antenna theory made easy
 

On 1/26/2014 1:59 AM, wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 04:10:28 -0000, wrote:

Welcome to the club; he does that with anyone on any group on any subject
when someone has the audacity to disagree with something he has said.

Now you tell me. I don't read any other ham radio newsgroups, so I
missed the clue. For me, this has became an exercise in diplomacy and
tact, things that I usually do rather badly. While my efforts
produced nothing useful, it was a somewhat interesting exercise which
forced me to do some reading in areas where I know little.

I dunno. There do not seem to be many others jumping in, making
corrections, asking questions, or displaying any interest in this
discussion. It's mostly me and Mr Stuckle. I was tempted to emulate
his methods, but I just don't have the ability. Perhaps it's time
that I do something else.

Thanks much.

You could continue on and eventually he will killfile you, usually after
posting a link that proves him wrong about something.

And it is not just ham radio groups, he is also an "expert" in various
programming languages and the same goes on in those groups all the time.




Yes, you are a well-known troll in several programming newsgroups. So
now your trolling here.

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

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

antenna theory made easy
 

On 1/26/2014 1:04 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:43:57 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

When I first started out in ham radio, I used a Hy-Gain 18AVQ vertical -
80-10, with the instructions saying to mount one foot (that's twelve
inches for the trolls) above ground with an SO-239 to connect to the
coax.

Are you sure?
http://www.mediaglobe.it/shop/images/large/HYGAIN18AVQ11--av-18AVQ71_UcLOU9MUvMti_large.gif
I doubt that the dog could come anywhere near that antenna with the
radials poking out, even if they were buried.


The 18AVQ didn't have radials poking out - although it was recommended
you add them.

http://www.eham.net/data/classifieds/images/244950.jpg
The base of the antenna looks like a 50 ohm point, which would be low
voltage. I don't have an NEC2 model of the 18AVQ, but my guess(tm) is
that the high voltages would be between the loading coils, not near
the base.


So? Even at 50 ohms, 1KW is a lot of voltage.

Quite within range of a large dog.

Large dog? I would think it would be easier to electrocute a small
dog because of the shorter urine stream. If one increases the height
of the dog by one inch, then the approximate width of the dog also
increases about one inch, thus bringing the urine source 1/2 further
away from the antenna. In addition, large dogs have longer legs. The
dog needs space to lift the leg, which again increases the distance
between the dog and the antenna. I also asked my neighbor, who has a
rather large dog, if the dog empties his bladder when marking his
territory. Nope. Just a small squirt sufficient to provide a scent
marker. If Mythbusters could only keep a 3" simulated stream together
long enough to not break into droplets, I suspect that a large dog,
with a much longer stream, would not be able to do as well.


Who said it was a small dog, and who said the dog was electrocuted?

Myth Busted.


Bull****ter busted.

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

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

antenna theory made easy
 

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Even at 50 ohms, 1KW is a lot of voltage.

Pretty close to the 60 Hz AC voltage that runs my clothes dryer and electric range.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

antenna theory made easy
 

On 1/26/2014 11:32 AM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:47:36 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Even at 50 ohms, 1KW is a lot of voltage.

Pretty close to the 60 Hz AC voltage that runs my clothes dryer and electric range.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


A bit more than that. Remember - you've only got 117V to ground from
either leg of your clothes dryer. And even that can give you a nasty
shock or worse. And RF burns.

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

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

antenna theory made easy
 

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:45:46 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Remember - you've only got 117V to ground from either
leg of your clothes dryer.

The same thing can be said about a 1000 watt RF amp driving a balanced load and the voltage delivered by that amp to a 50 ohm load is lower than the voltage going to my clothes dryer which I just measured at 250 volts.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

antenna theory made easy
 

On 1/26/2014 3:45 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:45:46 AM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
Remember - you've only got 117V to ground from either
leg of your clothes dryer.

The same thing can be said about a 1000 watt RF amp driving a balanced load and the voltage delivered by that amp to a 50 ohm load is lower than the voltage going to my clothes dryer which I just measured at 250 volts.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


You have 250 V across the lines (actually should be around 234-240),
But only about 117-120V to ground.

And what the voltage across a balanced load is is immaterial, since
verticals are not balanced.

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

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

antenna theory made easy
 

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:57:32 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And what the voltage across a balanced load is is immaterial, since
verticals are not balanced.

In the context of "antenna theory made easy", please prove that the voltage across a balanced antenna is immaterial.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

antenna theory made easy
 

On 1/26/2014 7:53 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:57:32 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And what the voltage across a balanced load is is immaterial, since
verticals are not balanced.

In the context of "antenna theory made easy", please prove that the voltage across a balanced antenna is immaterial.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I didn't say the voltage across a balanced antenna load is immaterial.
I said YOUR TEST is immaterial because a vertical is not a balanced load.

Sheesh - you used to have to know how to read and actually understand
some electronics to get a ham license. Now all you need to do is
memorize the answers.

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

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

antenna theory made easy
 

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:58:05 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I said YOUR TEST is immaterial because a vertical is not a balanced load.
Sheesh - you used to have to know how to read ...

Jerry, I was probably reading Ramo and Whinnery while you were still messing your diapers.:) Speaking of someone who doesn't know how to read - the title of this thread is NOT verticals and I did NOT say anything about verticals. Exactly why am I prohibited from discussing balanced antennas in a thread titled, "antenna theory made easy"?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

antenna theory made easy
 

On 1/26/2014 9:11 PM, W5DXP wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:58:05 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
I said YOUR TEST is immaterial because a vertical is not a balanced load.
Sheesh - you used to have to know how to read ...

Jerry, I was probably reading Ramo and Whinnery while you were still messing your diapers.:) Speaking of someone who doesn't know how to read - the title of this thread is NOT verticals and I did NOT say anything about verticals. Exactly why am I prohibited from discussing balanced antennas in a thread titled, "antenna theory made easy"?

Cecil, unless you're over 90, I very much doubt that.

And yes, the title is about antennas. But you're replying to messages
about verticals. Measuring voltage across a 60Hz 240V balanced line has
nothing to do with measuring voltage at the base of a vertical which is
unbalanced and running RF.

--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

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