In , sideband
wrote:

Oh, goodie.. time to clean up the trash.

Frank Gilliland wrote:

In , sideband
wrote:


Seems to me old Frankie has a bit to learn about how balanced antennas
work.


Oboy, here we go again.... are you about to say something really stupid, like
balanced antennas receive the same regardless of how well they transmit?

No, you said that. I didn't have to. However, a non resonant antenna
showing a high SWR and a high RADIATION resistance will receive better
than it transmits, regardless of what phunkiephysics you're trying to
apply.

Wrong. You should know already that any antenna with a high radiation resistance
is an efficient radiator. And it just so happens that a dipole has it's highest
radiation resistance when it is resonant. SWR is not even a factor in this
topic.

Or that
a non-resonant dipole will receive just as well as a resonant dipole?

Nope.. again.. you said that.. However, you should know that the
difference between an antenna receiving in resonance and one receiving
out of resonance (depending on how far out of resonance) is in the
nanovolt to miccrovolt range... so you might lose an s-unit or two on
receive.

I agree to a point. Care to quantify that statement?

However a dipole showing a 2:1 SWR, as the op has presented,
isn't going to make that much of a difference in either transmit or
receive. Read some ARRL books, Frankie.

I agree. What's your point?

Or that
balanced antennas are -not- reciprocal (which would conflict with everything
that has been learned in the field of radio for over a century)?

No antenna is 1:1 "reciprocal" (as you call it).. The ability of the
antenna to radiate RF is not proportional to its ability to receive.

Wrong again. It is DIRECTLY proportional, all other factors being equal (IOW,
you aren't heating the wires with zillions of watts).

The sooner you get THAT out of YOUR head, you might actually stop
spreading bull**** false information.

You need to spend a little time at the library. Find a nice book on
electromagnetics, then search through the index for the terms 'radiation
intensity' and 'effective aperature'. I think you will find them on pages very
close to each other, if not on the same page. And you will notice that the
mathematical definitions of both terms are almost identical -- in fact, I have
one book that provides a formula to convert between the two. Why? Because they
are DIRECTLY RELATED, and that's why antennas are RECIPROCAL. Or maybe you think
that someone came up with the concept out of thin air....

Go right ahead,
Sideband -- educate me as to how balanced antennas work!



Again, go read a book, if you can get past your preconceived notions
that you know it all, you might actually learn something

My "preconcieved notions" come from the books you want me to read. Read them
yourself.





-----= Posted via Newsfags.Com, Uncensored Usenet Homosexuality =-----
http://www.newsfags.com - The #1 Newfag Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsfags - 19 Different Servers! =-----

-SSB


P.S. My spellchecker keeps wanting to replace "Frankie" with
"France"... Go figure.

Read the directions.







-----= 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! =-----