|
|
"(Scott Unit 69)" wrote:
Lke I said, it's "keyclown science" and not real engineering he practices. SHOCKING! |
The misconception is that you don't need to look at the book. How do you know what to llok for if you don't read the book? Your test results are not repeatable by anyone else, there fore they are invalid. The misconception is also that your measurements were accurate. Fudging numbers on an s-meter is "keyclown science". One thing for sure. Your response is invalid because you have no data to back up your claim. Fudging your opinion without any real data is foolish. Run a test. Until you do your dispute of my test results mean nothing. |
If your test shows the 108" SS as the superior antenna then the obvious will happen. Your post will be accepted as legit and there will be no argument over the results. Even though the test parameters were the same. It's a Catch-22 and tnom knows it because -no one- could ever duplicate tnom's test conditions, the wooded terrain, the recieving antenna, etc. etc. so whatever results you got won't jive with his. Lke I said, it's "keyclown science" and not real engineering he practices. Who's science is flawed. The one who takes for granted that a 102" SS is king, or the one who runs numerous tests with the same results to refute it? |
Lancer, Using the list that was posted, items 3 through 8. 'Doc |
|
On 28 Oct 2003 04:10:28 GMT, "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote: wrote: If your test shows the 108" SS as the superior antenna then the obvious will happen. Your post will be accepted as legit and there will be no argument over the results. Even though the test parameters were the same. It's a Catch-22 and tnom knows it because -no one- could ever duplicate tnom's test conditions, the wooded terrain, the recieving antenna, etc. etc. so whatever results you got won't jive with his. Lke I said, it's "keyclown science" and not real engineering he practices. Who's science is flawed. The one who takes for granted that a 102" SS is king, or the one who runs numerous tests with the same results to refute it? So what do you think is creating the "gain" for the X-terminator? The loading coils? The chrome coating? :-) I really don't know. I would suggest it does a better job at 3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner. 4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference over less conductive antenna stock. But it really doesn't matter. The numbers show all I have to know. |
As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any
loaded antenna. But in the real world a loaded antenna ( shortened ) mounted in the center of the roof will work much better in ALL directions than a 1/4 wave whip mounted on the bumper, or the rear of the mobile. If the long whip was mounted on the left back side, the best direction will be to the right front, whereas a center mounted antenna on the roof, even with its somewhat more loss will work better in all directions, as the mobile would not have to be turned like a beam. So the point is I prefer a good trunk mounted, or a center mounted antenna over the 1/4 whip. Been there done that. |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... Lancer wrote: It would be interesting to see the 102" fiberglass against the S/S whip. With trees? Duh!!! shredded........................ Landshark -- Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. |
tnom wrote; I really don't know. I would suggest it does a better job at 3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner. 4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference over less conductive antenna stock. These are part of those 'misconception's I was talking about. That "marginally better" ought to read 'no practical difference', and that "marginal difference" ought to read 'absolutely no difference at HF'. The 'thickness'/diameter of conductors can and ~is~ described scientifically (repeatable or reproducable results). At the frequency you are talking about, that difference in 'thickness' would have to be on the order of several inches. Not fractions of an inch. The conductivity of the material used for the antennas has so little bearing on their radiation efficiency at HF that it's absolutely rediculous to worry about. Even at UHF / SHF it isn't a problem. But it really doesn't matter. Just about the only thing that you've said that is 'right'. 'Doc |
BuckEye wrote: As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any loaded antenna. Nope, sorry, that just isn't true. If you would have said that a full length 1/4 wave antenna will out perform a shortened 1/4 wave antenna, you'd have been right. But if the full length and shortened antennas are of different 'electrical' lengths, then all bets are off. I do agree with the rest of your post. A shortened antenna is much more -practical- to use and a lot easier to live with... 'Doc |
In , Neil Down
wrote: snip 1/4 wave horizontal dipole 5.0 Lbs Did you have some horizontal polarization on the receive antenna? -----= 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! =----- |
I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A so
called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4 wave antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading coil, or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore. I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it to be the 108" antenna. "'Doc" wrote in message ... BuckEye wrote: As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any loaded antenna. Nope, sorry, that just isn't true. If you would have said that a full length 1/4 wave antenna will out perform a shortened 1/4 wave antenna, you'd have been right. But if the full length and shortened antennas are of different 'electrical' lengths, then all bets are off. I do agree with the rest of your post. A shortened antenna is much more -practical- to use and a lot easier to live with... 'Doc |
Neil Down wrote: Here is my data it should be as credible as yours Distance 5 miles 102" whip 9 lbs on the meter Predator 10k 8.5 lbs on the meter Fat daddy base coil 7.5 lbs Coat Hanger 1.5 lbs 1/4 wave horizontal dipole 5.0 Lbs What was the input impedance (R and X) of each antenna at the feedpoint? What was the SWR of each? Was the 1/4 wave dipole 1/4 wave total, or 1/4 wave each side (making it a 1/2 wave dipole)? How long was the coat hanger? If you can't answer all the questions (Such as the input impedance), that's OK.. But I'm just curious.. A dipole should have outperformed the 102" whip. How was that dipole supported, anyway? -SSB |
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:10:42 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote:
I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A so called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4 wave antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading coil, or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore. I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it to be the 108" antenna. I don't know where Doc is heading for with his statement, but a shortened antenna ( like the Xterminator) is 1/4 wave "electrically" Velocity factor isn't a factor when you determine antenna length, except certain antennas that are made from transmission line. |
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:19:03 -0600, Neil Down
wrote: "BuckEye" wrote in news:J3vnb.50652$HS4.232216@attbi_s01: As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any loaded antenna. But in the real world a loaded antenna ( shortened ) mounted in the center of the roof will work much better in ALL directions than a 1/4 wave whip mounted on the bumper, or the rear of the mobile. If the long whip was mounted on the left back side, the best direction will be to the right front, whereas a center mounted antenna on the roof, even with its somewhat more loss will work better in all directions, as the mobile would not have to be turned like a beam. So the point is I prefer a good trunk mounted, or a center mounted antenna over the 1/4 whip. Been there done that. We are talking about the antennas being mounted in the exact same location as to which one is better Pay attention Plus a loaded antenna mounted in the center of the roof will not work much better than a 1/4 whip mounted on the bumper in ALL directions. It will be inferior in some directions, but it will superior in at least one direction. |
sideband wrote in
.com: I know you're using a fake name, and that's OK in my book. I'm just trying to figure out what the parameters of the test were so I can put weight to your measurements. Thanks. -SSB They were similiar to tnom's and un-repeatable. |
"Lancer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:10:42 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote: I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A so called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4 wave antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading coil, or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore. I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it to be the 108" antenna. I don't know where Doc is heading for with his statement, but a shortened antenna ( like the Xterminator) is 1/4 wave "electrically" Velocity factor isn't a factor when you determine antenna length, except certain antennas that are made from transmission line. Maby you can explain how a antenna is 1/4 so called " electrically 1/4 " if it is not a 1/4 wave like a 108" whip. If it has a coil in it it, and shorter than the 1/4 it is a loaded antenna NOT a electrically 1/4 wave equivelement . If that was the case then a very loaded antenna that was 12" tall NOT 8' could also be called a 1/4 wave "electrically" What makes then a antenna 1/4 wave "electrically", because it matches the 50 coax? Velocity factor IS importment when cutting a element to the proper length. Typically a antenna element can range from .91 to .99 of the true open space length. |
Neil Down wrote: sideband wrote in y.com: I know you're using a fake name, and that's OK in my book. I'm just trying to figure out what the parameters of the test were so I can put weight to your measurements. Thanks. -SSB They were similiar to tnom's and un-repeatable. I agree with George. |
Here is a add from a supplier of the antenna.
SP-1000 HIGH PERFORMANCE TWIN 1/8" SQUARE COPPER WIRE COIL, FREQUENCY COVERAGE 26-31MHz, "SWR LESS THAN 1.5:1 1.5MHz SPREAD" STANDARD 3/8" x 24 THREAD OVERALL LENGTH 54" ( WHAT not a 1/4 wave only half the length ) Dam that makes it 1/8 wavelength in the physical length. No where does it say 1/4 wave equivelement. The only thing that could be called a 1/4 wave antenna is a is a 1/4 wave antenna. Thats just another marketing tool to cause more confusion in the antenna world. |
Another add.
A3000, 59 inch long helically loaded 1/4 wave, wide band 26 to 29 Mhz. Just another trick, What makes this antenna any different from other antennas that are loaded to shorten them. Some of the others do not clam to be a loaded 1/4 wave. Thats BS. Thats about as dum as selling a equivelement shortened 12" ruller that comes only 7' long. Owell some believe it. |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 02:52:33 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote:
"Lancer" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:10:42 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote: I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A so called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4 wave antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading coil, or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore. I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it to be the 108" antenna. I don't know where Doc is heading for with his statement, but a shortened antenna ( like the Xterminator) is 1/4 wave "electrically" Velocity factor isn't a factor when you determine antenna length, except certain antennas that are made from transmission line. Maby you can explain how a antenna is 1/4 so called " electrically 1/4 " if it is not a 1/4 wave like a 108" whip. If it has a coil in it it, and shorter than the 1/4 it is a loaded antenna NOT a electrically 1/4 wave equivelement . If that was the case then a very loaded antenna that was 12" tall NOT 8' could also be called a 1/4 wave "electrically" What makes then a antenna 1/4 wave "electrically", because it matches the 50 coax? A coil in a short antenna cancels out the capacitive reactance making the antenna resistive at the operating frequency. The coil makes it "electrically" a 1/4 wavelength. More than likely it won't be 50 ohms, usually quite less, unless some kind of matching is used at the base. Velocity factor IS importment when cutting a element to the proper length. Typically a antenna element can range from .91 to .99 of the true open space length. The number (.91 to .99) are correct for the difference between an antenna in free space and erected near earth. Its not from the velocity factor of the antenna. Its because the antenna is close to the earth and other conductive objects (tree, buildings and power lines) which present stray capacitance that tunes the antenna lower in frequency than a free space antenna. Its called "end effect" and is more prevelant the closer an antenna is other objects. |
"Lancer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 02:52:33 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote: "Lancer" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:10:42 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote: I agree to all of the above except a 1/4 wave is a 1/4 no matter what. A so called loaded 1/4 is a loaded antenna not called a 1/4 anymore. Once a antenna has been shortened by any means, shorter than the physical 1/4 wave antenna ( 1/4 wave including the velocity factor ), top hats, loading coil, or ant other ways it is not clamed to be called a 1/4 wave anymore. I did say 1/4 whip on the post, as most everybody should have known it to be the 108" antenna. I don't know where Doc is heading for with his statement, but a shortened antenna ( like the Xterminator) is 1/4 wave "electrically" Velocity factor isn't a factor when you determine antenna length, except certain antennas that are made from transmission line. Maby you can explain how a antenna is 1/4 so called " electrically 1/4 " if it is not a 1/4 wave like a 108" whip. If it has a coil in it it, and shorter than the 1/4 it is a loaded antenna NOT a electrically 1/4 wave equivelement . If that was the case then a very loaded antenna that was 12" tall NOT 8' could also be called a 1/4 wave "electrically" What makes then a antenna 1/4 wave "electrically", because it matches the 50 coax? A coil in a short antenna cancels out the capacitive reactance making the antenna resistive at the operating frequency OK TRUE . The coil makes it "electrically" a 1/4 wavelength Why does the coil make it that way. Nowhere in any theory does it state that. Its just another ways to match the coax to free air. That's all the antenna does. Why do you keep trying to say its "electrically" a 1/4 wavelength. Just because it can be loaded with a matching device ? Shows a good match. This could be taken to the extreme and if the antenna was reduced to only one inch in length, tuned and matched would it be electrically" a 1/4 wavelength . No its just a resonate circuit with no relation to a wavelength. In fact a conductor does not have to be any wavelength to radiate at all. When matched any length of wire will emit all the power applied to it. More than likely it won't be 50 (We all know thats true) ohms, usually quite less, unless some kind of matching is used at the base. Velocity factor IS importment when cutting a element to the proper length. Typically a antenna element can range from .91 to .99 of the true open space length. The number (.91 to .99) are correct for the difference between an antenna in free space and erected near earth. Its not from the velocity factor of the antenna. Its because the antenna is close to the earth and other conductive objects (tree, buildings and power lines) which present stray capacitance that tunes the antenna lower in frequency than a free space antenna. Its called "end effect" and is more prevelant the closer an antenna is other objects. If so how do you explain in some long wire antennas its even 1.05 times longer than the freespace. |
BuckEye wrote:
Why does the coil make it that way. Nowhere in any theory does it state that. Its just another ways to match the coax to free air. That's all the antenna does. Why do you keep trying to say its "electrically" a 1/4 wavelength. Just because it can be loaded with a matching device ? Shows a good match. This could be taken to the extreme and if the antenna was reduced to only one inch in length, tuned and matched would it be electrically" a 1/4 wavelength . No its just a resonate circuit with no relation to a wavelength. In fact a conductor does not have to be any wavelength to radiate at all. Any antenna, even a straight piece of wire has inductance at radio freqencies. A 1/4 wave straight piece of wire will exhibit a certain inductance at a certain frequency, shorten it to something less than a 1/4 wave and the inductance decreases. Add a coil to make up the missing inductance and the antenna "looks" like a 1/4 wave again to the RF source. Some of the power is dissipated as heat in the coil because of the I/R losses of the coil. |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:42:45 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote:
Why does the coil make it that way. Because it cancels out the capacitive reactance of the short antenna. Nowhere in any theory does it state that. Its just another ways to match the coax to free air. That's all the antenna does. Sorry, yes it does. Its not matching the coax, its cancelling the reactance. Why do you keep trying to say its "electrically" a 1/4 wavelength. Just because it can be loaded with a matching device ? Shows a good match. This could be taken to the extreme and if the antenna was reduced to only one inch in length, tuned and matched would it be electrically" a 1/4 wavelength . Yes. A 1" antenna would have a capacitive reactance of 3,000 or greater. When the reactance is canceled out, you would end up with an antenna with a feed point impedance of 0.05 . It would be resonant, but wouldn't match 50 ohm coax. No its just a resonate circuit with no relation to a wavelength. In fact a conductor does not have to be any wavelength to radiate at all. No, but to be resonant it does. When matched any length of wire will emit all the power applied to it. If you don't think that canceling out the capacitive reactance of a shortened antenna doesn't change its electrical length, why does its current distribution change? |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:42:45 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote:
"Lancer" wrote in message The number (.91 to .99) are correct for the difference between an antenna in free space and erected near earth. Its not from the velocity factor of the antenna. Its because the antenna is close to the earth and other conductive objects (tree, buildings and power lines) which present stray capacitance that tunes the antenna lower in frequency than a free space antenna. Its called "end effect" and is more prevelant the closer an antenna is other objects. If so how do you explain in some long wire antennas its even 1.05 times longer than the freespace. I guess you need to tell me what longwire antenna you are referring to. The end effects only operate on the end sections of the antenna, in the parts on the antenna the effects are absent, and the wire length is approximately that of an equivalent length in free space. |
What makes a antenna so called " looks like a 1/4 wave again to the RF".
Where does it say a matching antenna must look like a 1/4 anyway. "Add a coil to make up the missing inductance and the antenna "looks" like a 1/4 wave again to the RF, not so, the impedance is now very low at its feed point. Big mismatch (you forgot the extra device now needed to match the antenna,usally a cap or coil on the input side.so adding just a loading coil did not make it look like a match.Notice I said a match . NOT a 1/4 wave. RF doesn't care what the wavelength is. Where does it say a antenna must "look like a 1/4 anyway." The same thing could be said about a base matched 5/8 wave antenna, it shows a good match also and its is a long way from the 1/4 wave length. and is never said it looks like a 1/4 to the RF. Don't confuse a match to it looking like a 1/4. There is many things that can be changed at the antenna mounting spot, 1/2 wave 5/8 wave |
Your lost as bad as last years Easter egg.
Go back to school. Wherever you have gotten the antenna info apply it . Learn something, don't just try to quote out of a book, any one can do that. Your very confused. I need to get back to some serious work designing antennas. "lancer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:42:45 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote: "Lancer" wrote in message The number (.91 to .99) are correct for the difference between an antenna in free space and erected near earth. Its not from the velocity factor of the antenna. Its because the antenna is close to the earth and other conductive objects (tree, buildings and power lines) which present stray capacitance that tunes the antenna lower in frequency than a free space antenna. Its called "end effect" and is more prevelant the closer an antenna is other objects. If so how do you explain in some long wire antennas its even 1.05 times longer than the freespace. I guess you need to tell me what longwire antenna you are referring to. The end effects only operate on the end sections of the antenna, in the parts on the antenna the effects are absent, and the wire length is approximately that of an equivalent length in free space. |
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 17:57:32 GMT, "BuckEye" wrote:
Your lost as bad as last years Easter egg. Go back to school. Wherever you have gotten the antenna info apply it . Learn something, don't just try to quote out of a book, any one can do that. Your very confused. I need to get back to some serious work designing antennas. Ok, have fun. |
If they're not repeatable, then they're not really very scientific..
and here I was looking for a reason to put a 102" whip back on the truck for CB. ::shrug:: -SSB Neil Down wrote: sideband wrote in .com: I know you're using a fake name, and that's OK in my book. I'm just trying to figure out what the parameters of the test were so I can put weight to your measurements. Thanks. -SSB They were similiar to tnom's and un-repeatable. |
Lancerm Who said anything about velocity factor? 'Doc |
BuckEye, But all antennas are 'matched', be they exactly a 1/4 wave length long, or 75 feet long, or 1 inch long. I'm assuming that you mean impedance matching, right? Impedance matching has nothing to do with an antenna being resonant. 'Doc |
BuckEye wrote: Your lost as bad as last years Easter egg. Go back to school. Wherever you have gotten the antenna info apply it . Learn something, don't just try to quote out of a book, any one can do that. Your very confused. I need to get back to some serious work designing antennas. Instead of doing serious, or not-so-serious antenna design, you might take a look at some of those books you imply we shouldn't quote from, and apply what you've read. And you're wrong, not every one can do that, much less understand what they read (got a mirror?). There are some things that you can 'infer' from what you've read, not everything has to be spelled out in black and white. That process is the one you refer to as thinking... Have fun designing antennas, I do. 'Doc PS - Around here they say, "Don't know whether he's washing or hanging out.". |
What the hell do you think I am saying.
This all started when some dumass said a antenna was electrically 1/4 wave long, not 1/4 wave antenna. You either have a 1/4 wave antenna or you don't. If its shorter, then its not a 1/4 wave antenna. In most cases it loaded, and no more electrically a 1/4 wave long antenna. How hard is this to understand. I think this comes from some adds that's states it a helical loaded 1/4 wave antenna that is only 56" long which is bull . Just like some other adds that claim their antenna is a 5/8 antenna wound on a fiberglass rod only 5' tall now go figure, I guess some also believe this . "'Doc" wrote in message ... BuckEye, But all antennas are 'matched', be they exactly a 1/4 wave length long, or 75 feet long, or 1 inch long. I'm assuming that you mean impedance matching, right? Impedance matching has nothing to do with an antenna being resonant. 'Doc |
Hrm.. ever stop to think that maybe the wire helically wound around
the shaft might be 1/4 wave long? That would make it a 1/4 wave helically loaded antenna. Just because the physical length of the antenna is less than 1/4 wave at the desired frequency doesn't mean the antenna isn't. Don't believe me? Try looking up "folded dipole" on the 'net.. -SSB BuckEye wrote: What the hell do you think I am saying. This all started when some dumass said a antenna was electrically 1/4 wave long, not 1/4 wave antenna. You either have a 1/4 wave antenna or you don't. If its shorter, then its not a 1/4 wave antenna. In most cases it loaded, and no more electrically a 1/4 wave long antenna. How hard is this to understand. I think this comes from some adds that's states it a helical loaded 1/4 wave antenna that is only 56" long which is bull . Just like some other adds that claim their antenna is a 5/8 antenna wound on a fiberglass rod only 5' tall now go figure, I guess some also believe this . "'Doc" wrote in message ... BuckEye, But all antennas are 'matched', be they exactly a 1/4 wave length long, or 75 feet long, or 1 inch long. I'm assuming that you mean impedance matching, right? Impedance matching has nothing to do with an antenna being resonant. 'Doc |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message ... Lancer wrote: It would be interesting to see the 102" fiberglass against the S/S whip. With trees? Duh!!! shredded........................ Landshark Shattered! sha-doobie Rolling Stones, Black & Blue I think. Landshark -- Hard things are put in our way, not to stop us, but to call out our courage and strength. |
In rYlob.66399$Tr4.188400@attbi_s03, "BuckEye" wrote:
What the hell do you think I am saying. This all started when some dumass said a antenna was electrically 1/4 wave long, not 1/4 wave antenna. You either have a 1/4 wave antenna or you don't. If its shorter, then its not a 1/4 wave antenna. In most cases it loaded, and no more electrically a 1/4 wave long antenna. How hard is this to understand. I think this comes from some adds that's states it a helical loaded 1/4 wave antenna that is only 56" long which is bull . Just like some other adds that claim their antenna is a 5/8 antenna wound on a fiberglass rod only 5' tall now go figure, I guess some also believe this . Gee, so you finally read a book and discovered that you were wrong. Fine. But playing semantics in order to save face is a Twistedhedism. -----= 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! =----- |
BuckEye, Hi. 'Dumass' here. Like it or not, antennas can and are classified and/or described by their 'electrical' length. Electrical length and physical length don't have to be the same and seldom are when speaking about 'loaded' antennas. When you find your self in a situation where everyone else seems to be wrong, and only you are right, it sometimes helps to stop and re-evaluate your position. Is it mandatory that you think about antennas the same way I do? Nope, sure isn't, but it does help if you at least understand 'where' the other person is coming from, or talking about. It always helps to view things from a different perspective. When you don't, the loss is yours... 'Doc |
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:04:14 -0600, 'Doc wrote:
Lancerm Who said anything about velocity factor? 'Doc BuckEye did in this post: Velocity factor IS importment when cutting a element to the proper length. Typically a antenna element can range from .91 to .99 of the true open space length. |
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:35:36 -0600, 'Doc wrote:
BuckEye, Hi. 'Dumass' here. Like it or not, antennas can and are classified and/or described by their 'electrical' length. Electrical length and physical length don't have to be the same and seldom are when speaking about 'loaded' antennas. When you find your self in a situation where everyone else seems to be wrong, and only you are right, it sometimes helps to stop and re-evaluate your position. Is it mandatory that you think about antennas the same way I do? Nope, sure isn't, but it does help if you at least understand 'where' the other person is coming from, or talking about. It always helps to view things from a different perspective. When you don't, the loss is yours... 'Doc Doc; I think he was calling me the dumbass, not you. At first I just thought he didn't understand the theory that was being posted here and wanted to learn. Hopefully he won't have the same problems reading a book. Like you said his loss. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com