|
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:46:55 -0700, "John Smith" wrote in : Frank: FOOL!!! His original post makes ALL of that clear, if not, one or two of his other posts after will fill you in... Well, let's find out just what he said, shall we? ===== On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:45:50 -0500, driver42 wrote in : Hi, If I'm not able to set the SWR in the trucks that I drive will it hurt the radio or just give me decreased range? ===== I don't see anything about a 5:1 SWR. I don't see anything about being "forced" to use a matching device. Now is a good time to dispell more CB mythology: Many of you already know that in order to double your range you need -four- times the power. But it also works the other way -- if you reduce your power to one fourth (i.e, you are losing 3/4 of your power, which would mean a pretty high SWR) you have -only- decreased your range by one half. So an SWR of 2:1 or 3:1 (or, conversely, squeezing a couple extra watts with a tweak-n-peak) isn't going to have a noticable effect on your range. Let's continue with the scenario that you are losing 3 watts (3/4 of your power) due purely to reflection. Ok, so that power gets dumped back into the final where it's dissipated as heat. That's three extra watts in a transistor conservatively rated to handle a certain amount of -continuous- heat dissipation, which is usually something along the lines of 4 watts. Mind you that 3 or 4 watts isn't a whole lot of power; if the heat sink can handle 4 watts without a problem then an extra 3 watts isn't exactly going to melt the knobs. Regardless, the final -isn't- dissipating this heat continuously (unless the OP is one of those asshole broadcast types that keys down for half an hour), so normal operation certainly isn't going to "cook" the transistor. And I already mentioned that these transistors are rated to handle 30:1 SWR -continuously- without damage. If you want proof of these FACTS then feel free to refer to the data sheets for the final transistors most commonly used in CB finals. ===== On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:27:48 -0500, driver42 wrote in : My problem is that I'll be moving from truck to truck so I wont have time to set the SWR correctly. Most of our trucks have factory installed double antenna's which I'm not too thrilled about. ===== I don't see anything about a 5:1 SWR. I don't see anything about being "forced" to use a matching device. Looks to me like he said the trucks already have antennas installed. Assuming they are CB antennas, it's more than likely that the antennas have already been trimmed for use with a 50-ohm radio (since all CB radios are 50-ohm radios). Unless something is broke, the antennas are probably going to give a reasonably good match to -whatever- radio he picks (because, once again, all CB radios are 50-ohm radios). ===== On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:33:43 -0500, driver42 wrote in : My problem is that I'll be in a different truck everyday and wont be able to set the SWR the way I want to. ===== I don't see anything about a 5:1 SWR. I don't see anything about being "forced" to use a matching device. What I -do- see is concern about setting the SWR, which is another mythconception (and not just with CBers but with a lot of hams). A 1:1 SWR does -NOT- mean the antenna is operating at it's best efficiency. It -DOES- mean that the load is 50 ohms nonreactive. But a 50 ohm nonreactive load can be darn near anything: a carbon resistor, a dummy load, a bad coax working as a tuned stub, or even a corroded 9' whip with a mount caked in mud (seen both scenarios firsthand). As I stated before, an SWR meter is a go/no-go meter. If it normally reads 2:1 then suddenly jumps to 6:1, that's a good indication that something has gone wrong with the antenna or coax. And -THAT'S- what an SWR meter is good for..... a "something's wrong" meter (IMO, they should probably be replaced with idiot lights like those in a car.) If you want to tune your antenna for best efficiency you -NEED- to use a field strenght meter. Period. Now........ once again........ 1) Where did the original poster say he was being "forced" to use any type of matching device? 2) Where did the original poster say his SWR was 5:1? 3) Since very few CBers use a matchbox, why don't the millions of other CB radios have blown finals? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- I have to agree with you Frank. This 'John' comes on this board denigrating CBer's and is now a know all see all. You definitely aren't a people person yourself but at least you are honest in your beliefs. John, Frank did make some direct points which you waffle on. **** or get off the pot... |
Jim:
Read the fellows posts, he indicates he CANNOT adjust the antenna or coax, DUH!!!--the matchbox is an excellent solution.... Are you some brain dead wacko that can't read too? John "jim" wrote in message ... Frank Gilliland wrote: On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:46:55 -0700, "John Smith" wrote in : Frank: FOOL!!! His original post makes ALL of that clear, if not, one or two of his other posts after will fill you in... Well, let's find out just what he said, shall we? ===== On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:45:50 -0500, driver42 wrote in : Hi, If I'm not able to set the SWR in the trucks that I drive will it hurt the radio or just give me decreased range? ===== I don't see anything about a 5:1 SWR. I don't see anything about being "forced" to use a matching device. Now is a good time to dispell more CB mythology: Many of you already know that in order to double your range you need -four- times the power. But it also works the other way -- if you reduce your power to one fourth (i.e, you are losing 3/4 of your power, which would mean a pretty high SWR) you have -only- decreased your range by one half. So an SWR of 2:1 or 3:1 (or, conversely, squeezing a couple extra watts with a tweak-n-peak) isn't going to have a noticable effect on your range. Let's continue with the scenario that you are losing 3 watts (3/4 of your power) due purely to reflection. Ok, so that power gets dumped back into the final where it's dissipated as heat. That's three extra watts in a transistor conservatively rated to handle a certain amount of -continuous- heat dissipation, which is usually something along the lines of 4 watts. Mind you that 3 or 4 watts isn't a whole lot of power; if the heat sink can handle 4 watts without a problem then an extra 3 watts isn't exactly going to melt the knobs. Regardless, the final -isn't- dissipating this heat continuously (unless the OP is one of those asshole broadcast types that keys down for half an hour), so normal operation certainly isn't going to "cook" the transistor. And I already mentioned that these transistors are rated to handle 30:1 SWR -continuously- without damage. If you want proof of these FACTS then feel free to refer to the data sheets for the final transistors most commonly used in CB finals. ===== On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:27:48 -0500, driver42 wrote in : My problem is that I'll be moving from truck to truck so I wont have time to set the SWR correctly. Most of our trucks have factory installed double antenna's which I'm not too thrilled about. ===== I don't see anything about a 5:1 SWR. I don't see anything about being "forced" to use a matching device. Looks to me like he said the trucks already have antennas installed. Assuming they are CB antennas, it's more than likely that the antennas have already been trimmed for use with a 50-ohm radio (since all CB radios are 50-ohm radios). Unless something is broke, the antennas are probably going to give a reasonably good match to -whatever- radio he picks (because, once again, all CB radios are 50-ohm radios). ===== On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:33:43 -0500, driver42 wrote in : My problem is that I'll be in a different truck everyday and wont be able to set the SWR the way I want to. ===== I don't see anything about a 5:1 SWR. I don't see anything about being "forced" to use a matching device. What I -do- see is concern about setting the SWR, which is another mythconception (and not just with CBers but with a lot of hams). A 1:1 SWR does -NOT- mean the antenna is operating at it's best efficiency. It -DOES- mean that the load is 50 ohms nonreactive. But a 50 ohm nonreactive load can be darn near anything: a carbon resistor, a dummy load, a bad coax working as a tuned stub, or even a corroded 9' whip with a mount caked in mud (seen both scenarios firsthand). As I stated before, an SWR meter is a go/no-go meter. If it normally reads 2:1 then suddenly jumps to 6:1, that's a good indication that something has gone wrong with the antenna or coax. And -THAT'S- what an SWR meter is good for..... a "something's wrong" meter (IMO, they should probably be replaced with idiot lights like those in a car.) If you want to tune your antenna for best efficiency you -NEED- to use a field strenght meter. Period. Now........ once again........ 1) Where did the original poster say he was being "forced" to use any type of matching device? 2) Where did the original poster say his SWR was 5:1? 3) Since very few CBers use a matchbox, why don't the millions of other CB radios have blown finals? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- I have to agree with you Frank. This 'John' comes on this board denigrating CBer's and is now a know all see all. You definitely aren't a people person yourself but at least you are honest in your beliefs. John, Frank did make some direct points which you waffle on. **** or get off the pot... |
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:04:01 -0400, jim wrote
in : snip I have to agree with you Frank. This 'John' comes on this board denigrating CBer's and is now a know all see all. He'll either leave, lurk, or start posting under another alias. It's too bad that some people have to be like that because I'm sure they could make positive contributions to the group. Even Dave had a lot of helpful advice; he just couldn't accept that sometimes he was wrong, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me since it's so easy to verify your facts -before- you post your opinions. But I'm sure he will be back..... when he's finished sulking. You definitely aren't a people person yourself but at least you are honest in your beliefs. I'll take that as a compliment. I really am a nice guy. I just have no patience or respect for liars and bull**** artists, on or off the net. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Frank:
You might be a nice guy, I see idiots who are nice guys, ma'roons too... John "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 22:04:01 -0400, jim wrote in : snip I have to agree with you Frank. This 'John' comes on this board denigrating CBer's and is now a know all see all. He'll either leave, lurk, or start posting under another alias. It's too bad that some people have to be like that because I'm sure they could make positive contributions to the group. Even Dave had a lot of helpful advice; he just couldn't accept that sometimes he was wrong, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me since it's so easy to verify your facts -before- you post your opinions. But I'm sure he will be back..... when he's finished sulking. You definitely aren't a people person yourself but at least you are honest in your beliefs. I'll take that as a compliment. I really am a nice guy. I just have no patience or respect for liars and bull**** artists, on or off the net. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:55:10 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in : Frank: You might be a nice guy, I see idiots who are nice guys, ma'roons too... I'll try this one more time. You will need to focus -REALLY- hard because this is probably going to be explained on a temporal level with which you are unfamiliar: logic. Are you ready? Ok, here we go..... Fact: Somebody already installed the antennas and coax in the trucks. Fact: Most people who install antenna systems adjust them for the best impedance match to their radios. Now just in case you are worried about the word "most", here are a couple things to consider: If the antennas and coax are -not- adjusted for a very good match then the other drivers of these trucks would have blown -their- finals already (according to your "truth") and would have either complained or fixed the problem. And since a company owns the trucks, the antennas and the coax, and apparently wants the drivers to use CB radios while driving, it's very likely that the company checked the antenna systems so as to make sure they actually work and not blow up the drivers' radios. This seems plausible because if company equipment is defective they could be liable for the cost to repair or replace the driver's CB radio. Even in a worst-case scenario where the antenna systems were defective and blew up CB radios all the time, not only is there something fundamentally wrong with the antenna systems that no matchbox is going to fix, but someone is bound to warn him that he should -not- plug his radio into the truck's antenna. So in all probability..... Conclusion: The antenna systems on these trucks have been adjusted for the best impedance match to a CB radio. Now hold on tight because this is where it all comes together..... Fact: All CB radios are designed for a load impedance of 50 ohms. From this fact you can draw two conclusions: Conclusion #1: A CB radio with a load impedance of 50 ohms was used to adjust the antenna systems in the trucks for the best impedance match. Conclusion #2: Any CB radio the original poster uses is going to have a load impedance of 50 ohms. And those two conclusions lead to one FINAL conclusion: The antennas and coax are -already- adjusted for the best impedance match to -any- CB radio the original poster might use. Bottom line: He's not going to blow up his radio if he doesn't use a matchbox. Now feel free to go back to your troll routine of calling me a "fool", an "idiot", a "ma'roon" and a "brain-dead whacko", because you just earned your place in the killfile. =-PLONK!-= ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Frank Gilliand Is Right !!!!
Finally we got the correct and right answer. Right On Frank !!!! Brian - Las Vegas , NV |
Frank... the point you're missing is that although it's like you say
"All CB radios are designed for a load impedance of 50 ohms."... there are certainly different reactances (j factor) from radio to radio. No radio or antenna is exactly 50 +j0. This is where the matchbox can help to supply the conjugate needed for maximum performance. Professor www.telstar-electronics.com |
|
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:55:10 -0700, "John Smith" wrote in : Frank: You might be a nice guy, I see idiots who are nice guys, ma'roons too... I'll try this one more time. You will need to focus -REALLY- hard because this is probably going to be explained on a temporal level with which you are unfamiliar: logic. Are you ready? Ok, here we go..... Fact: Somebody already installed the antennas and coax in the trucks. Fact: Most people who install antenna systems adjust them for the best impedance match to their radios. Now just in case you are worried about the word "most", here are a couple things to consider: If the antennas and coax are -not- adjusted for a very good match then the other drivers of these trucks would have blown -their- finals already (according to your "truth") and would have either complained or fixed the problem. And since a company owns the trucks, the antennas and the coax, and apparently wants the drivers to use CB radios while driving, it's very likely that the company checked the antenna systems so as to make sure they actually work and not blow up the drivers' radios. This seems plausible because if company equipment is defective they could be liable for the cost to repair or replace the driver's CB radio. Even in a worst-case scenario where the antenna systems were defective and blew up CB radios all the time, not only is there something fundamentally wrong with the antenna systems that no matchbox is going to fix, but someone is bound to warn him that he should -not- plug his radio into the truck's antenna. So in all probability..... Conclusion: The antenna systems on these trucks have been adjusted for the best impedance match to a CB radio. Now hold on tight because this is where it all comes together..... Fact: All CB radios are designed for a load impedance of 50 ohms. From this fact you can draw two conclusions: Conclusion #1: A CB radio with a load impedance of 50 ohms was used to adjust the antenna systems in the trucks for the best impedance match. Conclusion #2: Any CB radio the original poster uses is going to have a load impedance of 50 ohms. And those two conclusions lead to one FINAL conclusion: The antennas and coax are -already- adjusted for the best impedance match to -any- CB radio the original poster might use. Bottom line: He's not going to blow up his radio if he doesn't use a matchbox. Now feel free to go back to your troll routine of calling me a "fool", an "idiot", a "ma'roon" and a "brain-dead whacko", because you just earned your place in the killfile. =-PLONK!-= Man, it takes a lot for Frank to killfile someone ;). I plonked him months ago when he insisted on top posting, after many people asked him not too. Landshark -- The internet is fun but it's no substitute for books, people, nature, or direct experiences. But you think that you can get everything you need from your computer, you are a fool. Frank Gililland |
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:55:10 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Frank: You might be a nice guy, I see idiots who are nice guys, ma'roons too... John Do you see dead people also? |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:11:03 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: +The match box is fine, guarantees he will not generate a bunch of shop costs... + +Any sensible person knows it is a no brainer... + +He doesn't want to get a damn engineering degree, he wants to use it... +John ****** A matchbox only fools the transmitter into thinking it sees a proper load. It does nothing for the standing waves that already exist on the coax. It does not improve antenna performance. james |
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:58:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: +Guess what, John: Most of the finals used in CB radios today (and for +the past 20+ years) can withstand SWR of 30:1 indefinitely. And that +includes the power transistors used in amps, too. ***** At the device's rated power, voltage and current. Exceeding that rated power, or voltage or current of the device will not guarentee that device will withstand all SWR up to 30:1 indefinitely. james |
Thank god for Frank, he is right, he is only one to tell truth.
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:55:10 -0700, "John Smith" wrote in : Frank: You might be a nice guy, I see idiots who are nice guys, ma'roons too... I'll try this one more time. You will need to focus -REALLY- hard because this is probably going to be explained on a temporal level with which you are unfamiliar: logic. Are you ready? Ok, here we go..... Fact: Somebody already installed the antennas and coax in the trucks. Fact: Most people who install antenna systems adjust them for the best impedance match to their radios. Now just in case you are worried about the word "most", here are a couple things to consider: If the antennas and coax are -not- adjusted for a very good match then the other drivers of these trucks would have blown -their- finals already (according to your "truth") and would have either complained or fixed the problem. And since a company owns the trucks, the antennas and the coax, and apparently wants the drivers to use CB radios while driving, it's very likely that the company checked the antenna systems so as to make sure they actually work and not blow up the drivers' radios. This seems plausible because if company equipment is defective they could be liable for the cost to repair or replace the driver's CB radio. Even in a worst-case scenario where the antenna systems were defective and blew up CB radios all the time, not only is there something fundamentally wrong with the antenna systems that no matchbox is going to fix, but someone is bound to warn him that he should -not- plug his radio into the truck's antenna. So in all probability..... Conclusion: The antenna systems on these trucks have been adjusted for the best impedance match to a CB radio. Now hold on tight because this is where it all comes together..... Fact: All CB radios are designed for a load impedance of 50 ohms. From this fact you can draw two conclusions: Conclusion #1: A CB radio with a load impedance of 50 ohms was used to adjust the antenna systems in the trucks for the best impedance match. Conclusion #2: Any CB radio the original poster uses is going to have a load impedance of 50 ohms. And those two conclusions lead to one FINAL conclusion: The antennas and coax are -already- adjusted for the best impedance match to -any- CB radio the original poster might use. Bottom line: He's not going to blow up his radio if he doesn't use a matchbox. Now feel free to go back to your troll routine of calling me a "fool", an "idiot", a "ma'roon" and a "brain-dead whacko", because you just earned your place in the killfile. =-PLONK!-= ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On 30 Jul 2005 09:52:56 -0700, "Professor"
wrote: +It depends on how bad the match is. There is a good chance that you'll +be OK. It takes a match of perhaps 5:1 or worse to overheat the +transmit output transistor in most CBs. + +Professor +www.telstar-electronics.com + +driver42 wrote: + Hi, + If I'm not able to set the SWR in the trucks that I drive will it hurt the + radio or just give me decreased range? SWR alone will not destroy a bipolar transistor unless it is operated outside the Safe Operating Area. The weakest part of a bipolar transistor is the base emitter junction. Abuse that juntion and the transistor will not forgive you. I would venture to say that nearly all CBs on the market if operated at the legal power levels and within voltage and currnet levels will handle SWRs well beyond 10:1. At those SWR levels, one will definitely know that something is wrong with a remarked lost of receive signals. james |
As usual Frank tells the strait truth and everyone scrambles to backpedal on there BS.
|
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:45:50 -0500, driver42
wrote: +Hi, +If I'm not able to set the SWR in the trucks that I drive will it hurt the +radio or just give me decreased range? ******* Up to about 3:1 the loss in range is minimally discernable. After 3:1 you will notice some loss of receive in weak signals and some gradual worseing of transmitt range as SWR get higher. This is due to less and less power delivered to the antenna for radiation. As for hurting the radio, if you haven't overly modified the original design or operating the radio outside the specifications that it was designed for, No. Disconnect the coax from the radio will do more damage than a poor SWR. james |
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 18:59:48 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: +Yeah, at HP I got a peek at a full-blown cost-benefit analysis showing +increased profits by increasing the employee turnover rate. And to +think there are some people who think labor unions are obsolete..... ***** Yep with protable pensionplans they don't have to contribute a much to them and that is a big savings there. I think the ghost of Adrew Carnegie is walking the halls of many businesses to day. Whispering into CEOs ears saying contrtol costs and profits will increase. james |
On 2 Aug 2005 05:44:15 -0700, "Professor"
wrote: +Frank... the point you're missing is that although it's like you say +"All CB radios are designed for a load impedance of 50 ohms."... there +are certainly different reactances (j factor) from radio to radio. No +radio or antenna is exactly 50 +j0. This is where the matchbox can help +to supply the conjugate needed for maximum performance. + +Professor +www.telstar-electronics.com ****** If we take the equation 50 + j0 ohms to be a 50 Ohm impedance then an equation in this form, x + jy, will yield an infinite solution of equatins where the magnitude of the impedance is 50 ohms. Conversely 50 + j50 Ohms is not 50 Ohms impedance. What does vary from radio to radio is the tuning of the output filter and matching network. Still this variation is not much greater than about 5%. That 5% variation will not alter the match between the radio and the coax significantly. Finally, SWR is not determined by the mismatch of the radio to the coax. SWR is determined by the mismatch of impedance of the antenna to that of the coax. SO variations of source mismatch play a relatively small degradation in the system performance. james |
On 2 Aug 2005 05:44:15 -0700, "Professor"
wrote in .com: Frank... the point you're missing is that although it's like you say "All CB radios are designed for a load impedance of 50 ohms."... there are certainly different reactances (j factor) from radio to radio. No radio or antenna is exactly 50 +j0. This is where the matchbox can help to supply the conjugate needed for maximum performance. Since CB radios are calibrated at the factory to a 50 ohm nonreactive dummy load, I find it highly unlikely that a CB radio is going to have any significant reactance or variation from the designated impedance. Now look up the word "conjugate" before you misuse it again. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Yeah, at HP I got a peek at a full-blown cost-benefit analysis showing increased profits by increasing the employee turnover rate. And to think there are some people who think labor unions are obsolete..... It's dirty pool, and a very common practice. The big thing is the medical and retirement insurance. The FICA and SS payments are an after thought, when deciding some devoted guys fate. :( -- http://NewsReader.Com/ |
"Landshark" wrote:
Man, it takes a lot for Frank to killfile someone ;). I plonked him months ago when he insisted on top posting, after many people asked him not too. Landshark Frank and I used to killfile each other like playing ping-pong. Now we just nod at each other. -- http://NewsReader.Com/ |
|
IANJS:
Well, partially dead people, ones with dead brains, if that counts... however, probably born that way... John "I Am Not John Smith" wrote in message news:1122989054.5d9ee55da97d1dfec383ddf90e759545@t eranews... On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 19:55:10 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: Frank: You might be a nice guy, I see idiots who are nice guys, ma'roons too... John Do you see dead people also? |
Another easy way to quickly cut though all this BS, call up dealers,
manufacturers and ask them if it will void the warranty if you consistently operate the rig into greater than a 3:1 SWR. No reason to take the words of CB Dummies, ask the people who have to repair, replace and maintain the equip. Their word is the word of "God." Or else, you back it up with your pocketbook. John "driver42" wrote in message 5... Hi, If I'm not able to set the SWR in the trucks that I drive will it hurt the radio or just give me decreased range? |
John Smith wrote:
Jim: Read the fellows posts, he indicates he CANNOT adjust the antenna or coax, DUH!!!--the matchbox is an excellent solution.... Are you some brain dead wacko that can't read too? John been called a lot worse by a lot better John. A matchbox is not needed. period. |
On 02 Aug 2005 22:31:51 GMT, Steveo wrote in
: wrote: As usual Frank tells the strait truth and everyone scrambles to backpedal on there BS. It appears you have a fan, Frank. Someone needs to help that poor misguided soul..... ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 02 Aug 2005 22:31:51 GMT, Steveo wrote in : wrote: As usual Frank tells the strait truth and everyone scrambles to backpedal on there BS. It appears you have a fan, Frank. Someone needs to help that poor misguided soul..... Well you or I might be able to advise him about the things he shouldn't do, but that takes some of the fun out of it. I'd ask you for advice if something HF/RF had me stumped, and I'd likely get some good advice, if you weren't ****ed at me! (j/k) -- http://NewsReader.Com/ |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 02 Aug 2005 22:31:51 GMT, Steveo wrote in : wrote: As usual Frank tells the strait truth and everyone scrambles to backpedal on there BS. It appears you have a fan, Frank. Someone needs to help that poor misguided soul..... Well you or I might be able to advise him about the things he shouldn't do, but that takes some of the fun out of it. I'd ask you for advice if something HF/RF had me stumped, and I'd likely get some good advice, if you weren't ****ed at me! (j/k) -- http://NewsReader.Com/ I am a fan of the truth and logic. whats wrong with that? I read the other responses but they make no sense but Franks does because it is well thought. |
I have to agree with you Frank. This 'John' comes on this board
denigrating CBer's and is now a know all see all. "John Smith" made it to my ignore list. When I reach one of "his" posts, I change to sort by user and click all the dots next to that name. I then switch back to thread view. There are a few others that deserve this treatment as well. It cuts back the clutter in my newsreader! |
|
Yes it will hurt the radio.....
Yes it will decrease the range..... -- Mad-Dog "driver42" wrote in message 5... Hi, If I'm not able to set the SWR in the trucks that I drive will it hurt the radio or just give me decreased range? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com