RadioBanter - FISTS petition to the FCC

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - FISTS petition to the FCC (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/26834-re-fists-petition-fcc.html)

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
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.......

You were taught incorrectly, Ryan.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...
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.

Now that's an entry level license.

I have no objection to reducing the technical level of questions if the
privileges are reduced correspondingly. But we both that's not in the
cards.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Well, DICK, make that dick, matching is the name of the game with nearly
any
"wire" type antenna, so you must be too dumbed down to pick up on that
concept. It doesn't matter the matching, it was said first there was no
such thing as a 1/4 wave antenna. Then, when proof positive was given,
the
*cough* superior hams (such as you in your mind) said "it would never
work."
Then, when proof positive was given, all that's being done now is
sneering.

So, superior ham(s) et al, try again....

This is a strange one to argue about. And I make no claims of superiority.

That there can be a 1/n antenna that consists of 2 equal sections is not
the argument, or at least it shouldn't be.

This type of antenna can be any fraction, even 25/32's (the fraction of
a quart in a Fosters lager "oil can") How they will perform is another
matter.

On a ARS test, the likelyhood of the question "design a 1/4 wave dipole
would no more likely come up than my 25/32 wave dipole. they will want
you to design an antenna that has a particular impedence at the desired
frequency. What is the impedence of a 1/4 wave dipole?

My antenna is 96 feet total length, cut as a general purpose dipole. I
use a tuner and ladder line to match impedence with my transmitter. But
I would never name it a 1/n dipole.

- Mike KB3EIA -

You can name it (or not) anything you like. I have an Alpha-Delta DXCC and
it can be used as a 1/4 (or "shortened as they say) wave dipole on 80M. It
works great and was the antenna I used at this time of year when MARS freqs
are beginning to get real noisy. Go to a longwire, go to the sloper, go to
the A-99 and the noise floor was just enough to make everyone noncopyable.

Go to the AD and everything cleared up. No one ever had a bad thing to say
about signal, so I go by the non-reports.

The point, in this debate--once again--is that there are people saying
there's no such thing, it'd never work, etc., etc. There are people here
saying not only that there is such a thing but that there are websites with
technical discussions on the 1/4 wave dipole (for all kinds of bands) and
there are people here using them and telling the results. But, the ones who
are using them and have results with them, and who have provided the
websites with technical discussions are getting told--once again--that they
are dumbed down.

Sayin' it don't make it so. And, since that is the mentality that often
develops with any kind of attempt at anything remotely "real" ham radio,
then that is why we "dumbed down" hams don't even regard this newsgroup as a
place to try such conversation.

Kim W5TIT

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
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.

Don't confuse her with Novice physics Mike, she's never had physics
and doesn't know a NEC deck from a sun deck.

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

Will work like a Cantenna works.

- Mike KB3EIA -

The point, in this debate--once again--is that there are people saying
there's no such thing, it'd never work, etc., etc. There are people here
saying not only that there is such a thing but that there are websites with
technical discussions on the 1/4 wave dipole (for all kinds of bands) and
there are people here using them and telling the results. But, the ones who
are using them and have results with them, and who have provided the
websites with technical discussions are getting told--once again--that they
are dumbed down.

Sayin' it don't make it so. And, since that is the mentality that often
develops with any kind of attempt at anything remotely "real" ham radio,
then that is why we "dumbed down" hams don't even regard this newsgroup as a
place to try such conversation.

Kim W5TIT

I agree with TIT, all No-Codes should start using 1/4 Wave dipoles ASAP. I
think that should put a halt to worrying about the No-Coders getting on HF.
Tell you what, this one time, and one time only, I will be a nice guy to
No-Coders, and provide the length of a 1/4 Wave dipole for any Freq they
choose, as long as they promise to use it .

Will work like a Cantenna works.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike stop telling them that, let them use 1/4 Wave Dipoles all the time.

Kim W5TIT wrote:

You can name it (or not) anything you like. I have an Alpha-Delta DXCC and
it can be used as a 1/4 (or "shortened as they say) wave dipole on 80M. It
works great and was the antenna I used at this time of year when MARS freqs
are beginning to get real noisy. Go to a longwire, go to the sloper, go to
the A-99 and the noise floor was just enough to make everyone noncopyable.

Kim, I went to the web pages of Alpha-delta. On 80 meters the antenna
uses something they call an ISO-RES coil. This is an inductor that they
use to as they put it, "approximate" a half wave dipole. While this goes
up in a shorter space, it is nothing more than a dipole version of the
coil at the bottom of a mobile antenna, and used for the same reason.

They write:

The DX-CC utilizes the exclusive ALPHA DELTA ISO-RES coil principle for
shortening and multibanding an antenna. The ISO-RES is not a trap, due
to the fact that there isn’t a trap capacitor being used. Thus, the
DX-CC is a much lower "Q" antenna than one that would be constructed
using true traps! This allows the DX-CC to be broader in bandwidth than
is possible with a trap-type antenna of equal size. The lower "Q" also
allows the user to employ a moderate range antenna tuner (matchbox) for
achieving resonance and min. SWR anywhere within the covered frequency
bands.

But it's just a coil. The antenna should work okay. Nothing special, but
you could work the world if you were patient.

Go to the AD and everything cleared up. No one ever had a bad thing to say
about signal, so I go by the non-reports.

The point, in this debate--once again--is that there are people saying
there's no such thing, it'd never work, etc., etc. There are people here
saying not only that there is such a thing but that there are websites with
technical discussions on the 1/4 wave dipole (for all kinds of bands) and
there are people here using them and telling the results. But, the ones who
are using them and have results with them, and who have provided the
websites with technical discussions are getting told--once again--that they
are dumbed down.

I read them too Kim. what they say is that they use coils to load these
antennas. that they take up a quarter wave of space is irrelevant. When
there is a loading coil, call it ISO-RES or a "spiral coil" it is part
of the antenna, and adds it's length to the equation.

Sayin' it don't make it so.

You're right. Saying a half wave antenna stuffed into a quarter wave
space with coils does not make it a quarter wave antenna.

And, since that is the mentality that often
develops with any kind of attempt at anything remotely "real" ham radio,

Wrong battle, Kim! I know you don't like Dick or Dan or some of the
others in this discussion. But they are *not* wrong on this one. As I
pointed out in my quick antenna design I did yesterday, a dipole antenna
of a quarter wavelength long would have almost infinite SWR, a high
takeoff angle, and just wouldn't work very well. This is not a
personality issue.

then that is why we "dumbed down" hams don't even regard this
newsgroup as a place to try such conversation.

And I would be willing to bet that if approached nicely, lots of these
guys and gals would be happy to share their knowledge. It always worked
for me.

I'm a "dumbed down" Ham. I didn't get my license until 1999, and didn't
learn morse Code until after they reduced the requirement to 5 wpm. And
I've managed. Oh, there have been a very few that have been less than
cordial at the start. But I'm such a nice guy that they all come around
after a while and just think I'm great! (HAR)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"WA8ULX" wrote in message
...
Will work like a Cantenna works.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike stop telling them that, let them use 1/4 Wave Dipoles all the time.

Good idea. Keep the QRM down that way.

Dan/W4NTI

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I'm a "dumbed down" Ham. I didn't get my license until 1999, and didn't
learn morse Code until after they reduced the requirement to 5 wpm. And
I've managed. Oh, there have been a very few that have been less than
cordial at the start. But I'm such a nice guy that they all come around
after a while and just think I'm great! (HAR)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Sorry you see yourself as "dumbed down." I don't. I am no different than
anyone else who's got a license--because I passed the requirements for the
license I've got, and they did too.

Anyway, the web has the info; and you're right about the DXCC, I went back
and read it. Guess the folks who say they are testing and using and pushing
the performance of 1/4 wave dipoles should give up the concept of a
fundamental of amateur radio: experiementation.

Kim W5TIT