| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
(Twistedhed) wrote:
From: (No=A0No=A0Not=A0George) (Twistedhed) wrote: cbers with 23 channel rat shacks were innocent until corrupted by those not unlike yourself. So illegal outlaw CBers Rat shackers with 23 channels were not illegal,,unless, of course, you hold cbers as the ones who introduced the channel splicing capablities and band jumping...LOL. and bootleggers were INNOCENT little babes Your mild retardations and failure at learning is once again responsible for your erratic behavior and hallucinations. until they got CORRUPTED by big mean hams???? All Listen you weekend runaway hammies the only way are you can debate not is to cut peoples posts up "big" into little bitty slices ,,,just so go eat **** because tipseyhead you your are material big is getting and stale mean and your tricks and are stupid illustrate like a you. preference Anyone can and cut up a post fondness that doesn't for make them homosexual smart talk. you idiot |
|
"'Doc" wrote in message ... Jerry, A capacity hate lowers the frequency of the antenna, so it in effect, lengthens the whip. That means that a shorter whip can be used at the same frequency with a capacity hat. 'Doc EXACTLY! That was what I was trying to say--I just mispoke myself. LOL! Jerry |
"'Doc" wrote in message ... FWIW A coil will always lower the power handling ability of an antenna. Large coils lower it less than small coils, but both large or small coils lower the antenna's power rating. That's because of the resistance of the coil. A fact of life, get used to it, it won't change. A coil's efficiency is directly related to it's size. Big coils are more efficient than smaller coils. A coil's efficiency has nothing to do with how well it 'radiates', unless the coil is an appreciable fraction of a wave length, it radiates no better than a length of wire of the same length. Longer coils radiate better than shorter coils, but neither radiate enough to make any practical difference. A coil's 'Q' (another name for efficiency) is indirectly related to how 'broadbanded' an antenna using that coil is. If the coil has a high 'Q', the antenna will be less 'broadbanded' than an antenna using a coil with a low 'Q'. A dummy load has a very low 'Q' and it is very broadbanded. A high 'Q' antenna is very narrow banded. That's another one of those facts of life, and physics. An antenna advertised as being high 'Q', and being very broadbanded is 'advertising-physics', in other words 'B.S.', in the purest sense of the term. If an antenna manufacturer want's me to believe that, it makes me wonder what other 'B.S.' he want's me to believe... There are no secrets or magic about how antennas work. It's all physics, it's all documented by people a lot smarter than you or me. It's there, all you have to do it read it. 'Doc Doc, I fully agree with you. I read it and am still reading it to learn more. I will likely never be fully versed in antennas, but I will surely keep trying. 73 Jerry |
In ,
(Twistedhed) wrote: From: ('Doc) FWIW ******A coil will always lower the power handling ability of an antenna. Balderdash. The coil will evenly distribute heat that would otherwise fry a lesser, non-coiled antenna. The coil will evenly dissipate heat that would otherwise be radiated as RF power from a lesser, non-coiled antenna. Large coils lower it less than small coils, but both large or small coils lower the antenna's power rating. That's because of the resistance of the coil. A fact of life, get used to it, it won't change. * The resisitance of the "coil"? I don't know what type antennas you have failed with in the past, but you ought attend a keydown so you can se firsthand how your theory is bunk in referring to those antennas specifically designed for power capacitance. "Power capacitance"? Is that the newest entry in the "Amp Junkie's Dictionary of RF Mythology"? *****A coil's efficiency is directly related to it's size. Big coils are more efficient than smaller coils. A coil's efficiency has nothing to do with how well it 'radiates', unless the coil is an appreciable fraction of a wave length, it radiates no better than a length of wire of the same length. Longer coils radiate better than shorter coils, You're greatly cornfused, Paul. First, you claim: A coil's efficiency has nothing to do with how well it radiaites. Then you self-contradict and claim Longer coils radiate better than shorter coils. Now, your words mean that the longer coil is more efficient (than shorter), a direct contradiction to your claim that "the coil's efficiency" has nothing to do with how it radiates. If a longer coil radiates "better" than shorter coils, it is,,,,,taa daa...more "efficient". You are once again demonstrating your ignorance of radio fundamentals. The efficiency, or 'Q', of a coil has absolutely nothing to do with how well it radiates because the purpose of a coil is to provide an inductance, not to radiate a signal. In fact, coils with very high Q are very poor radiators. (snip) No sense taking it further with you until you rectify your contradictions. Both claims can not be true. The only contradiction here is between your ignorant misconceptions. -----= 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! =----- |
"Duke Of Windsor" wrote in message ... (Twistedhed) wrote in news:28004-40102BD9-249 @storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net: From: ('Doc) FWIW A coil will always lower the power handling ability of an antenna. Balderdash. The coil will evenly distribute heat that would otherwise fry a lesser, non-coiled antenna. What he is trying to tell you is that a coil DOES reduce the efficiency of a circuit as opposed to a straight wire. That is something you can argue with all day long and it will still be a fact. Any coil creates resistance. If you wind a coil of say #18 wire, it will also CREATE more heat than that straight wire. Where RF is concerned, in a given circuit, it will be resonant, but that heat wastes RF energy . Along with it, it will also be more "broad-banded" and tolerate a wider range of frequencies. Now, when you----and let's talk about antenna coils-- use a larger coil, YES! It distributes heat better, but this is again a result of less resistance. It is also called IMPEDANCE of which there are 3 "resistances": feedpoint impedance, COIL resistance, and radiation resistance. Now. We can't do much about radiation resistance, but the other two can be used to advantage. With the coil, again, it DOES dissapate heat AND its bandwidth becomes NARROWER. That means that if you are sitting still and the antenna's environment doesn't change (like with those keydown events) the antenna remains in resonance. If the vehicle is moved, then it's effficiency *can* suffer because its environment changes along with it. That cell tower that wasn't there before now can have a BIG effect on the antenna's overall performance. It also may not be as big an effect at 27 MHZ as it would be at lower frequencies, but it is an effect no less. According to established antenna theory, a 102" whip would outperform that big coil. The reason they don't is that *most* users put the whip on the bumper and when they install a Predator 10K, they put it on the tool box (pickup) or the roof. Now the parameters have changed and the user now believes that the coil is "better". Sure, it's better, but the coil antenna now has gained a height advantage.And this has as much to do with the antenna's FEEDPOINT and proximity to the earth With the whip on the roof or tool box, the coil should not outperform the 102: whip, but whips are impractical and they don't *usually* end up on top because of their height. Antenna theory is the same for any radio service whether it is CB or any other. Jerry Yes Tipsy that is absolutely balderdash, you have no idea in your pea brain mind where maximum current flows is on a coil antenna. Large coils lower it less than small coils, but both large or small coils lower the antenna's power rating. That's because of the resistance of the coil. A fact of life, get used to it, it won't change. The resisitance of the "coil"? I don't know what type antennas you have failed with in the past, but you ought attend a keydown so you can se firsthand how your theory is bunk in referring to those antennas specifically designed for power capacitance. The keydowns you speak of all the keyclowns used straight 1/4 wave antennas so who knows better you or them Tiposy "efficient". (snip) No sense taking it further with you until you rectify your contradictions. Both claims can not be true. 'Doc |
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:05:59 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: In , (Twistedhed) wrote: From: ('Doc) FWIW ******A coil will always lower the power handling ability of an antenna. Balderdash. The coil will evenly distribute heat that would otherwise fry a lesser, non-coiled antenna. The coil will evenly dissipate heat that would otherwise be radiated as RF power from a lesser, non-coiled antenna. The current distribution for the coil isn't uniform, (input current output current). So it won't evenly dissipate heat, it will be hotter where the greatest current flow is. Large coils lower it less than small coils, but both large or small coils lower the antenna's power rating. That's because of the resistance of the coil. A fact of life, get used to it, it won't change. * The resisitance of the "coil"? I don't know what type antennas you have failed with in the past, but you ought attend a keydown so you can se firsthand how your theory is bunk in referring to those antennas specifically designed for power capacitance. "Power capacitance"? Is that the newest entry in the "Amp Junkie's Dictionary of RF Mythology"? *****A coil's efficiency is directly related to it's size. Big coils are more efficient than smaller coils. A coil's efficiency has nothing to do with how well it 'radiates', unless the coil is an appreciable fraction of a wave length, it radiates no better than a length of wire of the same length. Longer coils radiate better than shorter coils, You're greatly cornfused, Paul. First, you claim: A coil's efficiency has nothing to do with how well it radiaites. Then you self-contradict and claim Longer coils radiate better than shorter coils. Now, your words mean that the longer coil is more efficient (than shorter), a direct contradiction to your claim that "the coil's efficiency" has nothing to do with how it radiates. If a longer coil radiates "better" than shorter coils, it is,,,,,taa daa...more "efficient". You are once again demonstrating your ignorance of radio fundamentals. The efficiency, or 'Q', of a coil has absolutely nothing to do with how well it radiates because the purpose of a coil is to provide an inductance, not to radiate a signal. In fact, coils with very high Q are very poor radiators. No, but an antenna with a high Q coil is more efficient, due to the lower loss in the coil. (snip) No sense taking it further with you until you rectify your contradictions. Both claims can not be true. The only contradiction here is between your ignorant misconceptions. -----= 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! =----- |
From: (Jerry=A0Oxendine)
"Duke Of Windsor" wrote in message ... (Twistedhed) wrote in news:28004-40102BD9-249 @storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net: From: ('Doc) FWIW =A0=A0A coil will always lower the power handling ability of an antenna. Balderdash. The coil will evenly distribute heat that would otherwise fry a lesser, non-coiled antenna. _ What he is trying to tell you is that a coil DOES reduce the efficiency of a circuit as opposed to a straight wire. That is not what he said. There was NO comparison until you entered an example. That is something you can argue with all day No need. What you said and what Paul said were two different things. long and it will still be a fact. What Paul said is not a fact. With your radio background and experience with antennas, you should know his claim is no absolute. The presence of a coil does not necessitate the reduction of efficiency. In fact, the opposite is true in many instances an I'm really having a difficult time believing you can't realize this. There is a tradeoff in the design of many small antennas,,,,practicality for sixe and all that jazz,,,,,in some of these cases, a coil actually makes the said design more efficient. Any coil creates resistance. If you wind a coil of say #18 wire, it will also CREATE more heat than that straight wire. Which is where antennas are compromised by virtue of design for practicality of size. Nevertheless, the coils are efficient at dissipating heat, which can often be a factor in making the antenna more efficient. Where RF is concerned, in a given circuit, it will be resonant, but that heat wastes RF energy . Along with it, it will also be more "broad-banded" and tolerate a wider range of frequencies. My original statement said nothing of broadbandedness,,,I merely said Paul was incorrect. Now, when you----and let's talk about antenna coils-- use a larger coil, YES! It distributes heat better, Again,, "better" is often synonymous and construed as, "more efficient." again a result of less resistance. It is also called IMPEDANCE of which there are 3 "resistances": feedpoint impedance, COIL resistance, and radiation resistance. Now. We can't do much about radiation resistance, but the other two can be used to advantage. With the coil, again, it DOES dissapate heat AND its bandwidth becomes NARROWER. That means that if you are sitting still and the antenna's environment doesn't change (like with those keydown events) the antenna remains in resonance. If the vehicle is moved, then it's effficiency *can* suffer because its environment changes along with it. That cell tower that wasn't there before now can have a BIG effect on the antenna's overall performance. It also may not be as big an effect at 27 MHZ as it would be at lower frequencies, but it is an effect no less. Which is why the antenna testing ranges are free of obstacles. Paul's coil statement still is incorrect without qualification. According to established antenna theory, a 102" whip would outperform that big coil. Theory is only that,,,,,"theory",,otherwise it would be fact. In all seriousness, that whip is gonna fry with mo' watts! The reason they don't is that *most* users put the whip on the bumper and when they install a Predator 10K, they put it on the tool box (pickup) or the roof. Now the parameters have changed and the user now believes that the coil is "better". Sure, it's better, but the coil antenna now has gained a height advantage.And this has as much to do with the antenna's FEEDPOINT and proximity to the earth With the whip on the roof or tool box, the coil should not outperform the 102: whip, but whips are impractical and they don't *usually* end up on top because of their height. A local muddin' club has several trucks with whips on the roof and even a Jeep with a whip on the rollbar. Antenna theory is the same for any radio service whether it is CB or any other. Jerry Yep,,a theory is but only the best explanation we can offer for all that we can't explain and the real world tinkerers know that theory does not always hold in real world applications, especially in endeavors such as radio and antenna design, otherwise, the products would never advance or improve, as they would be at an impasse. |
From: (No=A0No=A0Not=A0George)
(Twistedhed) wrote: Rat shackers with 23 channels were not illegal,,unless, of course, you hold cbers as the ones who introduced the channel splicing capablities and band jumping...LOL. So you mean I mean only what I posted. HAMNS introduced the channel splicing capablities and band jumping. See what you are capable of when force fed! Why would hams who could run power and talk on dozens of other bands legally want to risk there licenses running outlaw cb?? Ask any of the thousands that have been busted for running outlaw hammie stations over the years. Oh I know you will say they wanted to escape restriction of hammie radio. That is what you said. What restrictions (shrug) They are *your* restrictions. Mumbling to yourself outloud isn't the healthiest of traits concerning sound mental balance. oh You mean an ID I mean what I posted. This is getting to be quite fun,,,your learning disability in full view. every ten minutes how is that a big restriction? You brought it here as a restriction, not I. You know you are full of **** =A0 =A0I'm not the one hiding like you are...that would make *you" full of ****. You came in to this forum wearing your clogged heart on your sleeve and had it gutted and handed back to you..it's why you no longer post your call,,you were made, no, FORCED to go underground and hide what you were once proud to display, even though you can't learn code. Tipsey and getting fuller. Your anger has relegated you once again, not only to undergrouond status, but back to being ignored until you can learn how to carry a conversation without your Tourette Syndrome coming in to play. |
(Night Ranger) wrote in message om...
If you know anything at all about legitimate radio antenna theory then the following CB antenna is worth a chuckle. I don't know if this guy is clueless or just dishonest, but which ever it is you definitly do not want him repairing your CB radio. Star Gun Mobile Beam Antenna (laugh) http://cbrepairs.com/index.htm I've actually seens someone driving down the road with one of those contraptions on the roof. I think it was a VW Jetta... Quite a site! |
In , Lancer
wrote: snip The current distribution for the coil isn't uniform, (input current output current). So it won't evenly dissipate heat, it will be hotter where the greatest current flow is. Good point. snip ..... In fact, coils with very high Q are very poor radiators. No, but an antenna with a high Q coil is more efficient, due to the lower loss in the coil. I think that was intended to mean, "....an antenna with a high Q coil is more efficient than an antenna with a low Q coil,....", which isn't exactly true. There are many helical antennas in use. As inductors they have very low Q, yet they are more efficient radiators than some antennas with high Q loading coils, and far more efficient radiators than the coils themselves. Don't forget that resistive loss is -only one- of the factors that determine radiation resistance. Again I point out that those huge loading coils have significant eddy current and reflective losses due to the fact that they are so large and are mounted with the axis perpendicular to the roof of the vehicle. And if that roof is ferrous (as most of them are), that's just like adding a solid iron core to an HF air-core coil -- bad news. Although increasing the conductor diameter (and therefore the overall size of the coil) is a basic technique to achieve a higher Q, it is nonetheless 'basic' and fails to account for all other relevant factors in the intended application, even factors that can negate any improvement that would be expected from the bigger coil. Besides that, they are ugly. But if someone want's to drive a vehicle that looks like it collided with George Jetson's space buggy then that's their problem, not mine. -----= 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! =----- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com