|
|
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: Perhaps FCC will remove all code testing for amateur licenses. I would not be at all surprised if they did. Or perhaps FCC will retain some form of code testing for one or more license classes, as has been recommended by W3BE and others. One thing is clear, though: There is no "OVERWHELMING CLEAR CONSENSUS" involved. Yes there is. You just can't stand it so you whine and carry on in denial. Don't make such a scene in public with your denial whining. It spoils your image as a long-time superior amateur radio person. The denial whining is yours, Lennie. Mostly from not having been accepted as the expert you perceive yourself as being. The fact still remains that there is a large number of people in and out of Amateur Radio who see Morse Code testing as important and relevent to AMATEUR Radio...Not Military, Public Service or Commercial...A FACT that YOU seem to have a hard time differentiating. That difficulty stems from your gross lack of experience IN Amateur Radio as anything other than an armchair quarterback. Steve, K4YZ |
JJ wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote: Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] A dipole ANTENNA refers to a wire type having two elements of wires, balanced-fed from the center with RF voltage in opposition. The length of this dipole antenna may be ANY length, from near-infinitesimal (fractional wavelength) to many wavelengths. The radiation pattern of the dipole antenna will vary based on many factors: length relative to wavelength, distance above ground or other imperfect conductor being the two most affecting patterns. Len is correct, dipole simply means two separate elements (di means two). A dipole of a certain length will be a half wavelength at xx frequency, a quarter wavelength at yy frequency and a full wavelength at zz frequency and so on. Sure enough. a dipole can be anything at all as long as it has those two separate elements. But do you think that is what they meant? Is the test going to ask you to design a dipole that won't work very well? If I saw that question on a test,(design a quarter wave dipole) I would assume it was a trick question. That a quarter length dipole can exist is in no doubt. Most of them are a quarter length at some frequency. But this was a mistake, and not an uncommon one. Its okay, people do that once in a while! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
OK jj, kindly give us ONE example of a 1/4 wave dipole..... As long as you don't insist that it work very well, it can be done. - Mike KB3EIA - |
JJ wrote:
Which means it is still a dipole but since it is being used on 80 meters it is now a 1/4 wavelength dipole. How well is it going to work, JJ? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... Mike Coslo wrote: JJ wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] A dipole ANTENNA refers to a wire type having two elements of wires, balanced-fed from the center with RF voltage in opposition. The length of this dipole antenna may be ANY length, from near-infinitesimal (fractional wavelength) to many wavelengths. The radiation pattern of the dipole antenna will vary based on many factors: length relative to wavelength, distance above ground or other imperfect conductor being the two most affecting patterns. Len is correct, dipole simply means two separate elements (di means two). A dipole of a certain length will be a half wavelength at xx frequency, a quarter wavelength at yy frequency and a full wavelength at zz frequency and so on. Sure enough. a dipole can be anything at all as long as it has those two separate elements. But do you think that is what they meant? Is the test going to ask you to design a dipole that won't work very well? If I saw that question on a test,(design a quarter wave dipole) I would assume it was a trick question. That a quarter length dipole can exist is in no doubt. Most of them are a quarter length at some frequency. But this was a mistake, and not an uncommon one. Its okay, people do that once in a while! 8^) The point is, Why would anyone deliberately construct a 1/4 wave dipole? Since they woiuldn't for obvious reasons, the fact that a dipole designed for a certain frequency just happens to be 1/4 wavelength at half that frequency doesn't automatically make it a 1/4 wave dipole. An antenna is what it was designed to be, not what some wag-troll declares. Sure, anyone *could* construct a 1/4 wave dipole, if he was that ignorant. No one does. So there aren't any around. Good 'ol DICK and the World of Absolutes. Kim W5TIT |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:52:27 GMT, "charlesb"
wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... The point is, Why would anyone deliberately construct a 1/4 wave dipole? Since they woiuldn't for obvious reasons, the fact that a dipole designed for a certain frequency just happens to be 1/4 wavelength at half that frequency doesn't automatically make it a 1/4 wave dipole. An antenna is what it was designed to be, not what some wag-troll declares. Sure, anyone *could* construct a 1/4 wave dipole, if he was that ignorant. No one does. So there aren't any around. Well now you've let the cat out of the bag, Dick. Somebody had convinced this Troll to use a 1/4 wave dipole, and now here you go, letting them know that they've been snookered. They just couldn't understand why the radio kept frying its finals and they never could seem to get a good signal out, even when the radio did work.... Now they know why! - And its all your fault! Party pooper. Charles Brabham, N5PVL What? Never heard of an antenna tuner? |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 06:06:45 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote: JJ wrote: Len Over 21 wrote: Incorrect. The word "dipole" refers to anything with two elements and a polarity. [a "monopole" is a single element with no polarity] A dipole ANTENNA refers to a wire type having two elements of wires, balanced-fed from the center with RF voltage in opposition. The length of this dipole antenna may be ANY length, from near-infinitesimal (fractional wavelength) to many wavelengths. The radiation pattern of the dipole antenna will vary based on many factors: length relative to wavelength, distance above ground or other imperfect conductor being the two most affecting patterns. Len is correct, dipole simply means two separate elements (di means two). A dipole of a certain length will be a half wavelength at xx frequency, a quarter wavelength at yy frequency and a full wavelength at zz frequency and so on. Sure enough. a dipole can be anything at all as long as it has those two separate elements. But do you think that is what they meant? Is the test going to ask you to design a dipole that won't work very well? If I saw that question on a test,(design a quarter wave dipole) I would assume it was a trick question. That a quarter length dipole can exist is in no doubt. Most of them are a quarter length at some frequency. But this was a mistake, and not an uncommon one. Its okay, people do that once in a while! 8^) The point is, Why would anyone deliberately construct a 1/4 wave dipole? A better question would be, why would someone buy one and why would someone build one for sale? http://www.aerocomm.com/OEM/antennas.htm http://www.woken.com.tw/abroad/produ...na/antenna.htm There are probably about 15,000 more links to 1/4 wave dipoles. Google shows over 30,000 Since they woiuldn't for obvious reasons, the fact that a dipole designed for a certain frequency just happens to be 1/4 wavelength at half that frequency doesn't automatically make it a 1/4 wave dipole. An antenna is what it was designed to be, not what some wag-troll declares. For HF, you are right, for UHF, well...what can I say? Sure, anyone *could* construct a 1/4 wave dipole, if he was that ignorant. No one does. So there aren't any around. See above. When you make incorrect blanket statements like that, it make you look....well just plain foolish. Good 'ol DICK and the World of Absolutes. Kim W5TIT Dick's killfiled and his sockpuppet may be soon. |
(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: There are currently 7 petitions for Rule Making at the FCC ECFS...RM- 10781 through RM-10787. As of 10 AM Pacific Time on 8 Sep 03, those seven RMs had a total of 1,101 documents. The OVERWHELMING CLEAR CONSENSUS that comes from those comments is the abolishment of the morse code test for a US amateur radio license, any class. Not to anyone who understands what the word "consensus" means. You obviously don't. Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, defines "consensus" as follows: "1 An opinion held by all or most 2 general agreement esp. in opinion." And the operative definition is #2. An examination, observation, or random sampling of the six RMs that have Comments will show that MOST of the respondents favor eliminating the code test. MOST to an overwhelming majority. Have you tallied all of the comments into categories and computed percentages of each category? I think not. You are simply relating your impression of what you saw, and you are not an unbiased observer. "Consensus" is not the same thing as "majority". Feel free to go into denial of the obvious. Your choice. I'll leave denial, whining and complaining to you. You're much better at it. ;-) However, FCC does not require a consensus in order to make a decision. Nor does FCC have to enact rules that agree with the majority opinion. Not being an "insider" to the workings of the FCC as you imply, I simply report what FCC has done in the past. FCC did not follow majority opinion on 98-143. The majority wanted at least two code test speeds. I'll just go along with the majority opinions on RM-10781 through RM-10787 as I see them on the public-access FCC ECFS database. So if the majority want to keep code testing, you will shut up and go away? ;-) Sounds like a promise from you. Oh wait, you wrote "opinions on RM-10781 through RM-10787 as I see them". Which means you can simply deny seeing any opposing comments. And you will. ;-) Perhaps FCC will remove all code testing for amateur licenses. I would not be at all surprised if they did. Or perhaps FCC will retain some form of code testing for one or more license classes, as has been recommended by W3BE and others. One thing is clear, though: There is no "OVERWHELMING CLEAR CONSENSUS" involved. Yes there is. No, there isn't. You just can't stand it so you whine and carry on in denial. I'll leave denial, whining and carrying on to you. You're much better at it. ;-) ;-) ;-) Don't make such a scene in public with your denial whining. Your transference is showing. It spoils your image as a long-time superior amateur radio person. Why are you, who styles himself as a long-time superior nonamateur radio person, so concerned? You get awfully upset when someone disagrees with you. You just can't deal with diversity of opinion, or strong opposition to your cherished views. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com