Lancer wrote:
On 13 Jun 2004 13:29:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Chris; Nice looking antenna, large open air coils are more
efficient.
Some people see a large open air coil and think its all about power
handling capability.

rotflmao I dont think mounting 8 lb. of plumbing on your trunk lid
is
efficient. There are easier ways to get bandwith. for example if you
want efficient youd be using a 9 ft whip. even bent over like a bow
the 9 ft is more efficient than a 4 ft loaded open air coil model.

You don't have a clue to what you are talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/yq3gd

1) Broad Bandwidth does not mean an antenna is more efficient.

I didnt bring up bandwith someone else did

2) No one ever said a 4 ft antenna was more efficient than 9 ft one.

no you said the open air coils were more efficient

3) A 9 foot antenna "bent over" will more than likely be less
efficient than a properly designed 4 or 5 foot antenna.

the open air coil antenna is less efficient because the coil radiates
part of the power and that power is lost.

4) A stainless steel antenna is less efficient than a copper antenna
of the same length.

not if its electrically shorter than the stainless one

Now do you care to make another post and prove what a
stupid dumbass you are when it comes to antenna theory?

the only dumbass here is you lol

Lancer wrote:
On 13 Jun 2004 14:55:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Lancer wrote:
On 13 Jun 2004 13:29:14 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

Lancer wrote:
Chris; Nice looking antenna, large open air coils are more
efficient.
Some people see a large open air coil and think its all about
power
handling capability.

rotflmao I dont think mounting 8 lb. of plumbing on your trunk lid
is
efficient. There are easier ways to get bandwith. for example if
you
want efficient youd be using a 9 ft whip. even bent over like a
bow
the 9 ft is more efficient than a 4 ft loaded open air coil model.

You don't have a clue to what you are talking about.

http://tinyurl.com/yq3gd

1) Broad Bandwidth does not mean an antenna is more efficient.

I didnt bring up bandwith someone else did


You sure did, look back at your post.

2) No one ever said a 4 ft antenna was more efficient than 9 ft
one.

no you said the open air coils were more efficient

They are more efficient than a coil wound on a solid form.
Want to argue that point?

And an isotropic radiator is more efficient than an open air coil.
Want to argue that point?

3) A 9 foot antenna "bent over" will more than likely be less
efficient than a properly designed 4 or 5 foot antenna.

the open air coil antenna is less efficient because the coil
radiates
part of the power and that power is lost.

Wrong, the coil has very little radiation. The open air coil has
less
loss because the losses are less in an open air coil.
(resistive losses, capacitive coupling losses, form loss)
Do a search on coil Q

Care to argue that point?

"The open air coil has less loss because the losses are less in an
open air coil." thats like Twisty saying "its true because I said so"
lol. Care to argue that point?

4) A stainless steel antenna is less efficient than a copper
antenna
of the same length.

not if its electrically shorter than the stainless one

Electrically shorter? You meant physically shorter. I can take a 18
foot antenna and make it electrically shorter than 9 feet while
still
keeping it 18 feet long. dumbass

congratulations you have been reading the arrl handbook now what does
it say about losses from loading coils you should read that and get
back to us.

Now do you care to make another post and prove what a
stupid dumbass you are when it comes to antenna theory?

the only dumbass here is you lol

You have again proven you are a stupid dumbass that knows nothing
about antennas. Care to try again?


Give up assclown look at my original post and see how far away from
the point you have taken this thread in an attempt to pretend you know
something. you must be as frustrated as Steveo because he is posting
aerial pics of wa3moj's niegborhood lol

(I Am Not George) wrote:
he is posting
aerial pics of wa3moj's niegborhood lol

hehe

On 13 Jun 2004 17:16:09 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

loss because the losses are less in an open air coil.
(resistive losses, capacitive coupling losses, form loss)
Do a search on coil Q

Care to argue that point?

"The open air coil has less loss because the losses are less in an
open air coil." thats like Twisty saying "its true because I said so"
lol. Care to argue that point?

Sure, I explained why the losses are less in an open air coil,y ou
chose to ignore it. Grab a book and look up Q and see what it says.
You do know how to read don't you?

Don't bother getting back to us, your arguing just argue. I don't
have anymore time for your stupidity.

Chris wrote:

Here are some pictures
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjohnson1379/

"Chris" wrote in message
nk.net...
I have constructed a homeade antenna that is mounted on a trunk-lip mount
on
a Nissan Sentra. The bottom is 18" of 1/2" copper pipe with a 3/8" theaded
adapter soldered in the bottom. There is a 9" long peice of pvc with a 2"
diameter 6ga. copper coil around it. Then there is 4" more copper pipe
with
a 3ft' stainless tip on top. The problem is that it would be too easy to
bend the trunk with copper pipe. I thought about a spring but then the
whole
thing would bend too much when the trunk is opened. If I move the coil
down
below roof level, the SWR goes way up. I thought about using pvc for the
lower part but I can't quite figure out how to construct it. I may take
some
pictures of what I have. Stay tuned......




I saw a guy that built a mobile antenna out of copper pipe for his
pickup he had a 2x4 set in the stake hole on the front passenger side of
the bed, it was capacitive fed The pipe was capped at the top and held
to the 2x4 with pipe anchors. Not sure how well it performed,but for a
home brew job, it was rather interesting.

Please forgive my crude representation, my ASCII art skills have not
been used in quite a few years heheh.


| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|___|
|___| -------- capacitor
| | |
| | | ________________________
|_______|
|_______coax_____________



73 de Keith KC8TCQ

Know thyself. If you need
help, call the C.I.A.

Just an update for anyone following this thread. I tried the pvc lower half
with good results. I just did a very loose spiral of copper wire around the
pvc. I was wrong on a couple of things, though. The antenna in the picture
has 12" of copper pipe at the bottom, not 18". The pvc section was 18".
Anyway, there was no difference in performance but it's still not flexible
enough for the trunk mount. The other thing I did was compare it to a
trunk-mounted 3 ft. antenna by antenna specialists. The 2 signal reports I
got showed that my antenna won. The numbers I got from 2 people in different
directions were 5 and 2 db on my antenna and 2 .5 and 1 on the Antenna
Specialists. It's up rather close to the rear window. I wonder if either
antenna would do better closer to the back of the trunk.

Chris
"Chris" wrote in message
nk.net...
I have constructed a homeade antenna that is mounted on a trunk-lip mount
on
a Nissan Sentra. The bottom is 18" of 1/2" copper pipe with a 3/8" theaded
adapter soldered in the bottom. There is a 9" long peice of pvc with a 2"
diameter 6ga. copper coil around it. Then there is 4" more copper pipe
with
a 3ft' stainless tip on top. The problem is that it would be too easy to
bend the trunk with copper pipe. I thought about a spring but then the
whole
thing would bend too much when the trunk is opened. If I move the coil
down
below roof level, the SWR goes way up. I thought about using pvc for the
lower part but I can't quite figure out how to construct it. I may take
some
pictures of what I have. Stay tuned......

From: (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
"Landshark" wrote in news:7h9Ac.4268$sv7.451
@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com:
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Yo u mean he didn't know
that was a post made with Forte Agent? I thought George knew how to read
headers? LMAO!!!!
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0Landshark

Thats too funny, the guy you call george didnt

make that claim. iamnotgeorge made that post
and twisty said he was Frank.



Never happened. Twist said Frank was Iamnotgeorge2004.

So which one of you is wrong

You are.

is he frank, leland or is he george.

Frank is Iamnotgeorge2004.

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Jun 17, 2004, 7:58am (EDT-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Ideas for a homemade mobile
antenna. From: =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
User-Agent: =A0=A0
Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Jun 17, 2004,
7:58am (EDT-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-GTj7aWRCp7VrPD0ZIBLy5A9hv6WaWzW8uL0LAUH0qHyvVvZSbF aLeqHftl/LkJlBZW//Fi=
fPyrd5gI5!57+bvlK2MfFAUaRxIUIFnkbF36psVt/mxnM6jipX99wKrTxuI7sDNKd3thIbQokn=
vQawfA=3D=3D
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward
a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.1
(I Am Not George) wrote in
m:
You shouldnt even be reading these posts what happened to your
nonexistant killfile lol

That is what i was thinkin to Jim


Calling Frank "Jim" and desperately and redundantly claiming "Frank
isn't Iamnotgerge2004" simply won't make it so. Move on from yourself.
You're a louse and are being made to live with it.