On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:06:25 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Some buried wires

Some?

under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
wavelengths,

Why that high? Another Wives' tale? What about 1/8 or 5/8 (or even
some fraction in between)?

will, in theory

Whose theory?

, reduce losses.

Clearly loose conjecture. You got any data, or is this merely
rustling baking crumbs out of your apron?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg:

You know about SWR meters, built any?
I have built one, two so-239's, center conductor between 'em has a toroid
with 20 turns, EACH SIDE of the winding on the toroid has a 50 ohm resistor
to ground AND cathode of a diode to it, EACH SIDE through the diode feeds a
bright LED, and BOTH LEDS share a common ground resistance (variable)...
(cap to drain off rf to ground and supply a dc voltage/current in diodes
circuits) one LED reads forward, other reads reverse... it "seems" to
work, but here everything seems to be as real as "time."
In use, I adjust the forward LED for approx. correct brightness, the rev LED
is "judged" in brightness to make a workable guess at SWR... (I have one
with a meter--different direction coupler design, I just get a kick out of
the leds... I built the one with the meter, it "probably" works correctly
grin)
Operation has been at 100 watts... and, I don't think it would take anymore
power, barely able to dim the led near/at dark condition now (but this make
it highly useable at 10 watts)... probably have to drop secondary turns on
the toroid (but, how many turns would I need to keep to assure accurate
operation of the directional coupler?) and/or supply voltage to the leds
though a resistive divider, if I went more power...


Is my "directional coupler" design correct?
Better ideas for this circuit?

Warmest regards,
John
"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
|
|
| You heard correctly. The ground system lowers losses which
| translate
| to more power out. This is not method of controlling TOA, simply
| loss
| - all angles of radiation improve.
|
| ======================================
|
| Some buried wires under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
| wavelengths, will, in theory, reduce losses. Some old wife, once upon
| a time, must have read something about it in a book without bothering
| about the magnitude of the effect.
|
| It's not enough to be detectable. So don't listen to your voices or
| waste time digging up your back yard and getting back ache.
|
| There's far too much of old wives reading things in books and
| ill-written radio magazines, getting the wrong ideas, and then
| plagiarising them. Which innocent people hear about 3rd or 4th hand
| or n'th hand.
|
| The fabled SWR meter is another example.
| ----
| Reg.
|
|

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"There`s far too much of old wives reading things in books and ill
written radio magazines, getting the wrong ideas, and then plagiarising
them."

Fact and fiction are both repeated. That does not make written material
unreliable. It may mean you need verification of data. Reputation of
authors is based on their performance. It does not make them infallible,
just usually right.

Even an anecdotal tale may not repeat in your situation.

Repeatibility is reasonably expected or demonstrated in some instances.
It is not necessary to make all the mistakes for yourself or to find all
the "bugs" yourself. Reading can help avoid failures. Education is
worthwhile.

T.A. Edison gave us the light bulb, the phonograph, and the movie
machine. Nikola Tesla gave us powerful electrical machinery,
transmission systems, and the ability to exploit alternating electrical
power by appreciation of electrical principles better than others in his
time. Tesla`s approach was educated and inspired by what he read in
books.

You can experiment like Edison (98% perspiration, 2% inspiration) or
reason like Tesla. Both methods brought tremendous results.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
.. ".

Hardly a reliable start to a question. One gets the impression the
questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
the answer to suit.

Looking back over my career, I have never(?) taken anything out of a
book (Terman, etc) at face value. The number of occasions on which
errors and uncertainties of one sort or another have come to light has
justified the time and effort expended in checking.

Anybody who quotes Terman as from a Bible has only ever read him but
must have never actually used him in anger. I mention Terman only as
an example but hasten to add, in my opinion, he is amongst the most
reliable of popular technical authors. I have only his first edition
produced in the middle of WW2.

The work which continued during the life and death struggles between
the nations of WW2 never ceases to amazes me. During the battles of
Leningrad and Stalingrad, Russian engineers were designing High
Voltage DC power lines from yet-to-be-built hydro-electric power
stations deep in Asia, into Europe.

Stalin himself was concerned with the nutrition and the future of
school children. During the horrible prolonged battle of Stalingrad he
directed that children and mothers, then living in the frozen sewers
beneath the ruins, should be given top priority with food rationing.
This was based on the grounds that the average life of a soldier in
the city, having just survived crossing the river Volga, was only 7
hours and consequently he would not have time to eat and fully digest
a good meal.

As is well known the Germans ran out of food and ammunition first and
the survivors crawled out of the sewers and burning buildings to
surrender. The German generals must have known then the war was lost.
But it was not until 6 months later, in the Battle of Machines around
the city of Kursk, on the broad summer grasslands of the surrounding
steppes, littered with thousands of burning tanks, wrecked mobile guns
and aircraft, and deserted troop carriers, that Hitler must have been
convinced of ultimate defeat.

But another two years were to elapse and millions of Russian, Polish
and German lives were still to be lost before Russian tanks crossed
the Oder and Russian rockets and shells began to rain down on Berlin.
----
Reg, G4FGQ.

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

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:06:25 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Some buried wires

Some?

under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
wavelengths,

Why that high? Another Wives' tale? What about 1/8 or 5/8 (or even
some fraction in between)?

will, in theory

Whose theory?

, reduce losses.

Clearly loose conjecture. You got any data, or is this merely
rustling baking crumbs out of your apron?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg:

I can see how one such as I might be confusing.
I came from academic institutions which (stated) they believed, "There are
no "dumb" questions, only "dumb" people who WILL NOT put these questions
forward."

I interpreted this to say, "You can either choose to look STUPID with your
question--and change, or, you can choose to maintain your pride (remain
silent) and remain "STUPID!"
I would like to think I choose the first (but, due to my limited resources,
has only marginally improved my stupidity)...

Also, it was common belief that a person had to hear the concept, idea, etc.
six-times before it was absorbed by the mind in question and became
"knowledge."
There may be those gifted in absorbing information on the first try,
however, I fall into the group I mentioned above. frown
It does make me appreciate men/women/children with tollerance and
patience--if that is any factor which would redeem me....

Warmest regards,
John

"Reg Edwards" wrote in message
...
|
| Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
| questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
| . ".
|
| Hardly a reliable start to a question. One gets the impression the
| questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
| the answer to suit.
|
| Looking back over my career, I have never(?) taken anything out of a
| book (Terman, etc) at face value. The number of occasions on which
| errors and uncertainties of one sort or another have come to light has
| justified the time and effort expended in checking.
|
| Anybody who quotes Terman as from a Bible has only ever read him but
| must have never actually used him in anger. I mention Terman only as
| an example but hasten to add, in my opinion, he is amongst the most
| reliable of popular technical authors. I have only his first edition
| produced in the middle of WW2.
|
| The work which continued during the life and death struggles between
| the nations of WW2 never ceases to amazes me. During the battles of
| Leningrad and Stalingrad, Russian engineers were designing High
| Voltage DC power lines from yet-to-be-built hydro-electric power
| stations deep in Asia, into Europe.
|
| Stalin himself was concerned with the nutrition and the future of
| school children. During the horrible prolonged battle of Stalingrad he
| directed that children and mothers, then living in the frozen sewers
| beneath the ruins, should be given top priority with food rationing.
| This was based on the grounds that the average life of a soldier in
| the city, having just survived crossing the river Volga, was only 7
| hours and consequently he would not have time to eat and fully digest
| a good meal.
|
| As is well known the Germans ran out of food and ammunition first and
| the survivors crawled out of the sewers and burning buildings to
| surrender. The German generals must have known then the war was lost.
| But it was not until 6 months later, in the Battle of Machines around
| the city of Kursk, on the broad summer grasslands of the surrounding
| steppes, littered with thousands of burning tanks, wrecked mobile guns
| and aircraft, and deserted troop carriers, that Hitler must have been
| convinced of ultimate defeat.
|
| But another two years were to elapse and millions of Russian, Polish
| and German lives were still to be lost before Russian tanks crossed
| the Oder and Russian rockets and shells began to rain down on Berlin.
| ----
| Reg, G4FGQ.
|
| =======================================
|
| "Richard Clark" wrote in message
| ...
| On Sun, 1 May 2005 23:06:25 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
| wrote:
|
| Some buried wires
|
| Some?
|
| under a horizontal dipole, at a height of 1/4 or 1/2
| wavelengths,
|
| Why that high? Another Wives' tale? What about 1/8 or 5/8 (or even
| some fraction in between)?
|
| will, in theory
|
| Whose theory?
|
| , reduce losses.
|
| Clearly loose conjecture. You got any data, or is this merely
| rustling baking crumbs out of your apron?
|
| 73's
| Richard Clark, KB7QHC
|
|

On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:41:41 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
. ".

Hardly a reliable start to a question.

Hi Reggie,

Reliability in questions? You've got the cart before the horse. If
"I have heard that" was an introduction to a statement, or development
of an idea; yes, certainly, a poor beginning. But as an introduction
to a question, it is apparent that the questioner is begging
contradiction or confirmation for "I have heard that."

In my particular instance, I supported the generality by offering a
new perspective and confirmation. Mike appreciated it, and that was
enough apparently as the remainder of discussion wandered the field
kicking over other stones.

One gets the impression the
questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
the answer to suit.

Hardly uncommon, and successive correspondence removes any doubt or
resolves the enquiry. This is the point of posting afterall. The
only one posting threads I've seen are my own. ;-)

Looking back over my career, I have never(?) taken anything out of a
book (Terman, etc) at face value. The number of occasions on which
errors and uncertainties of one sort or another have come to light has
justified the time and effort expended in checking.

Anybody who quotes Terman as from a Bible has only ever read him but
must have never actually used him in anger. I mention Terman only as
an example but hasten to add, in my opinion, he is amongst the most
reliable of popular technical authors. I have only his first edition
produced in the middle of WW2.

The utility of references is manifold. Some use them as rubber
crutches for their xeroxed theories. I've noted this on more than one
occasion when Optics is so thoroughly pimped to serve impoverished
notions.

However, even in this, and other instances, such citations offer the
general readership a bibliography and some insight into the depth of
discussion to be found in those references. When all I see are
endless lines of copied equations, I am not impressed. However, when
I see logical development proceeding out of the topic at hand, the
original author would bear closer examination.

I have several of the cited works mentioned here. Too many are as dry
as bone, and hardly useful beyond the examples they laboriously wade
through the math to cover. Others are indeed treasures of first
principles.

What this reduces to, is to lean heavily upon the cliche of "Old
Wives' Tales" to whitewash a thread is in itself reducing the
discussion to voyeurism and is neither an original nor useful insight.
Kelvin would hardly be impressed at such rhetoric that evades
specifically challenging loose references. The difference is
Atlantic, we are less impressed by the arch comments that typically
inhabit "a letter to the editors of the Times." If you care to polish
up your style, I would suggest researching the better pieces written
before the age of TV (or radio for that matter).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Reg Edwards wrote:

Richard, I can see you adopt the same attitude as I do towards
questions on this newsgroup which begin with "I have heard that . . .
. ".

Hardly a reliable start to a question. One gets the impression the
questioner is unlikely to be able to understand the answer and tailors
the answer to suit.

Well gee, Reg, I did hear it and it was in here. Okay, I saw it on my
screen to be more precise.

And as for the depth of my understanding? It is *not* very deep. I am a
beginner in RF, having spent most of my career in computers. But I
attempt to learn. I hope to understand. And I appreciate the answers
that people have taken the time to give me.

And for the most part, I *do* pick up what I am told.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"The German Generals must have known then that the war was lost. But it
was not until 5 months later, in the Battle of Machines around the City
of Kursk, on the broad summer grasslands of the surrounding stepps,
littered with thousands of burning tanks, wrecked mobile guns and
aircraft, and troop carriers, that Hitler must have been convinced of
ultimate defeat."

You would think so. Fortunately, for the most part, Hitler wasn`t known
for seeking and following the counsel of his subordinates, some of whom
were very competent. Often it seems Hitler believed what he wanted to
believe. His hubris was a serious fault, second only to his lack of
respect for human decency. The world would have been better off had
Hitler had minor vices, I believe. Hitler was a teatotaler, non-smoker,
vegetarian, and monogamous. Why couldnt he have been more like a
Churchill or a Roosevelt? With less imagined supeiority, he might have
been an ordinary fellow.

Hitler may have refused far too long to admit that Germany had lost the
war, but there are plenty of stories that his subordinates knew.

They were aware of the Allies weaknesses but they also recognized Allied
strength.

U.S. P-38 fighter planes were outclassed by single-engined German
fighters over Europe. But, when Herman Goering saw P-51 fighters
escorting Allied Bombers over Berlin, he is reported to have declared
Germany as the loser in the war, and that Germany should immediately
seek peace. He said that, knowing the Luftwaffe, though on the
defensive, was equipped with fantastic weapons including superb
conventional aircraft and with jets and rockets coming online. The fact
was that the U.S. could build aircraft faster than the Germans could
shoot them down.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI