|
VIPER ANTENNAS
HAS ANYONE SEEN THESE ANTENNAS????
DIAMOND BACK RATTLER BLACK SNAKE[ COPPER HEAD ONLY THE RATTLER NOW AVAILABLE. IF YOU WANT A PICTURE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY. STAN KC2KGG ROBINHOOD |
VIPER ANTENNAS
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 28 Dec 2006 10:59:38 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote: wrote: HAS ANYONE SEEN THESE ANTENNAS???? DIAMOND BACK RATTLER BLACK SNAKE[ COPPER HEAD ONLY THE RATTLER NOW AVAILABLE. IF YOU WANT A PICTURE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY. STAN KC2KGG ROBINHOOD Are they better than MonkeyMade?... LOL Dont you use monkey made? Or are you still trying out the good ole 102" whip? |
VIPER ANTENNAS
777 wrote:
Dont you use monkey made? Or are you still trying out the good ole 102" whip? Nothin' to figure out... the 102 will blow away any MonkeyMade. www.telstar-electronics.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
Telstar Electronics wrote:
777 wrote: Dont you use monkey made? Or are you still trying out the good ole 102" whip? Nothin' to figure out... the 102 will blow away any MonkeyMade. It does make me wonder how any coiled antenna (which is 1/4 wave uncoiled) could be better then a full size quarter wave. The slight inductance at the bottom can't help. Inductive reactance increases with frequency for a given inductance. Why would you want a resistor in series with your radiating element before the peak voltage is developed at the tip? |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 28 Dec 2006 15:54:15 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in .com: 777 wrote: Dont you use monkey made? Or are you still trying out the good ole 102" whip? Nothin' to figure out... the 102 will blow away any MonkeyMade. But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? |
VIPER ANTENNAS
Scott in Baltimore wrote:
It does make me wonder how any coiled antenna (which is 1/4 wave uncoiled) could be better then a full size quarter wave. The slight inductance at the bottom can't help. Inductive reactance increases with frequency for a given inductance. Why would you want a resistor in series with your radiating element before the peak voltage is developed at the tip? You're absolutely right... that loaded (coiled) antenna can't possibly have the same performance. But people are easily fooled... and impressed with big loops of aluminum and wild claims... LOL www.telstar-electronics.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:21:28 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On 28 Dec 2006 15:54:15 -0800, "Telstar Electronics" wrote in s.com: 777 wrote: Dont you use monkey made? Or are you still trying out the good ole 102" whip? Nothin' to figure out... the 102 will blow away any MonkeyMade. But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? Hahahahahaha LOL!!! Happy New Year guys....... |
VIPER ANTENNAS
Frank Gilliland wrote:
But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? Correct... that should be the minimum area used. www.telstar-electronics.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... Frank Gilliland wrote: But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? Correct... that should be the minimum area used. Formula? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 1 Jan 2007 15:53:49 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in .com: Frank Gilliland wrote: But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? Correct... that should be the minimum area used. LOL!!! |
VIPER ANTENNAS
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... Frank Gilliland wrote: But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? Correct... that should be the minimum area used. www.telstar-electronics.com Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
U-Know-Who wrote:
Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. No... just that anything smaller will not constitute a massive enough plane to be of any use. www.telstar-electronics.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 2 Jan 2007 04:53:09 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in om: U-Know-Who wrote: Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. No... just that anything smaller will not constitute a massive enough plane to be of any use. ROTFLMMFAO!!!!! |
VIPER ANTENNAS
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message ps.com... U-Know-Who wrote: Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. No... just that anything smaller will not constitute a massive enough plane to be of any use. www.telstar-electronics.com So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
U-Know-Who wrote:
So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Sure it does... but remember that antenna thoery is quite complex. Not sure there is any one formula for figuring this. The plane's size and shape will have a large impact on radiation pattern... amoungst other parameters. What's new? Glad you asked... http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...s/WhatsNew.htm |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 3 Jan 2007 10:16:42 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in .com: U-Know-Who wrote: So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Sure it does... but remember that antenna thoery is quite complex.... Blah, blah, blah. You are starting to sound like Skippy with his "it's part of a bigger picture" excuse. Stuff the BS and show the math, you hack! |
VIPER ANTENNAS
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... U-Know-Who wrote: So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Sure it does... but remember that antenna thoery is quite complex. Not sure there is any one formula for figuring this. The plane's size and shape will have a large impact on radiation pattern... amoungst other parameters. So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
U-Know-Who wrote:
So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. I only said that a 3'x3' area of ground plane would be the minimum size that I would recommend for such an installation. Never hinted there was an exact formula to substantiate that recommendation. What's new? Glad you asked... http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...s/WhatsNew.htm |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 4 Jan 2007 04:30:21 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in . com: U-Know-Who wrote: So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. I only said that a 3'x3' area of ground plane would be the minimum size that I would recommend for such an installation. Never hinted there was an exact formula to substantiate that recommendation. Actually, there -is- an exact formula for the surface area of a ground plane. And at 11m it's nowhere close to 3' x 3'. |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On Jan 4, 8:13 am, Frank Gilliland wrote: On 4 Jan 2007 04:30:21 -0800, "Telstar Electronics" wrote in . com: U-Know-Who wrote: So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. I only said that a 3'x3' area of ground plane would be the minimum size that I would recommend for such an installation. Never hinted there was an exact formula to substantiate that recommendation.Actually, there -is- an exact formula for the surface area of a ground plane. And at 11m it's nowhere close to 3' x 3'. Well don't just stand there Frank... what's the formula? www.telstar-electronics.com |
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 4 Jan 2007 06:58:00 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in .com: On Jan 4, 8:13 am, Frank Gilliland wrote: On 4 Jan 2007 04:30:21 -0800, "Telstar Electronics" wrote in . com: U-Know-Who wrote: So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. I only said that a 3'x3' area of ground plane would be the minimum size that I would recommend for such an installation. Never hinted there was an exact formula to substantiate that recommendation.Actually, there -is- an exact formula for the surface area of a ground plane. And at 11m it's nowhere close to 3' x 3'. Well don't just stand there Frank... what's the formula? Don't you know? Aren't you an engineer? |
VIPER ANTENNAS
Frank, why don't you just say you made up the part about the formula...
LOL www.telstar-electronics.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com