On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:59:56 -0500, "Jerry Oxendine"
wrote:

Those BIG coil antennas aren't as efficient as the makers
make them out to be, but they sell antennas because bigger is "better",
right? Lots of smoke and mirrors, eh?


Jerry


Depends on what claims they are making. Bigger air wound coils are
more efficient. A big air wound coil should have a Q of 300, or bit
more. A 5' or 6' foot antenna with a coil that has a Q of 300 will
have close to the same bandwidth and efficiency of a 1/4 antenna.

On 21 Jan 2004 17:39:48 -0800, (Night Ranger)
wrote:

(Twistedhed) wrote in message
LOL..what a backfire! Why did you prefer to call it a cb antenna? Prhaps
because,,,you know no better? Grab a book, perhaps an ARRL antenna
guide,,,and learn all you can about tuners. It will prevent you from
embarassing yourself to no end.

Too late Twist, he already did that.


WebTV! HA! Internet access for those too stupid to figure out Windoze.
AOL was bottom rung until WebTV showed up.

Google HA! newsgroup access for those to stupid to figure out anything
except mozilla. Bottom rung for any newsgroup user.


Lets see..You bloated "..Prhaps because,,,you know no better?"

Your education level is still in question, but we know your bloated
from something.


I guess I'll have to come down to the CB band to talk to you some day,
because it does not sound like you will be getting your ham license
anytime soon.

Need help getting your CB or antenna set up, ask, someone here will be
happy to help.


Nigth Ranger ---------
Proudly running Linux!

Get lost, your lucky if you know how to run a vic20


P.S. My posted specifically stated...

"If you know anything at all about legitimate radio antenna theory..."

What are you replying for? That does not describe you.

Now thats funny, how do you spell Night Ranger?

Like you just did? Nigth Ranger ---------

This group needed a good laugh, thanks.

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 12:59:56 -0500, "Jerry Oxendine"
wrote:

Those BIG coil antennas aren't as efficient as the makers
make them out to be, but they sell antennas because bigger is "better",
right? Lots of smoke and mirrors, eh?


Jerry


Depends on what claims they are making. Bigger air wound coils are
more efficient. A big air wound coil should have a Q of 300, or bit
more. A 5' or 6' foot antenna with a coil that has a Q of 300 will
have close to the same bandwidth and efficiency of a 1/4 antenna.


Not when that coil is mounted perpendicular to a huge piece of steel. Were
talking ferromagnetic action coupled with huge eddy-current losses.






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

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

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 wrote in message ...
Jerry,
Those 'thingys' don't shorten the whip, they lengthen
it...
'Doc

you know i just love it when you hams get on a cb radio newsgroup and
argue about technical subjects....so us poor dumb cbers can do some
learnin. (one period for jim)

From: (No=A0No=A0Not=A0George)
(Twistedhed) wrote: JerryO wrote:
("broad-banded" BIG coil antennas!)
_
Many that say "maximum power is 10,000 watts" means just that. I
wouldn't try 15 or 20 in one of those specified for 10.

Is that "bird" watts LOL


A watt is a watt. Perhaps I could assist and point you to some poignant
reading material that may free you from such cb voodoo.



I find more smoke and mirrors from those who have said "it can't be done
on 27"

A beam the size of a 440 yagi? It cant be done
on 27 mhz.


I wasn't referring to this exact "beam" with that comment, but an errant
claim or two that have been debunked in heah...like LPFM worldwide on 27
megs...like worldwide skip from a mobile on 27 megs, any mode, also low
power or barefoot.
In retrospect, with a proper tuner, many things can be accomplished,
including a mobile "beam".
_
or "cb dx is only playing hammie radio", etc..


You made up call signs and zones and use

q-signals and ham lingo and even ham radios



In the first place, I made up no such thing at anytime. The numbers I
hold were given to myself by club representatives, who, by the way, were
in the business of handing out call numbers for club members long before
I came along. Ditto for the zones, q-signals, and ham lingo. Many hammie
radios are of better quality than the average cb. In fact, the FCC did
away with licensing and effectively washed away the
official calls. Since you feel you have dibs on a better way of cb
communication and identification, go right ahead and introduce your
idea....or, perhaps, you can't improve it at all and are one of those
who bitch about things but have no solutions.
You also conveniently hide and ignore the fact that hammies were the
ones that brought and initiated these numbers to the freeband, as they
were the ones with the capabilities of channel splicing and going above
and below the cb band,,,those cbers with 23 channel rat shacks were
innocent until corrupted by those not unlike yourself.
To blame those who successfully play the game they were presented is
counterproductive to all and to everything.


so sure as **** cb dx is only playing hammie

radio without the license.


Impossible, in the context many licensed hammies still participate in
such cb dx.
I'm pretty good at presenting things from another perspective or
context, so check it out....you are using a madeup name on the internet
in a cb forum, so if cbers are "playing hammie", you are not only
hypocritically playing the same game you are wailing about,
,but fail at the game, realize that you fail and fall way short, and
therefore take to "making up names" in order to hide your status to
which you have been reduced. That pendulum swings both ways, and you
just received a hair cut like a hippie in basic training.

From: (Jerry=A0Oxendine)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
... JerryO wrote:
It is sad that much "truth" is only a myth

promoted by crooked CB shops-like coax

length and "broad-banded" BIG coil antennas!


Those big coil antennas are for handling megawatts..something your
conventional cb antennas can not do. The antennas work exactly as they
were designed.


I didn't say SAY they did something they were

not designed to do. What I said was that they

are NOT broad-banded unless the mfr dickers

with the impedance



Yea,,,and I agree with that statement.
But to be fair and balanced,,ALL manufacturers dicker with their
antennas.,


to make it cover a wide range of frequencies.

If an antenna is truly efficient,


The antennas you speak of have everything more to do with power
capacity. They are designed to take a maximum load for shirt bursts of
time.


Again, I said nothing about being able to

handle huge amounts of power. I am sure they
will, but how many

people USE 10,000 watts in the real world?


Granted. But this isn't the real world we speak of,,it's cb and
hammie,,and in those worlds, more hammies than you apparently think, use
full limit loads,,,maybe not a full 10,000 watts, but what kind of jump
in power per se, does a hammie achieve when blowing 1500 watts through a
beam with a super high gain? See what I mean?


then its

bandwidth is actually narrow(er), but

makers "dicker" with the impedance to widen

bandwidth because it has been taught as

gospel in the CB world. It is also because the

sellers know that selling these "broad-

banded" antennas is important so the buyer

can have his cake and eat it, too!

And this broad-bandedness is a very

important part of the sales pitch to the regular

CBer or trucker just trying to get the best

performance from their setup.




The big coils antennas are made more for power capacity than this
"broadband" you speak of as relating to cb antennas.


...which IS what I was talking about. The

accepted "truth" amongst many CB folks is

that those big coil antennas are not only able

to handle gobs of power, but

will cover 25-29 MHZ as well. In their natural

state, they will not.



Depends on your definition of "cover". I have a Wilson that will
transmit with an acceptable SWR from 26 all the way to the ten meter
band.
By "acceptable", I mean under 2.


But mfrs. tinker with it to "make" it cover all

these 'freeband' frequencies while the "Q", or

efficiency, suffers.



Mostly all mobile antennas are compromised in some manner in order to
make them a practical size.


Those BIG coil antennas aren't as efficient as

the makers make them out to be,


I beg to differ. Many that say "maximum power is 10,000 watts" means
just that. I wouldn't try 15 or 20 in one of those specified for 10.


Most people don't try for such power. Most of

us are happy with 2-25 watts, or whatever is

"normal".



I tend to disgree. The "bigger is better" mentality you speak of has
always ruled in the world of hammies and cbers.


but they sell

antennas because bigger is "better", right?


Antennas? Yea,,bigger is better.

If the only thing you are looking for is Mo

Powah!



Not at all. You fail to acknowledge the SWL listener's position, among
others.

Lots of smoke and mirrors, eh?


I find more smoke and mirrors from those who have said "it can't be done
on 27" or "cb dx is only playing hammie radio", etc.. And the list goes
on.


I don't know what you mean by that. Who said

it can't be done on 27?

Several hammies have been schooled here on real word capabilities
regarding cb.


*I* never said that,


Acknowledged.

I

said that there are many myths and untruths

promoted by dishonest sellers.

What's wrong with that?


Not a thing,,IF you play both sides fair and tend to point out the
fallacies and bull**** brought to cb by hammies,,but you don't.


One day I'll tell you the one about the mobile

antenna that had water and/or vinagar in the

lower mast.


I see no difference than the hammie
offering to renew one's call sign,,,,for a fee.


........and those who did so met the wrath of

the enforcement division in the form of

re-tests, de-certication

of VE's, and revocations and reversions. AS it

should be. I fully support Riley H's dilligence in
shutting down

exam mills.


For every cb site you cite as an example, it can be countered with a
boneheaded hammie example. When y'all can live and let live, the world
will be a much better place.


Not sure what you mean.


CB is not hammie radio and those who use it really don't care about
hammie radio transcending its boundaries.


Why are you so touchy? All I did was debunk

the so-called StarGun antenna, and show that

it is NOT a beam at all.



Touchy? I merely offered the opposite view,,,the one shared by most
cbers...as the majority realize power is what has always driven the
communications hobby,,,,,I didn't make it that way and denying the way
it is won;t change it. Repetition of a phrase will not makeit any more
true.


The sales slogan was "Ever notice how much

better your signal is

over water?"


Your signal IS much better over water. I have managed to **** off an
entire contingency of holier-than-thous that thought they had it going
on,,,with nothing more than a kick-azz set up and water, water, and a
whole lot more water!


I never said it wasn't better over water. What

this contraption was a center-loaded whip.

The lower mast

was filled with water or vinegar. The i

mplication that the antenna worked better with
this "water" inside the lower mast. No such

thing.


There is most certainly an argument to be made here. Fill up a push-up
pole with water. I've seen them where they had to be drilled out to
release water. How about saturating the ground where your tower is with
salt?


The liquid was PART of the mast the

same as if it were not solid metal. Water inside
this mast has no effect or additional gain. But

that slogan implied that their antenna would

work the same as if it were beside a lake!

Honest!! Oh, I just told you!
=A0
=A0Let the buyer beware. If if sounds too good to

be true, it probably is.

Jerry



There are ridiculous claims everywhere. Doug Smith's definitive work
with DSPs countered a few angry hammies discussions in here at several
turns, but no one bothered to point out their errors by illustrating
another hammie's proof via years of working with such processors. I
agree,,,,,Let the buyer beware,,their is tons of bull**** flying in this
forum, yet none of it seems to be said with confidence..LOL!

Jerry


It's all relative.