or F/B ratio or whatever.

Tau is related to the shape of what you call the pyramid, or more
actually to the angle of the taper. This defines the smoothness of
matching across the span of frequencies you entered into the program.
As you can see, it also relates to the available gain. Another
correlative is it also relates to its length. All of these things are
trade-offs that lend to the rule of choosing what you want most and
giving up on the rest.

I note elsewhere that you wanted something about 1 foot long. There
is a Tau that will give you this boom length, and you got it on the
first guess.

So, how do I pursue this? It'd be nice to have a program that will
calculate the whole thing for me, but am I dreaming? If I want to
send myself to Log-Periodic School, where should I start?

You should start building what your screen shot gave you IF that is
the span of frequency you need (already questioned by other
correspondents).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:53:28 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:45:19 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

But I've been searching the web for some weeks now, and I can't seem to
find any kind of formula, except there was this program I downloaded -
LPDA.EXE, which runs on DOS. Unfortunately, it's in Russian or Polish or
Uzbekistani - one of those East Yurp languages. Here's a screen snap:
http://mysite.verizon.net/richgrise/...rog-Output.gif

Which I went through pretty much by-guess-and-by-gosh - can anybody read
that stuff?

Someone else has already provided the translation, so that will take care
of some of the wholes in data entry and reading.

There are a lot of factors I don't know about, like "Tau", and all of the
specific designs on the web are flat - something is telling me I want one
of those pyramid-shaped ones, but I really don't know the difference
(between that and flat) - it's probably something to do with bandwidth or
F/B ratio or whatever.

Tau is related to the shape of what you call the pyramid, or more actually
to the angle of the taper. This defines the smoothness of matching across
the span of frequencies you entered into the program. As you can see, it
also relates to the available gain. Another correlative is it also
relates to its length. All of these things are trade-offs that lend to
the rule of choosing what you want most and giving up on the rest.

I note elsewhere that you wanted something about 1 foot long. There is a
Tau that will give you this boom length, and you got it on the first
guess.

So, how do I pursue this? It'd be nice to have a program that will
calculate the whole thing for me, but am I dreaming? If I want to send
myself to Log-Periodic School, where should I start?

You should start building what your screen shot gave you IF that is the
span of frequency you need (already questioned by other correspondents).

73's

"Best Regardses"? ;-)

Anyway, thanks for this - I'm feeling a lot better about this project now
thanks to your help and that guy that translated it for me (forgot the
name, but he knows who he is - Thanks Again!);

I might even start cutting wire[1] and soldering this weekend! ;-)

Thanks!
Rich

[1] GTAW (Gas Tungsten Arc Welding) filler rod, with some coppery-
colored coating that solders even better than copper, about .030 dia.,
and as stiff as piano wire.

Rich Grise wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:53:28 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
73's

"Best Regardses"? ;-)

No, that's "Best Regards's". It's the possessive, not plural, form of
"Best Regards". I think the grammar is part of the same dialect as the
verb "destinate" (as in "I've just destinated"), but you'd have to ask
Richard about that -- he's the one with the English Lit degree.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:35:53 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:53:28 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
73's

"Best Regardses"? ;-)

No, that's "Best Regards's". It's the possessive, not plural, form of
"Best Regards". I think the grammar is part of the same dialect as the
verb "destinate" (as in "I've just destinated"), but you'd have to ask
Richard about that -- he's the one with the English Lit degree.


I read it in a QST or so back in the 1960's. :-)

Thanks!
Rich
ex-WN0GJS

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Rich Grise wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:53:28 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
73's

"Best Regardses"? ;-)

No, that's "Best Regards's". It's the possessive, not plural, form of
"Best Regards". I think the grammar is part of the same dialect as the
verb "destinate" (as in "I've just destinated"), but you'd have to ask
Richard about that -- he's the one with the English Lit degree.

My Webster's unabridged dictionary gives the following
examples of the correct way to pluralize numbers.

"figure 8's", "the 1890's", "the 20's"

73 is a number that stands for "Best Regards"

73's would be "Lots of Best Regards".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com