Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:47:18 -0500, Michael Coslo
wrote:


I was under the impression from the designers of this
flavor of dipole that they were not radiating from the feedline unless
you wanted that "feature".


Hi Mike,

This is not outside the realm of possibility. Whose antenna is it?

It's a homebrew antenna.

I'm operating from memory here....

Total length is around 134 feet

Short end is around 26 feet.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Reg Edwards wrote:
Radiation from feedlines is grossly exaggerated.

Hi Reg, I can't see who you are replying to - a line of quote would be
wunnerful. 8^)


For many purposes, practically it does not occur.

When discussing the importance of such radiation one should always
crudely estimate its level relative to transmitter or radiated power.

Is there any way of doing that? Guessing? I've looked around a bit, and
mostly seen "Yes it does", or "no it doesn't". I suppose I could make a
current probe,(too) but can see this exercise edging toward me buying
some large tract of land somewhere and putting up an antenna range! ;^)

If you don't know what its level is then you don't know what you are
waffling about.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote
Reg Edwards wrote:
Radiation from feedlines is grossly exaggerated.

Hi Reg, I can't see who you are replying to - a line of quote would
be
wunnerful. 8^)
=========================================

I'm not replying to anyone in particular. Just to anybody who
discusses power radiated from feedlines.
=========================================

For many purposes, practically it does not occur.

When discussing the importance of such radiation one should always
crudely estimate its level relative to transmitter or radiated
power.

Is there any way of doing that?
==========================================

Mike, you'd better ask that from people who discuss power radiated
from feedlines. They ought to know!
----
Reg.

Danny,

Since I am not fluent in Latin, could you please tell me what is a
"Factoid"?
----
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:
Danny,

Since I am not fluent in Latin, could you please tell me what is a
"Factoid"?

Danny should be able to translate that. He lives at the coast, where
they get lots of touroids from points inland.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 10:15:23 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Danny,

Since I am not fluent in Latin, could you please tell me what is a
"Factoid"?
----
Reg.

How about English? Surely your English dictionary has it listed?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/factoid.html\\ (definition #1)


"e pluribus unum" at one time was our national motto and still appears
on our coins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum

Danny

"Dan Richardson adelphia net" k6mheatdot wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 10:15:23 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Danny,

Since I am not fluent in Latin, could you please tell me what is a
"Factoid"?
----
Reg.

How about English? Surely your English dictionary has it listed?

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/factoid.html\\ (definition #1)

=========================================
It's not in MY dictionary. I have the Concise Oxford English
Dictionary, 1951 edition.

But you've got it wrong. "Factoid" doesn't apply to me anyway.
----
Reg.

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:50:07 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

It's not in MY dictionary. I have the Concise Oxford English
Dictionary, 1951 edition.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:


http://www.askoxford.com/results/?vi...r=score%2Cname


Danny

FACTOID:

"A small granule of truth." A factoid is to insight, as a small hard
turd is to a bowel movement.

Bob Brunius, AC7PN


Dan Richardson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:58:19 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 21:55:42 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

If you don't know what its level is then you don't know what you are
waffling about.

Hi Reggie,

Seeing you lack any quantifiables, are you offering belgian waffles?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard,

Just anouther one of Reg's factoids (e pluribus unum).


Danny

Okay, all.

I rand a multi-band check on my s-meter.

The results a (with the previous 80 meter test included.

80 meter

+20 start
S9 -18 db
S8 -23 db
S7 -26 db
S6 -29 db
S5 -32 db
S4 -35 db
S3 -37 db
S2 -39 db
S1 -41 db

40 meter

+20 start

S9 -18 db
S8 -22 db
S7 -25 db
S6 -28 db
S5 -31 db
S4 -34 db
S3 -36.5 db
S2 -38.5 db
S1 -41 db

30 meter

+20 start

S9 -19 db
S8 -23 db
S7 -27 db
S6 -31 db
S5 -34 db
S4 -36 db
S3 -39 db
S2 -41 db
S1 -43 db

20 meter

+20 start

S9 -19 db
S8 -22 db
S7 -26 db
S6 -30 db
S5 -34 db
S3 -38 db
S2 -41 db
S1 -50 db

There is no doubt that the readings are different, and significantly in
some cases. I will give a calibration of the meter for each band that I do.
Lesson learned here is that the meter should be calibrated to do this
test, IMO. Yes, it is true that on any given band the readings are going
to be relative to each other. But it is inevitable that questions will
arise about the relative efficiency of my antennas by band, as both are
multi-band antennas.

Part 2 to follow soon.......

-73 de Mike KB3EIA -