Reg:



Your point is well taken here. I was wondering if it was just me and, I
ended up throwing away valuable posts because I was unable to recognize
pertinent posts; some posts do leave me asking a question, "Why would some
authors even post replies which contain no useable facts, data, and
comments--what is their intent?"



In the end, I chalked it up to, perhaps, younger people entering the arena
of discussion in "the real world" and, perhaps it would take them a bit of
time to experience what works and what does not.



Whatever this phenomenon is, your comments have been reassuring to my not
being alone in observing this behavior, THANKS!



Warmest regards,

John


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


"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
After so many waffling contributions to the newsgroup from you
'experts' - where is the Gamma-match design formula? There are only
2 or 3 dimensions involved. It should be simple and straightforward
enough!

Or is this newsgroup just a farce?
----
Reg.

John Smith wrote:
Reg:



Your point is well taken here. I was wondering if it was just me and, I
ended up throwing away valuable posts because I was unable to recognize
pertinent posts; some posts do leave me asking a question, "Why would some
authors even post replies which contain no useable facts, data, and
comments--what is their intent?"



In the end, I chalked it up to, perhaps, younger people entering the arena
of discussion in "the real world" and, perhaps it would take them a bit of
time to experience what works and what does not.



Whatever this phenomenon is, your comments have been reassuring to my not
being alone in observing this behavior, THANKS!



Warmest regards,

John


(Sigh!)

I put all the gamma match info I have on a.b.s.e (I think; it hasn't
appeared there yet)under subject "Gamma match article and executable." One
is an article in PDF format and the other is a DOS executable for designing.
Use whichever one floats your boat.

John - KD5YI

John Smith wrote:
"Why would some authors even post replies which contain
no useable facts, data, and comments--what is their intent?"

My Mother had a take on such folk: They're just talking
to hear their heads rattle.
--
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 =---

Reg Edwards wrote:

After so many waffling contributions to the newsgroup from you
'experts' - where is the Gamma-match design formula? There are only
2 or 3 dimensions involved. It should be simple and straightforward
enough!

Reg, is this the question? Where is the ratio of the real
part of the net voltage to the real part of the net current
equal to 50 ohms? Or is it more complicated than that?
--
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 =---

Just to take a side avenue to this all, I dropped down another 1/2 wave
element adjacent to 1/2 monopole under discussion, with a shorting strap the
top of the elements (converting the 1/2 monopole into an upside down
"U"--or, resembling a slim-jim with 1/4 wave match replaced by the gamma),
guess what? Yes, a noticible improvement....

Regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
After so many waffling contributions to the newsgroup from you
'experts' - where is the Gamma-match design formula? There are only
2 or 3 dimensions involved. It should be simple and straightforward
enough!

Or is this newsgroup just a farce?
----
Reg.

To all:

Well, conductor diameter is not very critical in this configuration (or, at
least that appears true to me--strange as that is to swallow.) However, the
gamma rod I now have is #8 copper wire. And, that works out well, although
it needs a couple of extra insulating spacers to stabilize it to the
monopole, it is easy to work with and one only needs to solder it to the
copper monopole, it can be bent and straightened at will to adjust
spacings-shortened and lengthened by soldering on a bit.
Richard reminding me of the necessity of ferrite beads has made the tuning
of gamma much smoother, and an swr of 1.4:1 is now had--coax length changes
are MUCH less noticeable--bordering on trivial.
As it stands now, it is 32 ft. to the bottom of the monopole. The very
bottom of the monopole is connected to the aluminum mast, the mast is well
grounded (static and lighting protection are a given.) The monopole is now
in the configuration of a 1 wave folded monopole (end fed through a gamma.)
Placing the gamma in the middle of the two vertical lengths of the monopole
(at the bottom end of the open "U") seems to give a complete 360 degree EVEN
pattern, no noticeable bumps (perhaps a very slight elongation of the lobes
in the same plane as the two ends of the folded monopole.)
From my simple observations, I put the most weight in s-unit readings of
known signals I RECEIVE with a known transceiver and coax (this I consider
to be the most "real world" test I can devise.)
This configuration is, by far, the best I have had sitting on that mast. It
blows away the 1/4 wave I constructed (I am too worn out to put back the 1/4
and note the exact differences, but a safe estimate is 4+ s-units on all
known received signals here on the valley floor. This has to be a low
pattern, but critique and comments are welcomed to contest this.)
It might be my imagination, but there seems a very "solid" sound and feel to
signals (this is impossible to measure and will make many--if not all--doubt
my sanity!)
As some have noted, the humble s-unit will vary widely on transceivers, and
is fallible...
However, now I have an antenna of a, somewhat, seemingly unique
configuration which will give me a good conversation piece to chew over with
friends....
I am pressing this antenna into everyday use while I throw another together
to toy with the gamma on.

One more thing. I have found a beacon on 27.125 (Chicken Band Channel 14.)
It is on the air 24/7. It is a 20 MW child's walkie-talkie with a 9 ft.
antenna. It repeats the letters (call) "AOH" repeatedly at 7 wpm. I have
had email correspondence with the operator ", the above
details gleaned through such.
He/she claims it has been heard throughout northern and central California,
and that it is located high atop Mt. Diablo here in California.
It has been an asset in testing the antenna(s) in receive conditions, under
varying conditions, in "the real world."

Summary and conclusions:
-The gamma can be used to match a 1/2 wave end fed monopole with acceptable
results.
-The gamma can be used to match a 1 wave end fed folded monopole with
acceptable results.
-The 1 wave folded monopole seems a superior element to use in this design.
-Although only suspicion at this point, I suspect the gamma to be of
slightly less "lossy" performance than the L-Match previously used and/or
provides a more favorable "launch" to the radiation pattern desired--more
attention needs to be given this in future experiments. The experiments
continue.

Thanks all for your past and continuing assistance and council...

Regards,
John
--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Just to take a side avenue to this all, I dropped down another 1/2 wave
element adjacent to 1/2 monopole under discussion, with a shorting strap
the
top of the elements (converting the 1/2 monopole into an upside down
"U"--or, resembling a slim-jim with 1/4 wave match replaced by the gamma),
guess what? Yes, a noticible improvement....

Regards,
John

--
I would like to point out, I do appreciate the "Been there--done that!"
posts. Indeed, now your observations, comments and discourse should be
filled with wisdom--I am listening!!!
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
After so many waffling contributions to the newsgroup from you
'experts' - where is the Gamma-match design formula? There are only
2 or 3 dimensions involved. It should be simple and straightforward
enough!

Or is this newsgroup just a farce?
----
Reg.