On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:56:36 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

W9DMK (Robert Lay) wrote:

(ZZZPK)
wrote:
capacitance is prop to gap between plates.

I think you meant that it's inversely proportional to the gap between
the plates.

I've made the same mistake - said "capacitance" when I really
meant "capacitive reactance".

No way, Cecil - you haven't made any mistakes this whole year!

Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA
Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html

W9DMK (Robert Lay) wrote:
No way, Cecil - you haven't made any mistakes this whole year!

Actually, it was probably a mistake to quote the "IEEE
Spectrum" magazine article regarding cellphones and
brain tumors. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Walter Maxwell wrote:
But a ground plane antenna suffers no
ground losses, so using as many as possible only applies to radials
on
or in the ground.

Walt, W2DU

Or low to the ground in terms of wavelength. But you wouldn't have to
use
"as many as possible". With most VHF/UHF ground planes, they are
usually
several waves up off the ground, and ground loss is very low. But if
you
take a low band ground plane, say 1/8 wave off the ground, you will
need
quite a few more radials than 4, to equal the benchmark of 120 radials
on
the ground. According to charts I've seen, and also backed up with real

world results, a ground plane 1/8 wave off the ground will need appx
50-60 radials to equal the 120 on the ground. At 1/4 wave up, about
8-10
or so. At 1/2 wave up, 4, 3, or just 2 radials will all work fairly
well.
Of course, I would always prefer four, over two. Even if ground loss
was
not a factor due to being high up, the decoupling of the feedline is
better with four, than two. In real world tests on VHF, I've noticed a
noticable difference going from 4 radials, to say 8 , or even 10. And
that was several waves up...So adding more radials does continue to
improve the antenna. Probably more due to the improved decoupling of
the feedline, rather than lower ground loss I would suspect...I've
heard
many a tale of disappointed hams having poor results with "low" ground
planes, and not enough radials. But thats usually on 160,80, or 40
meters.
Actually, I don't know of any ground plane users on 160, but I have
heard of quite a few on 80m..Four radials at 10 ft up on 80m, is better

than four radials on the ground, I think, but not by a large amount...
Ground loss will be fairly substantial if the ground quality is
mediocre.
In my HF experience with them, the lowest I would use four radials, and

expect *good* performance, would be at 1/4 wave up. When I would lower
the mast to 1/8 wave up, you could see quite a difference. That was on
40m, where I ran a full size GP at 36 ft at the base, on a pushup mast.

BTW, that was a great DX and late night antenna on 40m...I also had a
24 volt relay to switch a base loading coil in for 17m use as a 5/8 GP.
I changed bands here in the shack, by unplugging the transformer, for
40m use..That bypassed the 17m coil.
MK

Joel Kolstadt wrote:
"Hmm...how about...three! ground radials?"

Three radials should be fine where they are elevated to such height that
they capture all the electric lines of force from the vertical
radiator.Radials are balanced and their currents travel in offsetting
directions. The radial system does not radiate itself because of its
offsetting balances. Elevated radials must shield the earth from induced
current. This requires few radials when the radials are far above the
earth, but where the radials are near to the earth, many radials are
needed to capture all the electric lines and shield the earth from lossy
currents.

The number of radials and their effect on pattern and efficiency of
radiation from a vertical antenna is well addressed by ON4UN in
"Low-Band DXing". This is found in Chapter 9 of my 2nd edition. Choose
the efficiency and elevation angle you are willing to accept ftom the
graphs and tables presented.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 14 Jan 2005 11:09:33 -0800, wrote:


Walter Maxwell wrote:
But a ground plane antenna suffers no
ground losses, so using as many as possible only applies to radials
on
or in the ground.

Walt, W2DU

Or low to the ground in terms of wavelength. But you wouldn't have to
use
"as many as possible". With most VHF/UHF ground planes, they are
usually
several waves up off the ground, and ground loss is very low. But if
you
take a low band ground plane, say 1/8 wave off the ground, you will
need
quite a few more radials than 4, to equal the benchmark of 120 radials
on
the ground. According to charts I've seen, and also backed up with real

world results, a ground plane 1/8 wave off the ground will need appx
50-60 radials to equal the 120 on the ground. At 1/4 wave up, about
8-10
or so. At 1/2 wave up, 4, 3, or just 2 radials will all work fairly
well.
Of course, I would always prefer four, over two. Even if ground loss
was
not a factor due to being high up, the decoupling of the feedline is
better with four, than two. In real world tests on VHF, I've noticed a
noticable difference going from 4 radials, to say 8 , or even 10. And
that was several waves up...So adding more radials does continue to
improve the antenna. Probably more due to the improved decoupling of
the feedline, rather than lower ground loss I would suspect...I've
heard
many a tale of disappointed hams having poor results with "low" ground
planes, and not enough radials. But thats usually on 160,80, or 40
meters.
Actually, I don't know of any ground plane users on 160, but I have
heard of quite a few on 80m..Four radials at 10 ft up on 80m, is better

than four radials on the ground, I think, but not by a large amount...
Ground loss will be fairly substantial if the ground quality is
mediocre.
In my HF experience with them, the lowest I would use four radials, and

expect *good* performance, would be at 1/4 wave up. When I would lower
the mast to 1/8 wave up, you could see quite a difference. That was on
40m, where I ran a full size GP at 36 ft at the base, on a pushup mast.

BTW, that was a great DX and late night antenna on 40m...I also had a
24 volt relay to switch a base loading coil in for 17m use as a 5/8 GP.
I changed bands here in the shack, by unplugging the transformer, for
40m use..That bypassed the 17m coil.
MK

You're quite correct, Mark, but when I mentioned 'ground plane' I'm
thinking in terms of VHF/UHF, with the antenna many wavelengths above
ground.

Thanks for clarifying my omission of terms.

Walt, W2DU

(Robert Lay) wrote:

: : If not, what reason does he give for the technique?
:
: capacitance is prop to gap between plates.
:
:
: I think you meant that it's inversely proportional to the gap between
: the plates.
:

its still proportional....

Cecil Moore wrote:

: W9DMK (Robert Lay) wrote:
:
: (ZZZPK)
: wrote:
: capacitance is prop to gap between plates.
:
: I think you meant that it's inversely proportional to the gap between
: the plates.
:
: I've made the same mistake - said "capacitance" when I really
: meant "capacitive reactance".
: --

capacitance and capacitive reactance are two separate things.

one is always there and the other needs something else

ZZZPK wrote:
"Capacoitance and capacitive reactance are two separate things."

Yes. But, they are inextricably related by:

Capacitive reactance = 1 / 2 pi f C
where pi = approx. 3.1416,
f = frequency in Hertz,
Capacitance is in Farads, and
capacitive reactance is in Ohms.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:15:31 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:

(Robert Lay) wrote:

: : If not, what reason does he give for the technique?
:
: capacitance is prop to gap between plates.
:
:
: I think you meant that it's inversely proportional to the gap between
: the plates.
:

its still proportional....


That doesn't qualify as worthy of a response.
Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA
Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html

(Robert Lay) wrote:

: : I think you meant that it's inversely proportional to the gap between
: : the plates.
: :
:
: its still proportional....
:
:
: That doesn't qualify as worthy of a response.


a relative bearing is a bearing.

inverse proportional is a proportion.



a is a subset of b

get the idea ?

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:02:59 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:

(Robert Lay) wrote:

: : I think you meant that it's inversely proportional to the gap between
: : the plates.
: :
:
: its still proportional....
:
:
: That doesn't qualify as worthy of a response.


a relative bearing is a bearing.

inverse proportional is a proportion.



a is a subset of b

get the idea ?

Nonsense! Have you learned nothing?

Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA
Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html

(Robert Lay) wrote:

: Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA
: Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail
: http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
: http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html


if i didnt know any better i'd swear
you have relations living in KENT,ENGLAND

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:18:17 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:

if i didnt know any better i'd swear
you have relations living in KENT,ENGLAND



How so?


Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA
Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html

"W9DMK (Robert Lay)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:18:17 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:

if i didnt know any better i'd swear
you have relations living in KENT,ENGLAND



How so?

Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove him
wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)

Has he advised you on web design yet?

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:42:39 -0000, "Brian Reay"
wrote:


"W9DMK (Robert Lay)" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:18:17 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:

if i didnt know any better i'd swear
you have relations living in KENT,ENGLAND



How so?

Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove him
wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)

Has he advised you on web design yet?

Dear Brian,

I was getting curious, because most people with the surname "Lay" do
come from England, but my family came from Germany, near Heidelberg,
in 1849.

Insofar as Web design, I would rather have nothing to do with the Web,
at all, but it's the only way to distribute my free software. I let my
grandson (Nick Zaffora) design my Web page. He's a college student and
really enjoys that sort of thing.


Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA
Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html

"W9DMK (Robert Lay)" wrote in message
...
Dear Brian,

I was getting curious, because most people with the surname "Lay" do
come from England, but my family came from Germany, near Heidelberg,
in 1849.

Heidelberg is a really nice place. I've not been there in a few years but
hope to return before too long.

Insofar as Web design, I would rather have nothing to do with the Web,
at all, but it's the only way to distribute my free software. I let my
grandson (Nick Zaffora) design my Web page. He's a college student and
really enjoys that sort of thing.


My eldest enjoys webdesign and did a website as part of her Baden Powell
badge in guides.

I've looked at some of the material on your website- useful stuff. I liked
the paper on maximum power transfer.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay wrote:
Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove him
wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)

But he's not wrong at all. It is indeed a ratio - C is proportional to 1/d
so why the argument?
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345

"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote in message ...
In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay
wrote:
Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove
him
wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)

But he's not wrong at all. It is indeed a ratio - C is proportional to
1/d
so why the argument?

Because the would be stated as:

C is INVERSELY proportional to d

An other example, from the RF field, is the 'inverse square law'. If your
interpretation were correct it would be the "square law".

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay wrote:

Because the would be stated as:

C is INVERSELY proportional to d

An other example, from the RF field, is the 'inverse square law'. If your
interpretation were correct it would be the "square law".

Not at all. As you (correctly) say, the name in the 'inverse square law'.
It too is a proportional ratio - in that case P in proportional to 1/(d^2).

N'est pas?

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealth Technologies, MN013-N300, UNIX Solutions Group
6150 Trenton Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55440 1-763-744-1723
email: "Remove the spam filtre"
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote in message ...
In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay
wrote:

Because the would be stated as:

C is INVERSELY proportional to d

An other example, from the RF field, is the 'inverse square law'. If
your
interpretation were correct it would be the "square law".

Not at all. As you (correctly) say, the name in the 'inverse square law'.
It too is a proportional ratio - in that case P in proportional to
1/(d^2).


Ok, you do it your way. I'll stick to the convention I've learned and, other
that you and zzpk, I've always found others use.

--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898

I prefer Nescafe :O)

"Brian Reay" wrote:

: Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove him
: wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)

said m3osn....bwahhhhh

:
: Has he advised you on web design yet?

yeh...Brian...i'm the one who had to correct you on the use of the ALT
tag!

"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote:

: In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay wrote:
: Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove him
: wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)
:
: But he's not wrong at all. It is indeed a ratio - C is proportional to 1/d
: so why the argument?
: --
: Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345


Chris...

i'm surprised that someone wiuth a degree in maths doesnt understand set
theory !!

"Brian Reay" wrote:

:
: Ok, you do it your way. I'll stick to the convention I've learned and, other
: that you and zzpk, I've always found others use.


oh so now its ok for Chris... therefore its ok for me.

so your previous posts and your comments to our american cousin have
been a waste of time

par for the course - me thinks

In uk.radio.amateur ZZZPK .es.it.net wrote:
oh so now its ok for Chris... therefore its ok for me.

so your previous posts and your comments to our american cousin have
been a waste of time

Oi - who you callin' a Merkun?
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealth Technologies, MN013-N300, UNIX Solutions Group
6150 Trenton Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55440 1-763-744-1723
email: "Remove the spam filtre"
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

Heidel burghers were they?

"W9DMK (Robert Lay)" wrote in message
...
I was getting curious, because most people with the surname "Lay" do
come from England, but my family came from Germany, near Heidelberg,
in 1849.

That's our L.I.A.R. all over - every time that he has an argument
(which happens all too frequently) he thereafter sneers at the
point of view that had been put up by his co-respondent,
without regard to whom was correct!

"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote in message ...
In uk.radio.amateur Brian Reay
wrote:
Don't worry about it Bob, "zzzpk" has a problem with people who prove
him
wrong. Welcome to the club ;-)
But he's not wrong at all. It is indeed a ratio - C is proportional to
1/d
so why the argument?

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:53:35 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

Heidel burghers were they?

Not exactly - they came from the town of Bammental, which is on
provincial road 15, south east of Heidelburg, in the direction of
Wiesloch. The town is on the Elsenz river.

I have spent some time around there, and it's very nice.

Bob, W9DMK, Dahlgren, VA
Replace "nobody" with my callsign for e-mail
http://www.qsl.net/w9dmk
http://zaffora/f2o.org/W9DMK/W9dmk.html

In the same vein, everybody has heard of Beau Nash
who was responsible for much of the architectural beauty
of the City Of Bath.

No many seem to realise, however, that Nash had
a sleeping partner, Beau Nidle.

"W9DMK (Robert Lay)" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:53:35 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:

Heidel burghers were they?

Not exactly

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:38:22 -0000, "Airy R.Bean"
wrote:
No many seem to realise, however, that Nash had
a sleeping partner, Beau Nidle.
or that he couldn't settle down, Nash Rambler.

"see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm"
wrote:

: In uk.radio.amateur ZZZPK .es.it.net wrote:
: oh so now its ok for Chris... therefore its ok for me.
:
: so your previous posts and your comments to our american cousin have
: been a waste of time
:
: Oi - who you callin' a Merkun?

oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:44:31 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:
oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.
Is that a chemistry set, or an erector set? Or set to your partner?

Richard Clark wrote:

: On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:44:31 GMT,
: (ZZZPK)
: wrote:
: oh some person who has a problem understanding set theory.
: Is that a chemistry set, or an erector set? Or set to your partner?

no ...


dancing.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:35:21 GMT,
(ZZZPK)
wrote:

Or set to your partner?
no ...

dancing.
That IS a dancing term. The question is in what proportion is it to
antennas?

Richard Clark wrote:

: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:35:21 GMT,
: (ZZZPK)
: wrote:
:
: Or set to your partner?
: no ...
:
: dancing.
: That IS a dancing term. The question is in what proportion is it to
: antennas?

oh... set dancing is very much related to antennas.

you can have a set of 4, 6, 8 or more
all or some dancing together (driven in phase)
or all dancing to a slighly different pattern (out of phase)

some dancers were BOOTS...others dance BAREFOOT (10-4)


the proportion is as you like it, just depends how distant your
observation is....and of course how lacking one's understanding of
set theory is.