On 1/26/2014 11:12 AM, Jeff wrote:
On 26/01/2014 15:50, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 1/26/2014 5:09 AM, Jeff wrote:

Rubbish, they tell you nothing more than the impedance at the point
that you wish to plot it. They tell you nothing about how well an
antenna may, or may, not radiate. A 50 ohm resistor will be purely
resistive (parasitic elements neglected) but won't radiate well.
Also an
antenna does not have to resonant to radiate well or have high
efficiency.

Jeff

Keep thinking that, Jeff, while those who know how to use Smith Charts
continue to design antennas.

Your ignorance is underwhelming.


Well Jerry, please help me increase my knowledge. Please tell me now to
show what "goes on *inside* a bit of coax" on a Smith chart, or how to
show the efficiency of an antenna from a Smith chart.

Jeff

I'll tell you what, troll. You go to college. Get a EE degree. Learn
the math and the theory. Them maybe you can understand basics and we
can discuss the subject intelligently (although I doubt it).


Been there done that, and spend 30+ designing and specifying radio
equipment, and using Smith charts.


Yea, right.

I'll take it as a "no I can't" then. Which of course is true you can't
how what "goes on *inside* a bit of coax" on a Smith chart, or how to
show the efficiency of an antenna from a Smith chart.


Nope, I'm not even going to try to teach the pig to sing, especially in
a newsgroup. But trolls don't understand that.

Try reading Mr Smith's excellent book on his Smith Chart and you might
find out what it can and can't do!!!

Jeff

Try getting your EE degree along with the math, physics and electrical
theory. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:12:30 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
[1] It took me about 10 years to stop using micro-microfarads and
switch to picofarads.

But have you started referring to them as "puffs"? This is the normal UK
colloquialism for picofarads, but I believe it raises the American
eyebrow!

I use it and it's quite common among my older friends and accomplices.
I don't know about the younger ones. It's not something that gets my
attention as I use both terms interchangeably. That might be due to
my working for a company full of British engineers (Granger Assoc). At
one point, I accidentally developed a British accent and increase my
talking speed by about 25%. Fortunately, I lost both as I moved on to
other things. However, I vaguely recall that I used "puffs" before I
started working there.

However, in another life, I found myself giving presentations to other
engineers, some of which were from foreign countries. To avoid
confusion, I made it a point of avoiding slang terminology and only
using standard prefixes. It's been mostly like that ever since.

At a previous employer, there was also a move to butcher the uH into
an "ugh". Thankfully, that went nowhere although I have heard it used
a few times over the years.

Currently, I'm also having problems using Becquerels and still prefer
to use the older "clicks per minute" or curies. (One Bq is one
disintegration per second). There are other old/new terms used in
radiation, which seem to cause more confusion than enlightenment. It
will probably take a generation to sort things out.

I can really create confusion when I do calculations in mixed metric
and US units of measure. It doesn't bother me much as I have some of
the conversions memorized, but it certainly drives everyone else nuts.
To maintain sanity, I use metric for engineering, and US at the
supermarket. I refuse to use Imperial for anything other than
inflating my gasoline mileage figures. I sometimes fool myself when I
do mixed units of measure calcs, and forget to qualify the "ton" as a
"metric ton".

Specialists in any industry tend to develop their own language and
slang terminology. I suspect that few people outside the computer biz
know that a "blog" is really a "web log".

Do you still call a telephone a "blower" (even though it's really a
naval term)?

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

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:03:55 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

I too was using the uuf and uf. Then it took me a while to get used to the
pf. I still can not relate to the nanofarad. Every time I see that
nanofarad I have to put the numbers on a piece of paper and convert it to uu
or u.

Thanks for reminding me. I have exactly the same problem. Old habits
die hard. I don't think I've ever used nanofarads in any design. Some
of the software I use offers an option to disable the use of
nanofarads. However, as new versions arrive, I'm seeing that less and
less.

I still use Hz and cycles without giving it a thought as to which one I am
saying. Just can not get it my head not to say cycles when I should be
saying Hz.

That one was easy for me. Cycles per second is just too many
syllables to easily roll off the tongue. I usually favor the shortest
and most abbreviated term. When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

Where we came from:
http://www.hemyockcastle.co.uk/measure.htm
With that history of units of measure, I would hate to guess where
we're going.

I did invent a unit of measure which seems to have stuck for a time at
a former college. During college, I built a device to quantify female
desirability. It was an IR detector that basically measured the mount
of exposed skin. I needed a unit of measure for female desirability
which became the milli-Helen. Since Helen of Troy launched 1000
ships, 1 milli-Helen would launch 1 ship. The negative was also true
as negative 1 milli-Helen would sink 1 ship. Unfortunately, it
somewhat backfired and failed to provide me with any additional dates
and lady friends.

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

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:25:16 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
.. .

At the time, I used a Gertsch FM-something. It's the box with only
the left handle showing at the extreme right of the pictu
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/PMC02.html

I can not tell what the Gertsch is from the pix. I have a Singer/Gertsch
FM-10C, but it looks to be older than that.

I tried to find a better photo of the generator, but couldn't. It's a
Gertsch FM-7 and DM-3 modulation meter combination, which is partly
shown in the photo. I think it looked something like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/141159577401
The Measurements (later Boonton) Model 80 was my "calibrated" signal
source. I let it drift onto frequency using the FM-7, and used it to
measure sensitivity. If left on continuously, it was stable enough
for the old 50 KHz wide band radios.

Do see the old generator next to
the scope. I have one like that and play with it from time to time.

http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/09)_Misc_Test_Equipment/Boonton/Boonton_Model_80_Manual.pdf
I still have some acorn tubes for it buried somewhere.

Checked the output amplitude of it with my hp 8924c and it seems to be very
close allowing for the fact it is an analog dial and you have to set it to
the mark on the meter.

I had ours calibrated along with the FM-7. In order to operate in the
UHF commercial band (about 463 MHz), we had to use the 3rd harmonic
through a multiplier. It also lacked FM modulation which I added with
a varactor (varicap) diode. The techs said it was quite accurate and
fairly stable in the UHF region. I also had another RF source
consisting of the exciter chain from an old radio. Not the best, but
since it was crystal controlled, it was at least stable. For the late
1960's and early 1970's, it wasn't a bad arrangement.



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

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:25:16 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
. ..

At the time, I used a Gertsch FM-something. It's the box with only
the left handle showing at the extreme right of the pictu
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/Old%20Repeaters/slides/PMC02.html

I can not tell what the Gertsch is from the pix. I have a Singer/Gertsch
FM-10C, but it looks to be older than that.

I tried to find a better photo of the generator, but couldn't. It's a
Gertsch FM-7 and DM-3 modulation meter combination, which is partly
shown in the photo. I think it looked something like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/141159577401
The Measurements (later Boonton) Model 80 was my "calibrated" signal
source. I let it drift onto frequency using the FM-7, and used it to
measure sensitivity. If left on continuously, it was stable enough
for the old 50 KHz wide band radios.

Do see the old generator next to
the scope. I have one like that and play with it from time to time.

http://www.ko4bb.com/Manuals/09)_Misc_Test_Equipment/Boonton/Boonton_Model_80_Manual.pdf
I still have some acorn tubes for it buried somewhere.


The Boonton you have is the AM modle. The one I have is the FM modle and
the number is T1035B. From the pix you had it, at first glance it looked
like a differant modle as part of it was hidden. Mine works through the 450
mhz reagon. It does have a scale for something between 800 to 900 mhz that
is not calibrated. Also there is another oscillator that is not calibrated,
but adjustiable that covers some low frequencies of between maybe 3 to 30
mhz. I think that is the one or maybe a later transistorised version that
is shown in some of the old GE Mastr ll books.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes



When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).





--
Ian

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:23:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).

That's because of the English accent. Try pronouncing it as "hurts".
In New York, the pronunciation is something like "hoits".
At Avis rent-a-car, Hertz is never mentioned.

Drivel: Marketing people like to identify their products with names
and letters that make the speaker smile when pronouncing it. The
common "say cheese" in photography is an example. "Cycles" doesn't
quite make one smile, but it's close. "Hertz" is produces almost a
frown, which may explain why you're having difficulties with it.

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

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 19:23:04 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Jeff Liebermann
writes
When the Hz arrived, I embraced it gladly
and immediately abandoned CPS.

I didn't like hertzes when they we foisted upon us - and I still don't
(although I won't go as far as to rebel against them). In a spoken
sentence, they always seem to introduce a bit of a hiccup, whereas
"cycles" seems to roll more easily off the tongue (even if those using
it really mean cycles per second).

That's because of the English accent. Try pronouncing it as "hurts".
In New York, the pronunciation is something like "hoits".

At Avis rent-a-car, Hertz is never mentioned.

Drivel: Marketing people like to identify their products with names
and letters that make the speaker smile when pronouncing it. The
common "say cheese" in photography is an example. "Cycles" doesn't
quite make one smile, but it's close. "Hertz" is produces almost a
frown, which may explain why you're having difficulties with it.

Hertz certainly hurts a bit when you say it - especially if you
pronounce it correctly, as 'hairts' (almost a grimace).

'Hertz' requires more breath than 'cycles', so prior to saying it, you
often pause for a momentary intake of air. Also, the units 'Hz', 'kHz'
and 'MHz' don't lend themselves to pronunciation, whereas 'cycles',
'kay-sees' and 'megs' do.

Just to get back on topic, since we started using Hz, I'm sure antennas
have become less efficient and signal strengths lower - and it's certain
that QRM is now much worse.
--
Ian

On 1/27/2014 2:40 AM, Jeff wrote:
Jeff

Try getting your EE degree along with the math, physics and electrical
theory. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently.


I am offering to discuss this intelligently by asking you to explain and
enlighten me as to how a Smith chart shows what "goes on inside a bit of
coax" on a Smith chart, or how to show the efficiency of an antenna from
a Smith chart, but you are the one coming back with (incorrect) personal
insults!!

Jeff

When you get the sufficient background in electronics, math and physics,
we can discuss this intelligently. Until then, it's like teaching a pig
to sing.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:44:27 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

Hertz certainly hurts a bit when you say it - especially if you
pronounce it correctly, as 'hairts' (almost a grimace).

Yep. The German pronunciation.

For visitors to the USA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdkaD99XJ5I

'Hertz' requires more breath than 'cycles', so prior to saying it, you
often pause for a momentary intake of air.

Well, let's see if that's true. I just tried it on myself and did not
exactly get the desired effect. For volume, I just hung a piece of
paper in front of my mouth and looked for deflection. The trick is to
say the various words at a constant volume or the results are
worthless. I used a vu meter display on my smartphone to insure that
I was talking at the same level. From the paper deflection, I would
estimate that I move more air saying cycles because of the two
syllables. However, the peak exhaust volume seems to be higher when
saying "Hertz". I then did the same test with a microphone and audio
spectrum analyzer program (Spectrum Lab 2.79). It showed somewhat
different results. Both words showed a fair number of frequency
component peaks of roughly the same amplitude. However, the word
"cycles" had more almost identical peaks thus indicating that it
required more energy to produce. At this point, I'm not sure if I
should believe my paper test, or the spectrum analyzer results.

Also, the units 'Hz', 'kHz'
and 'MHz' don't lend themselves to pronunciation, whereas 'cycles',
'kay-sees' and 'megs' do.

Good point. Abbrevs are important. That might explain the tendency
for hams to prefer using wavelengths (i.e. 80 meters) rather than the
more accurate and specific equivalent frequencies. I use the various
frequency terms far more often in writing than in speech, where such
abbreviations are of lesser importance. I don't have much of problem
with the various SI units prefixes to Hertz, but I certainly have
problems with acronymic contractions such as CPS (cycles per second)
which has more than once been confused with the local Child Protective
Services. I think it best to use Hertz, which does not have this
problem.

Just to get back on topic, since we started using Hz, I'm sure antennas
have become less efficient and signal strengths lower - and it's certain
that QRM is now much worse.

The problem is much worse than that. When I first started in ham
radio, I had a full head of hair, a steady hand, a reasonable bank
balance, and a positive attitude. After being involved in ham radio
for many years, the hair is falling out, the hand is shaky, the bank
balance depleted, and the attitude quite cynical. Obviously, exposure
to ham radio and its associated RF fields has caused this unnatural
deterioration.

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