Wimpie wrote:
El 15-11-14 20:01, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
On 11/15/2014 1:58 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:40:29 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.


But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".


That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.


It is still your statement.

It was the posters statement and my response to that statement.

snip remaining puerile drivel



Wrong again, as the archives prove. And you can't lie your way out of it.

You can copy and paste. But you do not UNDERSTAND.


So much drama, so little time... :|


I just don't want people to think his crap is the truth. It's far from
it.

He makes all kinds of claims - which knowledgeable people know are
false. But others might get the wrong idea.


It is not just a matter of little drama.

There is a subject named "a short 160m antenna - loading and hats".
Simulation results were presented for a 0.029lambda long radiator over
REAL ground.

The only reason I gave a reaction was to avoid that other people might
get a wrong idea. The statements on the loading coil are very likely
valid, but the gain figures are far from reality considering the
conditions stated.

I never concidered the gain figures to have any particular importance.

The whole point was the effects of loading on impedance.

I should have done the whole thing in free space to avoid confusing things
with ground issues.


--
Jim Pennino

El 17-11-14 19:02, escribió:
wrote:
El 15-11-14 20:01, Jerry Stuckle escribió:
On 11/15/2014 1:58 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 12:40:29 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 11/15/2014 12:58 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On 11/14/2014 10:02 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On 11/14/2014 4:26 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:
On 11/14/2014 3:55 PM, wrote:
Jerry wrote:

snip

You ignore the fact this is an idealized environment. That is NEVER the
case in a real installation.

You ignore the fact this is modeled on an AVERAGE environment.


But you claim it is an absolute fact that an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap. This is solid proof.

I never made any such claim nor did I say "an 80 meter antenna at less
than 100' is crap".


That's true. You said is sucks. Let me quote you:

"Any dipole type antenna will suck on 75M if mounted less than about
100 feet, or about .4 wavelengths."

That was in response to the original poster who said his antenna sucked,
not me.


It is still your statement.

It was the posters statement and my response to that statement.

snip remaining puerile drivel



Wrong again, as the archives prove. And you can't lie your way out of it.

You can copy and paste. But you do not UNDERSTAND.


So much drama, so little time... :|


I just don't want people to think his crap is the truth. It's far from
it.

He makes all kinds of claims - which knowledgeable people know are
false. But others might get the wrong idea.


It is not just a matter of little drama.

There is a subject named "a short 160m antenna - loading and hats".
Simulation results were presented for a 0.029lambda long radiator over
REAL ground.

The only reason I gave a reaction was to avoid that other people might
get a wrong idea. The statements on the loading coil are very likely
valid, but the gain figures are far from reality considering the
conditions stated.

I never concidered the gain figures to have any particular importance.

The whole point was the effects of loading on impedance.

I should have done the whole thing in free space to avoid confusing things
with ground issues.

This is fully clear now, but it took several posts from my side, and
replies from your side of course, before you changed the conditions.

We all aren't perfect and we may (sometimes) provide incomplete, or
even wrong replies. If this happens nothing is wrong, someone will
correct us, or provide the additional information.

If someone starts insulting, why we can't make sure that contributions
remain constructive and that
|Ref. Coeff. (insult)| 1 ?

Now |Ref. Coeff. (insult)| 1 frequently.


--
Wim
PA3DJS
Please remove abc first in case of PM

On Monday, November 17, 2014 7:07:49 AM UTC-6, Jeff wrote:
On 17/11/2014 08:37, gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:47:35 PM UTC-6, gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
It's quite easy. Just ditch the designed for 20m feed system and
replace it with something more suitable for 75m.

But the 102 ft top together with the 34 ft ladder is designed for 3.5MHz!

Not exactly.. It's a bit long when used as the makeup section
on 75m. But I believe it's the use of the chokes which cause the
losses many people see.

The G5RV design has no chokes.

All the commercial versions I've ever seen had one. If they didn't
come with one, they recommended adding one of the users choosing.
The pathetic version I once tried sure had one, and I'm fairly sure
it was the reason for the poor performance. No other way to explain it
really.. It sure wasn't the radiator, ladder line, or coax.. :|






Strange then that G5RV himself suggested the use of one consisting of 8
to 10 turns of the feeder cable!!!

Jeff

He actually recommended a choke in his first designs, but after later
testing, decided it was usually best not to use one. Some thinks it's
best to use one, others don't.. User preference I suppose. Most do use
one it seems.

On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:52:33 AM UTC-6, Jeff wrote:

Strange then that G5RV himself suggested the use of one consisting of 8
to 10 turns of the feeder cable!!!

Jeff

He actually recommended a choke in his first designs, but after later
testing, decided it was usually best not to use one. Some thinks it's
best to use one, others don't.. User preference I suppose. Most do use
one it seems.



Not so, he was still suggesting the use of a choke in his 1984 article
in RSGB's Radcom; his first article being in 1966.

Jeff

Could be.. Have never read that publication, but I was thinking
it was a 1984 article where he reversed his stance on the chokes.

"gareth" wrote in message ...

It is a truism that short antennae are poor inefficient radiators, and no
amount of infantile bluster by Americanoramuses will change that.

The truth does not need the violence of abuse to force its way down
people's throats.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

While this is quite true, such antennae do function. I routinely have QSOs
exceeding 1000 miles (1600 km.) with small whip antennae standing less than
8 feet above a simple ground plane consisting of only two tuned radials.
This arrangement is hardly ideal from the standpoint of establishing a
station at home or some other permanent place. However, it does represent
the ability get on the air and make contacts with only a car battery and
five minutes' time for setup.

I'm no magician or miracle worker. I do tend to say, "Let's see what
happens if ... [fill in the blank]" and sometimes I'm surprised and
delighted with the result.

Best wishes,
"Sal"
(really KD6VKW)

"Sal M. O'Nella" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...

It is a truism that short antennae are poor inefficient radiators, and no
amount of infantile bluster by Americanoramuses will change that.

The truth does not need the violence of abuse to force its way down
people's throats.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

While this is quite true, such antennae do function. I routinely have
QSOs exceeding 1000 miles (1600 km.) with small whip antennae standing
less than 8 feet above a simple ground plane consisting of only two tuned
radials. This arrangement is hardly ideal from the standpoint of
establishing a station at home or some other permanent place. However,
it does represent the ability get on the air and make contacts with only a
car battery and five minutes' time for setup.

I'm no magician or miracle worker. I do tend to say, "Let's see what
happens if ... [fill in the blank]" and sometimes I'm surprised and
delighted with the result.

Indeed, but where I came in was to promote discussion as to whether that
inefficiency of short antennae was in some way due to the need for coupling
into the Universe around the antenna, perhaps a "twist" of the electric
field
being necessary. Such a twist will be there if there is a half-wave at any
time on the antenna,
but it would be much smaller if only a fraction of a half-wave were there,
as the difference
in field to give that twist can only be much smaller.

It was a genuine attempt at discussion but was met by tirades of abuse from
American rednecks.

gareth wrote:

snip

Indeed, but where I came in was to promote discussion as to whether that
inefficiency of short antennae was in some way due to the need for coupling
into the Universe around the antenna, perhaps a "twist" of the electric
field
being necessary. Such a twist will be there if there is a half-wave at any
time on the antenna,
but it would be much smaller if only a fraction of a half-wave were there,
as the difference
in field to give that twist can only be much smaller.

It was a genuine attempt at discussion but was met by tirades of abuse from
American rednecks.

It was met with the derision that such babbling nonsense deserves.



--
Jim Pennino