Well, I checked the SWR. 1.5 @ ch.1 and a hair below 2 on 40. As for
the inverted dipole, do you reccommend i mount it as an 'L'?

Thanks

R

'Doc wrote in message ...
Killdagger,
Actually it could be either or both. There are a number
of things that could be wrong, but starting with the radio,
try another antenna to see what happens. If the output is
good then I'd take a look at the antenna. There's nothing
'wrong' with using a dipole, they're good antennas (no matter
what they cost). If the 'match' between radio/feed line and
antenna is bad it usually will reduce the signal you transmit
but will very seldom reduce it as much as you say is happening.
Another thing you might consider is the polarity of the
dipole. Hung as an inverted 'V' it will be horizontally
polarized, which will further reduce your signal (if the guy's
antenna on the other end is vertical). That only happens at
fairly short distances, on long distances the polarity changes
after the fist 'skip'. After the first 'skip' you really don't
have any idea of what the polarization is...
'Doc

killdagger wrote:

Well, I checked the SWR. 1.5 @ ch.1 and a hair below 2 on 40. As for
the inverted dipole, do you reccommend i mount it as an 'L'?


I do have to laugh that people think 1:1 is the holy grail, that they won't
be heard if they have 1.5:1. Resonance is more important then impedance.

Height _is_ the most important factor for antennas. Height is might!

Radioman wrote:
killdagger wrote:

Well, I checked the SWR. 1.5 @ ch.1 and a hair below 2 on 40. As for
the inverted dipole, do you reccommend i mount it as an 'L'?

I do have to laugh that people think 1:1 is the holy grail, that they
won't be heard if they have 1.5:1. Resonance is more important then
impedance.

Height _is_ the most important factor for antennas. Height is might!

Rockin..run non resonant guy wires to the W/SW if you go high(er).

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

killdagger,
You might give it a try, it certainly can't hurt anything.
You also might try other configurations you have the space
for. As long as you don't double the legs of a dipole back
onto themselves, 'shape' isn't too critical.
As for the SWR, well, it sounds about normal to me. The
'low SWR readings from daylight to dark' type antennas are the
ones that sound 'unnatural', it just doesn't happen that way
unless there's a reason. That reason is usually lower
efficiency. You just don't get something for nothing, and if
it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
'Doc

In , 'Doc wrote:



killdagger,
You might give it a try, it certainly can't hurt anything.
You also might try other configurations you have the space
for. As long as you don't double the legs of a dipole back
onto themselves, 'shape' isn't too critical.
As for the SWR, well, it sounds about normal to me. The
'low SWR readings from daylight to dark' type antennas are the
ones that sound 'unnatural', it just doesn't happen that way
unless there's a reason. That reason is usually lower
efficiency. You just don't get something for nothing, and if
it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
'Doc

Hey Doc, you sound like a politician with all that "I don't know what is wrong
but I'll try and sound like I do" bull****. Do you have an answer that doesn't
sound like you are on the Democratic ticket? Post it!







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Hrm.. Wonder where Frankie's intelligent reply is...

Oh, wait, I guess this is it, as this is the best he can manage.

-SSB

Frank Gilliland wrote:
In , 'Doc wrote:



killdagger,
You might give it a try, it certainly can't hurt anything.
You also might try other configurations you have the space
for. As long as you don't double the legs of a dipole back
onto themselves, 'shape' isn't too critical.
As for the SWR, well, it sounds about normal to me. The
'low SWR readings from daylight to dark' type antennas are the
ones that sound 'unnatural', it just doesn't happen that way
unless there's a reason. That reason is usually lower
efficiency. You just don't get something for nothing, and if
it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
'Doc


Hey Doc, you sound like a politician with all that "I don't know what is wrong
but I'll try and sound like I do" bull****. Do you have an answer that doesn't
sound like you are on the Democratic ticket? Post it!







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In , sideband
wrote:

Hrm.. Wonder where Frankie's intelligent reply is...

Oh, wait, I guess this is it, as this is the best he can manage.

-SSB

You need to see someone about your communication deficit, because I answered the
OP's question in another post. Now **** off.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote in message . ..
In , sideband
wrote:

Hrm.. Wonder where Frankie's intelligent reply is...

Oh, wait, I guess this is it, as this is the best he can manage.

-SSB

You need to see someone about your communication deficit, because I answered the
OP's question in another post. Now **** off.

Shame on you, Frankie-fag; you've been hanging around with the
perverts (Doggie and Georgie-girl) so long you're starting to post
like them.

And you didn't answer the op's question in any post. Another shining
example of your so-called intelligence, I guess!

"Richard Cranium" wrote in message
om...
Frank Gilliland wrote in message
. ..
In , sideband
wrote:

Hrm.. Wonder where Frankie's intelligent reply is...

Oh, wait, I guess this is it, as this is the best he can manage.

-SSB

You need to see someone about your communication deficit, because I
answered the
OP's question in another post. Now **** off.

Shame on you, Frankie-fag; you've been hanging around with the
perverts (Doggie and Georgie-girl) so long you're starting to post
like them.

well look at dickie cranium your starting to post like dougie too assclown,
nothing but fag this and gay that in your post dickie boy cranium...

(Richard Cranium) wrote
Frank Gilliland wrote in message . ..
In ,
(killdagger) wrote:

Greetings,
I've got me an RCA CB Co pilot 14T303 with a workman BS-1 dipole
antenna pinnes up in an inverted v outside my window. I recieve just
fine, but my transmit is horrible. I can't get a radio check from any
of the truckers up on the interstate (1/8 mi. from my house). I get a
barely audible signal monitoring from the other side of the house.
When I transmit I'm getting only the tiniest nudge on my s/mod meter.
Is my radio shot? of is it just the cheap antenna?

Any help with this dilemna would be greatly appreaciated.

Killdagger

I'm thinking that the final is shot, and what little RF being transmitted
is
coming from the driver. If you have a multimeter, put the meter inline
with the
power supply and measure the current being used by the radio in both transmit
and receive (with the volume down). With a good radio, transmit should
draw at
least one amp more than receive. If it doesn't, the final is probably
bad.

My bad; your guess is at least as good as Doc's was! So why couldn't
you just post your guess without attacking Doc, who gives freely of
real information without the personal attacks?


shut up cranus the anus