"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


From http://www.oakvilleamateurs.net/news...s/hb200302.pdf
. . ."For most 40-meters, the most practical antenna is the 1/4-wave dipole
(66 feet in total length) up at least 33 feet in the air. If you've never
worked (or heard) Europe on 40, it's likely your dipole is too low. The
challenge grows on 80 where your quarter wave dipole (133' 9") needs to be . . .

Bilge. All of it. A 66 foot dipole is roughly a *half wave* dipole on
40M and a 134 foot dipole is roughly a *half wave* dipole on 80M. A 33
foot long center-fed dipole is a quarter wavelength long on 40M but it
is not resonant on 40M and ya better not get stupid and feed it with
coax then just plug it into the back of yer radio if ya wanna work
anybody with it.

Ask any Novice . . .

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...

Agreed! But I have also seen lots of stuff in the other direction. Check
out
the flak I'm getting from the irony-impaired over the "Smith Chart Test"
post.

Where's the irony?

The people that need convincing are the FCC, and from their actions over
the
past 25+ years it looks to me like they are not about to improve the
written
tests.

The Smith Chart could be folded into any current examination. But,
no, you want/need/can't live without a separate pass/fail exam that
will intimidate people and keep them from the ARS.

"The ARS isn't for everyone."

Brian, the "ARS" is only for radiotelegraphers. It is the Archaic
Radiotelegraphy Service.

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

I do hope you mean the test is insanely simple and the privileges insanely
high for the level of testing done.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Sorry.

The tested material is insanely technical and the privs are insanely
high for an entry level license.

Go do some historical research and see what the Novice material
consisted of, pre-Novice Enhancement.

Go do some historical research and see what the Novice *privileges* consisted
of, pre-Novice Enhancement.

Now that's an entry level license.

You said it, Brian.

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


From http://www.oakvilleamateurs.net/news...s/hb200302.pdf
. . ."For most 40-meters, the most practical antenna is the 1/4-wave dipole
(66 feet in total length) up at least 33 feet in the air. If you've never
worked (or heard) Europe on 40, it's likely your dipole is too low. The
challenge grows on 80 where your quarter wave dipole (133' 9") needs to be . . .

Bilge. All of it. A 66 foot dipole is roughly a *half wave* dipole on
40M and a 134 foot dipole is roughly a *half wave* dipole on 80M. A 33
foot long center-fed dipole is a quarter wavelength long on 40M but it
is not resonant on 40M and ya better not get stupid and feed it with
coax then just plug it into the back of yer radio if ya wanna work
anybody with it.

Ask any Novice . . .

w3rv

A Novice would tell the Extra that a 33 foot long center-fed dipole
would work great on 20M, but not for them. You see, Novices aren't
allowed on 20M.

The way I was taught to think of it was that the length (overall) is the
reference to the "length" of the dipole antenna. For example, a "half-wave"
dipole antenna would be a "quarter-wave" in length on each side of the
center insulator or center point. So a full wavelength dipole antenna would
have each "side" of the dipole being one-half wavelength each.
Oh well.......

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...
The question refered to a DIPOLE. A dipole is at least 1/2 wavelength
long.

See comments by Jeffery Herman for further clarification on a 'dipole'.

Dan/W4NTI

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Pure bull**** Dan, the formula changes for a quarter wave versus a half
wave
versus a full wave. 468/freq. in Mhz is for a half-wave dipole. The
specific for a quarter-wave is half that. And so on and so forth.

If the person specified which length they were looking for I would have
popped up the correct answer, as far out to the right of the decimal as
you
want (yes, calculated by hand, not calculator. I do it the old fashioned
way), but they didn't specify which wavelength they were looking for.



What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz?


Of what wavelength???? That is an important factor in the equation.




Congratulations you have just proven you have NO CONCEPT of what was
asked.

Does 468 divided by Frequency in Mhz mean anything to you?



Yep... for a half-wave dipole.


Dan/W4NTI

"Brian Kelly" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


From http://www.oakvilleamateurs.net/news...s/hb200302.pdf
. . ."For most 40-meters, the most practical antenna is the 1/4-wave
dipole
(66 feet in total length) up at least 33 feet in the air. If you've
never
worked (or heard) Europe on 40, it's likely your dipole is too low. The
challenge grows on 80 where your quarter wave dipole (133' 9") needs to
be . . .

Bilge. All of it. A 66 foot dipole is roughly a *half wave* dipole on
40M and a 134 foot dipole is roughly a *half wave* dipole on 80M. A 33
foot long center-fed dipole is a quarter wavelength long on 40M but it
is not resonant on 40M and ya better not get stupid and feed it with
coax then just plug it into the back of yer radio if ya wanna work
anybody with it.

Ask any Novice . . .

w3rv

Newp, sorry. A 40M 1/4-wave dipole can be made to resonate just fine and
work wonderfully. Its position to the ground and center angle have
everything to do with how well it will radiate. And, using a balun or not
doesn't change the whole concept of using a 1/4-wave dipole at any
frequency.

Whether you want them to or not, they work.

Kim W5TIT

Newp, sorry. A 40M 1/4-wave dipole can be made to resonate just fine and
work wonderfully. Its position to the ground and center angle have
everything to do with how well it will radiate. And, using a balun or not
doesn't change the whole concept of using a 1/4-wave dipole at any
frequency.

Whether you want them to or not, they work.

Kim W5TIT

Proof Positive the written is FAILURE.

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Kim W5TIT -- done with the topic, but changed to an appropriately titled
topic. After all, we wouldn't want a search on "1/4 wave dipole" to miss
all this pertinent, scientific discussion. *yeah, right*




Does a 1/4 wave ground plane antenna count? ;-)

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Newp, sorry. A 40M 1/4-wave dipole can be made to resonate just fine and
work wonderfully. Its position to the ground and center angle have
everything to do with how well it will radiate. And, using a balun or not
doesn't change the whole concept of using a 1/4-wave dipole at any
frequency.

Whether you want them to or not, they work.

A couple points here Kim.

According to the ARRL handbook 2003 edition, chapte 20 page 4:

A fundamental form of antenna is a wire whose length is half the
transmitting wavelength. It is the unit from which many more complex
forms of antennas are constructed and is known as a dipole antenna.

It goes on from there if you want more.

Next I modeled two antennas in EZNEC.

One is a half wave dipole for the middle of the 40 meter band at 7.150
mHz. Each leg of the antenna is approximately 1/4 wavelength long at
65.45 feet. This antenna models out at an SWR of a little over 1.5:1 at
the center frequency, and 2:1 at 7.3 mHz and a touch over 2 mHz at 7 mHz
with the antenna at 50 feet, the take off angle is 35 degrees. All in
all, not too bad an antenna. Most modern rigs will handle the antenna
without a tuner, or simply with their internal tuner.

Next, I modeled a quarter wave dipole for the same frequency and all
other paramaters. With the legs at 32.7 feet, the antenna now displays
somewhat near infinite SWR. The take off angle has now risen to 54 degrees.

That antenna is simply not going to work well at all.

- Mike KB3EIA -