"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Groom Lake wrote:

In Message-ID:Kl6Gc.1758$%w5.429@okepread05 posted on Mon, 5 Jul 2004
01:15:08 -0500, Rob Mills wrote:


I wasn't much into
gab but enjoyed tinkering with the equipment more than gabbing on them
so
soon sold out except for a CB I used in the truck. I drove an 18 for a
living and retired in 84 and haven't keyed anything since. RM~


Back in '66 I put one of those (pre-bucket brigade) delay boxes* with a
spring and two transducers in line with my audio and some of the locals
thought the echo was due to the enormous power level, similar to 15
meter multipath, rather than just a precursor to today's echo-mike.
*note - those delay boxes were more commonly used in conjunction with
automotive 8-track players, and would make that distinctive boing effect
whenever you hit a pothole or crossed the tracks too fast. ;-)

Well, since the topic is shifting, can anyone tell me what the echo is
supposed to do? in my travels, with my CB on, I can "hear" people with
echo mic's and I'll be darned if I can hear them well at all. Now echo
AND way overmodulated, now there's the ticket to complete
unintelligibility! (is that a word?)

- Mike -


They "think" it makes them sound better or more cool, not sure which.
Problem is, most are turned up TOO far. Some isn't so objectionable and
doesn't sound bad, even though they're not supposed to be permitted per part
95. I've heard so many that sounded like they were talking either
underwater or with a mouth full of something. REALLY SUCKED.

Being both a ham and Cber, I can't see what their sense of existence is.
Then too, you got everyone and his brother cranking up the RF out, and if
they go channel hopping, that bleeds like hell. I had to take a double take
one time when I and a friend of mine were in another CB shop, and actually
heard two CBers swear off the extra garbage and go back to stock TO HEAR!
WOW. I asked my friend if I heard right, and he agreed. I don't do any mods
to CBs or other radios unless permitted by law or needed to get the thing
working, when a unit comes to my shop. Many don't like my approach, but so
be it.

Lou

RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

- - - - - The Original Question - - - - -

Hi,

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured
in a 60's (or early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched
PCBs (like spaced plates) mounted inside a plastic bucket, and
fed with coax?

Does anyone know more details of this?

JEFF
ZL3TNV

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's much nicer and rewarding to be honestly helpful
.. . . then simply hateful.

A 'noted' Yahoo ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On 5 Jul 2004 01:26:17 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

The EH antenna has exceptional promise. It is about 10' in
diameter, requires no extensive underground radials, uses
approximately 75% less energy and is more efficient.

Hi OM,

More efficient that what, a resistor? 75% less energy than what, a
resistor?

The eh antenna is one of several of a class that take more effort for
less return than simply putting up as much wire as you have room for -
even if it is the same size as any of these "amazing!" antennas.

The absurd claims that attend the cfa/eh/fractal crowing societies is
matched by their inability to prove them except through their own
special math (never mind the S-Meter).

However, there are those who argue SWLers need poor antennas and I
suppose these fit the bill nicely. The technical equivalent of cell
phones VS string-and-dixie cups tho'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
..

On 5 Jul 2004 18:12:09 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Your ego is showing.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

Like you? ;-)

Instead of playing twenty questions:
First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?
Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?
Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?
Let's all note that it was your introduction of 6 off-topic links to
an antenna who I have already responded to against these same three
preceding questions.

Hi OM,

The eh and their ilk are on every sucker list on the web. It is a
simple matter to NOT cross post your responses if they don't shine
under examination. It is also a simply matter to either stay
on-topic, or to at least follow your own side-thread.

Respond to the technical issue, or learn to unlink your posts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

RHF wrote:
RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

A Dummy Load


Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Makes a pretty good Dummy load


Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

Acts like a Dummy load.



- - - - - The Original Question - - - - -

Hi,

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured
in a 60's (or early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched
PCBs (like spaced plates) mounted inside a plastic bucket, and
fed with coax?

Does anyone know more details of this?

JEFF
ZL3TNV

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's much nicer and rewarding to be honestly helpful
. . . then simply hateful.

Oh Gee, Richard isn't being hateful, just responding to your post
responding to the original posters msg.

The world of engineering is like this - gotta have a tough skin, yaknow?
rule 1 is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If your antenna works, no amount of his scorn will stop it.

rest snipped

- mike KB3EIA -

MC,

"If your antenna works, no amount of his scorn will stop it."

If Your Antenna Works... Your Will Hear and Be Heard [.]

Hey, What Works... WORKS ! ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Mike Coslo wrote in message
= = = ...
RHF wrote:
RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

A Dummy Load


Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Makes a pretty good Dummy load


Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

Acts like a Dummy load.



- - - - - The Original Question - - - - -

Hi,

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured
in a 60's (or early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched
PCBs (like spaced plates) mounted inside a plastic bucket, and
fed with coax?

Does anyone know more details of this?

JEFF
ZL3TNV

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's much nicer and rewarding to be honestly helpful
. . . then simply hateful.

Oh Gee, Richard isn't being hateful, just responding to your post
responding to the original posters msg.

The world of engineering is like this - gotta have a tough skin, yaknow?
rule 1 is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If your antenna works, no amount of his scorn will stop it.

rest snipped

- mike KB3EIA -
..

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Your ego is showing.

Uh oh -- worlds are colliding. Remember, rec.radio.shortwave is not a radio
newsgroup, the people there are not knowledgeable about, or interested in,
the technical aspects of radio. If it doesn't involve nasty name-calling or
wild-eyed, mouth-foaming political looniness, then it doesn't belong in
rec.radio.shortwave.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Hi,
Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a 60's (or
early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched PCBs (like spaced plates)
mounted inside a plastic bucket, and fed with coax?
Does anyone know more details of this?
JEFF
ZL3TNV


Wouldn't be a patch antenna by any chance?