On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:41:50 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Becareful Buck!!! It is catching, you are starting to think like me!

Regards


hmmm, maybe I should killfile you for being contagious? ;)

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

As for the topic, I am interested to know. I am eznic challenged.


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:27 GMT, "
wrote:

Just making a point

Hi Art,

You could use a blunt.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:56:27 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:
Immortality awaits.

How kind, I am usually accused of that, short a T.

No, no, OM, I simply observed how you dredge up authorities to impeach
them. It's a tough act to follow. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:42:31 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

but you have completely destroyed any credibility I could have granted you

I being Brett, or Jim Jones?

To return to rote (yes, annoyingly on topic):
The physical size in relation to wavelength dominates launch
characteristics, NOT electrical length.

73's,
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

wrote:
And the more agitated he gets the more he reverts to use of
the long words instead of short words and scrambles his answers
so all are confused as to what he is saying, why he is saying it as
well as what benefit he thinks he is supplying by typing it.

Art, I once has a fuzz-phrase card with ten words in each
of three columns. One picked three numbers at random and
looked up the words for inclusion in a memo or paper. One
possibility might be "integrated quantitized phenomenon".
I suspect Richard C. has some rather sophisticated fuzz-
phrase software at his disposal. :-)
--
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 =---

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:52:02 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I suspect Richard C. has some rather sophisticated fuzz-
phrase software at his disposal. :-)
Called an education. Many have had the same opportunity, but mileage
varies as the saying goes.

Some simply prefer to push the car.

Cecil,
What ever happened turned out O.K.
Looks like he left and took a holiday
When he comes back, if he ever does,. maybe he
will be a bit more mellow to his fellow man.
.. His degree is in the Arts but I think he saw to much
of Shakespeare and not enough of Gilbert and Sullivan,
which is probably why he has one hand on his knife at all times
I suspect he does have a 'Fuzz" card but it is in Elizabethan
which, being dated, fits in quite well for someone used to
appearing from 'stage left' in antenna discussions
Art


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
wrote:
And the more agitated he gets the more he reverts to use of
the long words instead of short words and scrambles his answers
so all are confused as to what he is saying, why he is saying it as
well as what benefit he thinks he is supplying by typing it.

Art, I once has a fuzz-phrase card with ten words in each
of three columns. One picked three numbers at random and
looked up the words for inclusion in a memo or paper. One
possibility might be "integrated quantitized phenomenon".
I suspect Richard C. has some rather sophisticated fuzz-
phrase software at his disposal. :-)
--
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 =---

I wonder, then, what your basis is for saying so.
At least I give a source.

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

Sorry Richard. I never refer to sources. Except perhaps Ohm.
There's no way of guaranteeing reliability. I work things out for
myself so you'll just have to take my word for it.

I have a remarkably small book library. Although I did buy a
second-hand copy of Terman in 1947 which I still occasionally browse
through when I'm running short of ideas. He's most comprehensive.
Which accounts for his continued popularity. But he's not God. Anyone
who has actually tried to use him will know that.

I do have volumes from A to S of notes accumulated over the last 45
years. But some papers are about telescope making which was a hobby of
mine before our night skies became polluted with vapour trails and
other fumes. And some wicked kids stole my camera.
----
Reg.

I am a software engineer but, I am glad you commented on eznec--I am finding
it a bit of challenge to utilize it meaningfully--it has brought me to my
knees and humbled me.
You know the old saying, "Garbage in, Garbage out", eznec just won't arrange
my garbage in a meaninful way.

Warmest regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Buck" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:41:50 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Becareful Buck!!! It is catching, you are starting to think like me!

Regards


hmmm, maybe I should killfile you for being contagious? ;)

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

As for the topic, I am interested to know. I am eznic challenged.


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:27 GMT, "
wrote:


Just making a point


Hi Art,

You could use a blunt.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm guessing that you have no idea what you said in
semi-current slang.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, I am just guessing, but are you referring to medicinal marijuanna?
grin

Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Tom Ring" wrote in message
.. .
Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:27 GMT, "
wrote:


Just making a point


Hi Art,

You could use a blunt. 73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm guessing that you have no idea what you said in semi-current
slang.

tom
K0TAR

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:31:13 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:27 GMT, "
wrote:


Just making a point


Hi Art,

You could use a blunt.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, I'm guessing that you have no idea what you said in
semi-current slang.

Hi Tom,

Guessing and supposing seem to be de Rigueur. Let's look at it
through deconstruction (the convolutions of language used here are to
thin out the shallow end of the grammatical pool) and let me ask:
"Considering your reaction, Art's stimulus by which I made my
suggestion, and the comment itself: does all this maintain a
consistent, internal logic?"

If I were to deconstruct further, I would offer the query:
"How current is semi?"

If we reach back beyond the currency of semi (say 3 or more decades);
then I would have offered Art:
"Keep a tight ass hole."
and it would have still come from the same culture.

Now, at the risk of having to "explain" to a generation that demands
facts and references, and then shows so little inclination to actually
apply them (this does not mean you by the way as you have been
adventurous enough to probably have made connections anyway); then my
short answer would be:
"You've guessed wrong." (which is a far more commonplace outcome
by virtue of this preponderance of guessing, presuming, and supposing
instead of testing, analyzing, and examining).

5 points to the one who can name the source to the ancient (nearly 40
year old) quote offered. 5 extra points if you can provide the
context (fictional character) who employs it. And 10 points bonus if
you can name (fictional character) who it is applied to.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark"
5 points to the one who can name the source to the ancient (nearly
40 year old) quote offered. 5 extra points if you can provide the
context (fictional character) who employs it. And 10 points bonus if
you can name (fictional character) who it is applied to.
__________________

Using scientific texts and methods rather than a thesaurus and fictional
references to try to make your points here would serve you (and the rest of
us) better.

Or you might wish to move to alt.english.usage, and see if those folks are
impressed.

RF

Richard Clark wrote:


If I were to deconstruct further, I would offer the query:
"How current is semi?"

1 decade.


If we reach back beyond the currency of semi (say 3 or more decades);
then I would have offered Art:
"Keep a tight ass hole."
and it would have still come from the same culture.

Now, at the risk of having to "explain" to a generation that demands
facts and references, and then shows so little inclination to actually
apply them (this does not mean you by the way as you have been
adventurous enough to probably have made connections anyway); then my
short answer would be:
"You've guessed wrong." (which is a far more commonplace outcome
by virtue of this preponderance of guessing, presuming, and supposing
instead of testing, analyzing, and examining).

5 points to the one who can name the source to the ancient (nearly 40
year old) quote offered. 5 extra points if you can provide the
context (fictional character) who employs it. And 10 points bonus if
you can name (fictional character) who it is applied to.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Hmm, I'd say about 61 years +-1 on the quote, and I couldn't guess who
used it 40 years ago.

And blunt is now a drug reference if you haven't kept up.

So who was it that recycled the combat advice?

tom
K0TAR

"Reg Edwards" wrote..
Sorry Richard. I never refer to sources. Except perhaps Ohm.
There's no way of guaranteeing reliability. I work things out for
myself so you'll just have to take my word for it.

I have a remarkably small book library. Although I did buy a
second-hand copy of Terman in 1947 which I still occasionally browse
through when I'm running short of ideas. He's most comprehensive.
Which accounts for his continued popularity. But he's not God.
______________

I suspect that your statement above that you never refer to sources doesn't
mean that all of your considerable knowledge is the result of your original
investigations. Even your countryman Stephen Hawking credits his sources
when he writes of scientific topics.

Terman's (Brown's) statements about the elevation patterns of loaded
verticals have been proven empirically by MW radiators for 70 years or more.
There is nothing to argue about, and certainly no reason to take the word of
anyone not willing to show conclusively how this concept is invalid. One's
word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you and/or Richard Clark.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:43:34 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Or you might wish to move to alt.english.usage, and see if those folks are
impressed.

Hi OM,

It's satisfying enough to see you're stunned. ;-)
That was the point of the sieve.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:09:17 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:

Hmm, I'd say about 61 years +-1 on the quote, and I couldn't guess who
used it 40 years ago.

R. Crumb

And blunt is now a drug reference if you haven't kept up.

Whoosh, over your head.

So who was it that recycled the combat advice?

Combat? I suppose you are fishing for the point award answers.
In Order:
Mr. Natural,
Flakey Foont.

As Mr. Natural would offer:
"If you have to ask,
you're not really with it."

To close out this round of Cultural Awareness, a question from Dr.
Naturlich:
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:09:17 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:


Hmm, I'd say about 61 years +-1 on the quote, and I couldn't guess who
used it 40 years ago.


R. Crumb


And blunt is now a drug reference if you haven't kept up.


Whoosh, over your head.


Nope, I got that, just got more than that.


So who was it that recycled the combat advice?


Combat? I suppose you are fishing for the point award answers.
In Order:
Mr. Natural,
Flakey Foont.

Yes, combat - advice given to troops going to fight on the islands of
the Pacific. And I must have forgotten the re-use by Crumb; I used to
have all of them, way back when. I liked the Fabulous Furry Freak
Brothers better.


As Mr. Natural would offer:
"If you have to ask,
you're not really with it."

To close out this round of Cultural Awareness, a question from Dr.
Naturlich:
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:25:57 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

One's
word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you and/or Richard Clark.

Hi OM,

And I presume you being the arbiter of what is right, then render
authority to make this citation sufficient to be proof of your
statement? :-)

I don't suppose you could rummage up a concurring opinion from Terman
or Mendenhall (whoops, talk about one citation flushed down the
dumper)? Such hubris.

If you deigned to offer this privelage equally, there would be no
arguments, would there?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"No it doesn`t! (Thus an antenna for which H=0.45 lambda can by suitable
top loading be made to have a field distribution in the vertical plane
of H=0.6 lambda.)"

Reg is right. Between two antennas there will always be differences.
But, as Richard Clark might say, "Does it make a Db of difference?" One
dB can easily be lost in measurement error.

Top loading has been around since at least 1909 when it was patented by
Simon Eisenstein of Kiev. Russia. See Fig 9-24 on page 9-17 of ON4UN`s
"Loe-Band DXing". Eisenstein shows current distribution on his patent
application. He gets the base current up as it might be in a full height
antenna.

I would believe what Terman wrote because I`ve never been able to
disprove anything he wrote. Now I look for my error in logic when
something of Terman`s seems wrong.

ON4UN says on page 9-29 of his 1994 edition of the Low-Band DXing book:
"Over sea-water the 5/8 wave has lost 0.8 dB of its gain already, the
1/4-wave only 0.4 dB." (It`s less than one dB).

Even a disappearingly small radiator produces radiation less than 1/2 dB
weaker than a 1/2-wave dipole, or a 1/4-wave vertical. In lossless
antennas, the only difference in radiated signal between the full length
antenna and a too-short antenna comes from the slight difference in
their patterns.

Short antennas have efficiency problems because they have low radiation
resistances. This low radiation reaistance goes not compare as well with
a given loss resistance as does the higher radiation resistance of the
full size antenna. However, great care can be taken with the too-short
antenna to minimize its loss resistance and get good efficiency.

You have only to consult the "ARRL Antenna Book" and compare a short
continusously loaded vertical`s performance with that of a full-size
1/4-wave vertical. In my 19th edition it`s on page 5-25:
"Fig 46-Helically wound ground-plane vertical. Performance from this
type of antenna is comparable to that of many full-size 1/4 vertical
antennas."

In 1949, I worked in a transmitting plant where two stations, KPRC, 950
KHz, and KXYZ, 1320 KHz, shared the same transmittinng tower. Both
stations had identical RCA 5-C, 5 KW transmitters. Regional coverage was
almost identical despite many more degrees in the tower at 1320 KHz than
at 950 KHz.

One of the operators at the stations was a ham. He was J.L. Davis,
W5LIT. J.L. had a new 1949 Ford with a cane pole bolted to the rear
bumper. The pole was wound nearly end to end with enameled wire to serve
as antenna for his mobile ham rig. He had no top hat at the tip of his
antenna, so sometimes when he was talking a high voltsage corona
discharge would plume from the top of his antenna. Very impressive
though no help to his QSO..

Bill Orr writes on page 78 of "Vertical Antennas":
"A helix length of about .05 wavelength or more provides good results as
a substitute for a full size quarter wavelength vertical antenna."

It worked for W5LIT.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

"Richard Clark" wrote
It's satisfying enough to see you're stunned. ;-)
That was the point of the sieve.
__________________

Your perception of that is as inaccurate as the one you espouse about loaded
verticals. Are you incapable of dealing with technical topics in a
technical manner?

I suppose now you'll claim that your post above was another sieve, and
congratulate yourself all over again.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:52:24 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

Are you incapable of dealing with technical topics in a
technical manner?

Hi OM,

I respond to all correspondence of interest. I see you enjoy talk
about talking about technical topics, but I have seen no technical
discussion from you for quite some time. That is your sole
responsibility as no one can do your typing for you.

I suppose now

Yes, but too often.

This is what I mean about choice and responsibility. You chose to
ramble on instead of offering technical discussion. I am equally
pleased to travel either path, and I suspect your protestation above
given the inclination obviously revealed below it.

So to match your diverging interests, can you answer
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

If your heart of heart's desire for technical topics must be sated
first
What effect would surface phonon polaritons present to an
antenna's efficiency?

Either constitute another sieve. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Harrison" wrote
ON4UN says on page 9-29 of his 1994 edition of the Low-Band DXing
book: "Over sea-water the 5/8 wave has lost 0.8 dB of its gain already,
the 1/4-wave only 0.4 dB." (It`s less than one dB).

I think you should question that conclusion. Sea water (or any path of
fixed parameters) attenuates every groundwave by the same decibel amount for
the same path, conditions, and frequency. For example, using the FCC curves
for groundwave propagation from a radiator with 1 kW of power and 120
1/4-wave radials, over a seawater (only) path at 1MHz...

- a 1/4-wave vertical produces a field of 190 mV/m at 1 mile,
and 85 mV/m at 2 miles.
- a 5/8-wave vertical produces a field of 274 mV/m at 1 mile,
and 137 mV/m at 2 miles.

This is as expected. Doubling the distance reduces field strength by 6 dB
in each case. The absolute value of the groundwave signal has no bearing on
the percentage of it that is lost as it propagates.

Even a disappearingly small radiator produces radiation less than 1/2 dB
weaker than a 1/2-wave dipole, or a 1/4-wave vertical. In lossless
antennas, the only difference in radiated signal between the full length
antenna and a too-short antenna comes from the slight difference in
their patterns.

The difference in peak gain between an isotropic radiator and a reference
dipole in free space is 2.15 dB. Practical antennas in real-world
applications can show greater than 0.5 dB losses for shortened radiators.
In my example above, the 1/4-wave radiator would need about 2 kW of input
power to produce the same field as the 5/8-wave radiator with 1 kW, over the
same path -- which is a 3 dB ratio.

In 1949, I worked in a transmitting plant where two stations, KPRC, 950
KHz, and KXYZ, 1320 KHz, shared the same transmittinng tower. Both
stations had identical RCA 5-C, 5 KW transmitters. Regional coverage was
almost identical despite many more degrees in the tower at 1320 KHz than
at 950 KHz.

If the tower was 90 degrees at 950 kHz it would have been 125 degrees at
1320 kHz. The FCC efficiency for 90 degree towers is 190 mV/m at 1 mile for
1 kW, and about 210 mV/m for 125 degree radiators. So the 1320 kHz signal
was launched with a greater groundwave, but that advantage would be lost as
the signal propagated over whatever the ground conditions are for the path
(higher freqs have greater losses). Using the FCC curves and a conductivity
of 8 mS/m, the 5 mV/m contour should be about 35.5 miles away for the 5kW
950 kHz station, and about 27.5 miles away for the 5kW 1320 kHz station.
But close in probably few would know the difference.

Bill Orr writes on page 78 of "Vertical Antennas":
"A helix length of about .05 wavelength or more provides good results
as a substitute for a full size quarter wavelength vertical antenna."

Was 0.05 lambda the pitch of the helix? If so, how many turns? How were
the two installed? How were the antennas oriented, and In which direction
from the antennas was he comparing them?

+ + +

And thanks for some serious comments on this subject.

RF

"Richard Clark" wrote:
One's word is insufficient -- even if it comes from you
and/or Richard Clark.

And I presume you being the arbiter of what is right, then render
authority to make this citation sufficient to be proof of your
statement? :-)
__________________

Yes, you do presume. Your primary education should have provided you with
the concept of proving and supporting your work; I merely referred to it.

Experience here shows that you will claim whatever you want, and supply no
technical justification for it. That's up to you, but as you see by
responses here, it isn't earning you very much respect from others.

RF

"Richard Clark" wrote:

Drivel not worth serious consideration.

On 30/03/2005 10:34 AM, Tom Ring wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:09:17 -0600, Tom Ring
wrote:
[...]
Combat? I suppose you are fishing for the point award answers.
In Order:
Mr. Natural,
Flakey Foont.

Yes, combat - advice given to troops going to fight on the islands of
the Pacific. And I must have forgotten the re-use by Crumb; I used to
have all of them, way back when. I liked the Fabulous Furry Freak
Brothers better.

I simply cannot resist:

"Antennas will get you through times of no propagation better than
propagation will get you through times of no antennas."

I'll admit that I've lost the plot to this thread. Although, I've
picked up some interesting pointers on antenna design with respect to
electrical length. I really need to pick up a copy of the Terman book,
if only to read up on some of the references I've seen here.

At least it will give me a reason to use my erstwhile maths skills for
good, instead of for evil.

clvrmnky wrote:

Yes, combat - advice given to troops going to fight on the islands of
the Pacific. And I must have forgotten the re-use by Crumb; I used to
have all of them, way back when. I liked the Fabulous Furry Freak
Brothers better.

I simply cannot resist:

"Antennas will get you through times of no propagation better than
propagation will get you through times of no antennas."


I was going to use the original of that one, but decided I shouldn't. I
like your version a lot.

tom
K0TAR

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:55:09 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

That's up to you, but as you see by
responses here, it isn't earning you very much respect from others.

Hi OM,

I will concede the post of Beauty Queen to your overwhelming lead.
Tears will stain my pillow tonight. :-(

However much you may pine away for technical discussion, you balance
that with the relish to gust on with personalities. Clearly your
contest but no points for content nor style. Careful, there are
others eyeing that crown you seek.

I posed a question about pop music and antennas, both, given you have
abandoned the topic long ago. This in itself merely underlines how
inconsequential its outcome was. The vacuum of discussion along any
of those lines portends more banal gossip. I shouldn't await any
surprising development in your writing skills; but I'm an optimist and
look forward to that slight glimmer of talent that goes beyond the
swim suit competition.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
I will concede...
____

Let us all hope so.

RF

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:08:33 -0600, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote:

Drivel not worth serious consideration.

Hi OM,

The sieve succeeded. We can eliminate popular music as serious
consideration from your vast repertoire of experience. It appears you
are somewhat constrained on the topic of Polaritons (Plasmons to some)
too. In the future I will try to dumb down the technical and elevate
the popular. By some accounts we would end up discussing Shakespeare
again!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote
In the future I will try to dumb down the technical and elevate
the popular.
____________

You can't dumb down your technical content much more than you already have.
It's essentially zero now. And don't bother us with your "popular"
rhetoric. It's only popular with you, I'm afraid.

RF

Richard Fry wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote

In the future I will try to dumb down the technical and elevate
the popular.

____________

You can't dumb down your technical content much more than you already
have. It's essentially zero now. And don't bother us with your
"popular" rhetoric. It's only popular with you, I'm afraid.


So this is what antenna expert discourase is like?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Fry wrote:
"Was the 0.05 lambda the pitch of the helix? If so, how many turns?"

I`ll quote Bill Orr for accuracy:
"Resonance can be established at a given frequency by the use of a
short, helically-wound element (Fig. 14). Treated bamboo poles (J L`s
choice), PVC plastic tubing, or fiberglass quad antenna spreaders can be
used as a form on which to wind the helix. Diameter for the helix must
be small in relation to length and a practical design makes use of a one
inch (25,4 mm) winding form. A helix length of about .05 wavelength or
more provides good results as a substitute for a full-size quarter
wavelength vertical antenna.

The amount of wire required for the winding depends upon helix length
and pitch (turns per inch). In general, a half-wavelength of no. 14
Formvar-coated wire is spirally wrapped on the form, with spacing
approximately equal to the wire diameter. This amount of wire
approximates a auarter-wave resonance"

There are helical antennas of two types. The "axial mode" invented by
John D. Kraus which radiates in the direction of the coil axis and the
"normal mode" helical antenna which radiates in directions perpendicular
to the coil axis, as does a short straight wire. Carried to extremes,
the pitch could go to zero,in which case the coil becomes a loop, or the
coil is stretched out to a straight wire. The helical antenna referred
to by Orr, is the normal-node helical antenna.

While the axial-mode helix is a broad-band antenna, the normal-mode
helix is a high-Q antenna and has restricted bandwidth. Orr has
something to say about the high-Q normal-mode helix:
"In order to prevent any high voltage discharge, a 12-ibch (30 cm)
diameter wire top hat is attached to the helix. Antenna resonance can be
adjusted by varying the size of the hat, or by adding a small extra
inductance at the base of the antenna."

There was also a question about directive gain which often brings a
surprised response. Terman is my source for directive gain. On page 871
of his 1955 edition of "Electronic and Radio Engineering" he gives the
directive gain, not in decibles, of 1.5 for the directive gain of the
elementary doublet. It is not isotropic. It is however infinitesimally
short. In the same Table 23-1, Terman gives the gain of the full
half-wave dipole as 1.64. There is precious little difference in
directivity or gain, which are two sides of the same coin, more or less.
Maybe Art can make a high-gain antenna of very short elements if he can
just get them to take a lot of current and not waste much to loss

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:36:44 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:
So this is what antenna expert discourase is like?

Hi Mike,

No, that was abandoned long ago and an attempt to draw it back with a
novel topic of surface phonon polariton efficiency hits on antennas
was similarly abandoned as too easy (? who can tell what will lead to
a 600 entry thread?). However, the question:
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"
predictably blew a fuse.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Harrison" wrote
Richard Fry wrote:
"Was the 0.05 lambda the pitch of the helix? If so, how many turns?"

I`ll quote Bill Orr for accuracy:
etc

Thanks. Maybe I'll model that in NEC and see what it shows. Or did you do
that already?

While the axial-mode helix is a broad-band antenna, the normal-mode
helix is a high-Q antenna and has restricted bandwidth.

The VSWR bandwidth of a normal-mode helix depends on its design. Below is a
link to one that, with branch feed, has a bandwidth of 12 MHz in the FM
broadcast band (see the text at the bottom of the first column of p 1).

http://www.dielectric.com/broadcast/brochures/DCR-M.pdf

Terman is my source for directive gain. On page 871
of his 1955 edition of "Electronic and Radio Engineering" he gives the
directive gain, not in decibles, of 1.5 for the directive gain of the
elementary doublet. It is not isotropic. It is however infinitesimally
short. In the same Table 23-1, Terman gives the gain of the full
half-wave dipole as 1.64.

The 1.5 and 1.64 are multipliers. Multiplying power by 1.64X is a gain of
2.15dBi, that is, 10*log(1.64).

RF

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:09:25 -0500, Buck wrote:

How well would that work for shortening a J-Pole? would it be better
to use a shortened 1/2 wave dipole or would the J-Pole design be
better?

Hi Buck,

You may have noticed the vacuum of response - most have already seen
this movie and skipped out. However, for your benefit:

Like any small antenna, narrow bandwidth. Like any Hi-Z antenna, very
skitterish. Like any small antenna, lower gain.

For a helix standing roughly 4M tall for 40M band (which isn't
particularly short) under an 8 spoke top hat 6M wide, this exhibits a
drive point Z of 40000 Ohms. Put 100W into it and you will see 2KV at
the connector. That should take care of grass growing nearby.

EZNEC boldly announces there is loss, and the best gain is -2.6dBi.

The bandwidth spanned from 7.18MHz to 7.25MHz.

From there it is only a matter of adding the critical matching
section.

OR

Throw away the helix and use a straight support, shorten the 8 spoke
top hat to 4M wide and the drive point is an easier match at 13 Ohms.
No lethal voltages at the drive point, lower loss, more gain (albeit
of 0.65dBi), more bandwidth 7.14MHz to 7.4MHz.

Still reduces to it's hardly worth the effort to change from one to
the other, but all the signs point to a better implementation without
the air cooled wire wound resistor. If you want to keep a coil in the
picture, you can put it in the conventional place, shorten the top hat
spokes yet some more, and find no more gain, and less bandwidth.

OR

Buy an SGC which proudly proclaims it will match a wet string.

OR

Throw away all this folderol, and build a full size antenna (roughly
twice as tall as these gomers). No matching issue, bandwidth up the
kazoo (7-7.5 MHz), no appreciable change in gain though (in other
words, that imperceptible 1dB delta).

All modeling performed using "Real/MiniNEC Ground" (not usually my
choice, but then no one else has stepped up to the bar).

OR

Go watch a movie you haven't seen before, it may have a surprise in
it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

The answer I recall is:
"It ain`t no town and it ain`t no city. `Tain`t a gosh darn thing but Do
Wa Diddy!"

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

My gawd! Is this the same Richard Clark which I just reported to mental
health for a three day observation???
Quick, where is a phone--I will and cancel that! grin

Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:09:25 -0500, Buck wrote:

How well would that work for shortening a J-Pole? would it be better
to use a shortened 1/2 wave dipole or would the J-Pole design be
better?

Hi Buck,

You may have noticed the vacuum of response - most have already seen
this movie and skipped out. However, for your benefit:

Like any small antenna, narrow bandwidth. Like any Hi-Z antenna, very
skitterish. Like any small antenna, lower gain.

For a helix standing roughly 4M tall for 40M band (which isn't
particularly short) under an 8 spoke top hat 6M wide, this exhibits a
drive point Z of 40000 Ohms. Put 100W into it and you will see 2KV at
the connector. That should take care of grass growing nearby.

EZNEC boldly announces there is loss, and the best gain is -2.6dBi.

The bandwidth spanned from 7.18MHz to 7.25MHz.

From there it is only a matter of adding the critical matching
section.

OR

Throw away the helix and use a straight support, shorten the 8 spoke
top hat to 4M wide and the drive point is an easier match at 13 Ohms.
No lethal voltages at the drive point, lower loss, more gain (albeit
of 0.65dBi), more bandwidth 7.14MHz to 7.4MHz.

Still reduces to it's hardly worth the effort to change from one to
the other, but all the signs point to a better implementation without
the air cooled wire wound resistor. If you want to keep a coil in the
picture, you can put it in the conventional place, shorten the top hat
spokes yet some more, and find no more gain, and less bandwidth.

OR

Buy an SGC which proudly proclaims it will match a wet string.

OR

Throw away all this folderol, and build a full size antenna (roughly
twice as tall as these gomers). No matching issue, bandwidth up the
kazoo (7-7.5 MHz), no appreciable change in gain though (in other
words, that imperceptible 1dB delta).

All modeling performed using "Real/MiniNEC Ground" (not usually my
choice, but then no one else has stepped up to the bar).

OR

Go watch a movie you haven't seen before, it may have a surprise in
it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

....I will call and cancel that... even!

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion, haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
My gawd! Is this the same Richard Clark which I just reported to mental
health for a three day observation???
Quick, where is a phone--I will and cancel that! grin

Regards

--
Hay, if'n ya'll cun't konstructivly partecipete in this har disscusion,
haw
aboot speel-checkin it fer me?


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:09:25 -0500, Buck wrote:

How well would that work for shortening a J-Pole? would it be better
to use a shortened 1/2 wave dipole or would the J-Pole design be
better?

Hi Buck,

You may have noticed the vacuum of response - most have already seen
this movie and skipped out. However, for your benefit:

Like any small antenna, narrow bandwidth. Like any Hi-Z antenna, very
skitterish. Like any small antenna, lower gain.

For a helix standing roughly 4M tall for 40M band (which isn't
particularly short) under an 8 spoke top hat 6M wide, this exhibits a
drive point Z of 40000 Ohms. Put 100W into it and you will see 2KV at
the connector. That should take care of grass growing nearby.

EZNEC boldly announces there is loss, and the best gain is -2.6dBi.

The bandwidth spanned from 7.18MHz to 7.25MHz.

From there it is only a matter of adding the critical matching
section.

OR

Throw away the helix and use a straight support, shorten the 8 spoke
top hat to 4M wide and the drive point is an easier match at 13 Ohms.
No lethal voltages at the drive point, lower loss, more gain (albeit
of 0.65dBi), more bandwidth 7.14MHz to 7.4MHz.

Still reduces to it's hardly worth the effort to change from one to
the other, but all the signs point to a better implementation without
the air cooled wire wound resistor. If you want to keep a coil in the
picture, you can put it in the conventional place, shorten the top hat
spokes yet some more, and find no more gain, and less bandwidth.

OR

Buy an SGC which proudly proclaims it will match a wet string.

OR

Throw away all this folderol, and build a full size antenna (roughly
twice as tall as these gomers). No matching issue, bandwidth up the
kazoo (7-7.5 MHz), no appreciable change in gain though (in other
words, that imperceptible 1dB delta).

All modeling performed using "Real/MiniNEC Ground" (not usually my
choice, but then no one else has stepped up to the bar).

OR

Go watch a movie you haven't seen before, it may have a surprise in
it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 00:07:03 -0600, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
"What does Do Wa Diddy mean?"

The answer I recall is:
"It ain`t no town and it ain`t no city. `Tain`t a gosh darn thing but Do
Wa Diddy!"

Hi Richard,

You are a Gem!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC