Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roger Hayter wrote:
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 07:44:53 +0000, Spike wrote: Very interesting, but I'd have to say that none of what you say refutes my original contention that the distant station, which after all is the one we are trying to communicate with, will notice any difference to the received signal whether the sending station's antenna was tuned with a 20c torch bulb or a $300 VNA. You touched on the main vagaries of the system when you said "What I've found is that such side by side comparisons do not account for variations in propagation, path, interference, local noise, time of day, position of the moon, and other factors beyond the operators control". Perhaps an analogy might be useful. Instead of an HF radio, you're dealing with your automobile. Under normal circumstances, it will get you to work and back fairly efficiently. However, you notice that your gasoline (petrol) mileage is not quite what you might expect. So, you have a choice of mechanics. The first mechanic tunes the engine with a light bulb, divining rod, magic incantations, and offers a rather bizarre description of what work was done on the vehicle. The second mechanic uses proper computerized test equipment to analyze the situation, uses factory parts, and delivers the car with a detailed printout of what was done, what changes were made, what parts were used, and a before-after gas mileage comparison performed on a dynamometer. Now, which mechanic would you prefer? Your car will still go to work and back in some manner. The second mechanic will cost more, because he has to pay for all the expensive equipment and genuine parts. If you're impoverished, obviously the first mechanic will be the only available choice, but assuming you plan to keep the vehicle, one might suspect it is a bad long term solution. From my perspective, both professional and as a ham, I deal in numbers. I can tell by looking at the numbers what is happening and what needs to be done. I have a small collection of aging test equipment to help me generate the numbers. Light bulbs do not generate numbers and are therefore (in my never humble opinion) useless and worthless. However, I will concede that if your intent is "to be able to transmit signals intended to be received by another station", a light bulb is sufficient to determine that your transmitter is spewing RF, spurs, harmonics, and noise into an antenna-like device that is either radiating the RF, absorbing it into heat, or reflecting it back to the transmitter (because the light bulb indicates the same in both directions). Burt won't appreciate being given an absolute schooling from Jeff here. I don't appreciate an interesting discussion being interpreted as a schoolyard fight by ignorant troublemakers like you and Gareth. I couldn’t give a **** what you don’t appreciate, Rog. HTH. Vote Steve! -- STC / M0TEY / http://twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
a little 4nec2 help? | Antenna | |||
Anybody tried 4nec2 on Vista ? | Antenna | |||
New 4nec2 version | Antenna | |||
4nec2 and linux ?? | Antenna | |||
4nec2 question | Antenna |