From: ('Doc)
FWIW

=A0=A0=A0=A0=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.


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.
=A0

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.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0A 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".


(snip)

No sense taking it further with you until you rectify your
contradictions. Both claims can not be true.


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0'Doc

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 hammies are not "big",,,just because you are big and mean and
illustrate a preference and fondness for homosexual talk, doesn't mean
anyone else here shares your maladies and sicknesses.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You have been on the floor for years. You're not permitted to be
anywhere else.

AAAAAAAaaaaaaahahahHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Too bad you don't show this jovial attitude instead of always speaking
of homosexual acts.

(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

(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 HAMNS introduced the channel splicing capablities
and band jumping. Why would hams who could run power and talk on
dozens of other bands legally want to risk there licenses running
outlaw cb?? Oh I know you will say they wanted to escape restriction
of hammie radio. What restrictions oh You mean an ID every ten minutes
how is that a big restriction? You know you are full of **** Tipsey
and getting fuller.

"'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.