|
|
(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. |
Jim,
Answer: 1) Click on 'Message' 2) Click on 'Block Sender' 3) Click on 'Yes' to confirm Works wonders. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI "N2EY" wrote in message om... (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. |
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... 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? Yep, I just don't get it at all. I think they're the ones that got snookered. Kim W5TIT |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
... 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 Well Charlie, they probably think that an antenna tuner will solve their ignorance. Heh heh! Maybe they should read the specs on that tuner's data sheet, then get into the books to see what they're actually attempting to match! With a little luck they'll get a signal to actually radiate, a little sometimes, between arcs inside that tuner. Hope it's not the internal autotuner in their high$$ rig! Dick Well, DICK, hopefully you can get an antenna to radiate because I'm pretty darned sure nothing else is radiating there. I have used my DXCC antenna many, many times over the years on MARS nets, with a Yaesu transceiver with automatic tuner. Now, maybe it's not a "constructed" dipole, but it was used nevertheless. Also, what's the big deal with a 1/4 wave dipole? Dipole simply means design of the antenna...granted, usually for 1/2 wave, which, as you know, doesn't require a groundplane. But there is no reason a 1/2 wave dipole could not be constructed. Also, perhaps you could tell me the resonant frequency of a long-wire antenna? Eh? Kim W5TIT |
In article , Bob Brock
writes: On 06 Sep 2003 11:22:30 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Bob Brock writes: On 5 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0700, (N2EY) wrote: Bob Brock wrote in message m... On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Bob Brock writes: On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: I think that they should know what all those nifty buttons actually do. That's a problem, because many rigs have so many features and menus that almost nobody knows *all* of them. But if you're talking about basic operation and operating practice, there's no reason it couldn't be done. They should know how to enter into a conversation. A list of "critical tasks" and "non-critical tasks" should be developed and a person not be licensed until they can actually show competence in those tasks. Those are the types of issues that I'd like to see the ham community discussing rather than the endless code/no-code debate that detracts from everything else. Actually, this very idea was discussed here over 5 years ago. Here's what I proposed: (BEGIN QUOTE): It seems to me that just dropping the code test would remove the last vestige of skills testing from the licensing process. Perhaps the code test should be replaced by a real practical operating test. Such a test could work like this: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs are connected to dummy loads which are located adjacent to each other. (The idea is to permit a "contact" from one rig to the other, without putting much of a signal on the air). The testee and a VE sit at one rig, and another VE sits at the other. The testee is given a sealed envelope and a few minutes to get familiar with the operation of the rig. (The operating instructions for the rig would be available at any time). When the actual test begins, the testee opens the sealed envelope and a timer is started. Inside the envelope are a set of instructions telling the testee to go to a specific frequency and call the VE at the other rig, make contact, and send the enclosed formal message. The VE at the other end has a similar sealed envelope, but with a different message, which is to be received by the testee. The idea is to test the actual radio operating skills of the testee under controlled conditions. There would be a time limit, too. (That's what the timer is for). The testee would have the choice of CW, voice or a digital mode for the test. Time limits and exact instructions would vary with the mode and the class of license being tested. Higher class tests could have shorter time limits, longer messages, and more complicated instructions, such as having to change frequency at a certain point in the contact, having to pick the frequency from a list that includes "wrong choices", etc. Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing or misspelled, that's a mistake. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are used, each deviation is a mistake. If the time limit is exceeded, each minute over the limit is a mistake. Exceed a certain number of mistakes and the test is failed. Asking for a repeat of a missed word would NOT be a mistake. Typical exams (but not the exact exams themselves) would be available as study guides. Audiotapes of typical tests could be used for study as well. Yes, it's a bit more complex than a straight code receiving test, and requires some equipment and two VEs to conduct it. (Perhaps the VE at the testee's position isn't really needed). But it could be done quite easily, and in such a way as to test real operating skills. The rigs used need not have lots of features, and QRP power levels would be more than adequate. Or a "rig simulator" that's really a gussied-up intercom could be used. Is there any real reason such testing could not be done? Is it expecting too much that a prospective ham be able to pass such a test? I think not! (END QUOTE) That description was part of a longer post from June 19, 1998. For the original, see: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...892%40ladder03. news.aol.com&output=gplain Note that one of the features of the test is that the person being tested gets to choose the mode used. Those who like Morse best can be tested using that mode, etc. I reposted the idea a few times but always got the same response from the nocodetest folks: Opposition to the idea of ANY form of practical skills test. Well, I guess I'm an exception to the rule. I'd support exactly something along those lines. That makes two of us. Have them set up a very simple radio into dummy loads and actually have a conversation. Better yet, have them handle a simple message so there is something measurable and related to public service communication. All of the name calling and false accusations from both sides makes us look silly to those who read it. That's true. I'm really glad that it will be ending soon. You know something we don't? FCC has been extremely slow in acting on various proposals over the past few years. The 2000 restructuring took almost two years, start-to-finish. Frankly, given the FCC's words in the Report and Order to 98-143 (the restructuring), I'm surprised that Element 1 is still in place. FCC said there was "no regulatory purpose" for code testing *except* meeting the treaty requirement. Treaty requirement is gone. Based on its own logic, FCC now has no reason at all to keep Element 1. Yet they are going through the whole NPRM cycle again. Why? Could it be they have changed their minds? However the issue is decided, I doubt that all of the name calling and false accusations will stop. You should see some of the names I've been called for daring to disagree with some folks, and for pointing out their mistakes in fact, logic and math. Perhaps then, we can move on to more important issues. Maybe - but given the resistance to my idea of 5+ years ago, I doubt it. I don't know. Although the posts to the ng haven't changed over the years, people and positions do change. Maybe. From what I've seen, there's more change in the posts than in people's positions. I've had a few people post dissatisfaction with the knowledge level of the current testing and they seem to agree that the current tests allow people to be licensed that don't know protocols or even how to set up and operate the equipment. 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. 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. Your proposal sounds like a step in the right direction. Thanks - but I imagine that W5YI and NCVEC would oppose it even more bitterly than the code test. I'm sure that not everyone will agree with performance based testing in addition to a written test. That's an understatement. Google up the responses I got from the above post. Some of 'em aren't pretty. However, perhaps a consensus could be reached. Even if that happens, the FCC then has to be sold on the idea. If a consensus was reached in the ham coumunity that testing was inadequate at its current level, would selling the idea to them really be that hard? Probably - but I doubt we'd ever get a consensus anyway. FCC is into deregulation; their actions speak louder than words. Afterall, it hams who would have to bear the burden of administering the additional test requirements. And they complain loudest of all. Look at the NCVEC petition - they talk about the code tests being a burden on the VEs. Huh? Play the tape, check the answer sheets for 7 or more correct fillins or 25 correct characters. If that's a "burden", what do you think NCVEC will say about having to have an actual simulated QSO? I don't think that anyone wants to see people licensed to operate radios who don't know the basics of setting them up and using them within established protocols. You'll get no argument from me on that idea, but you WILL get one from other folks over whose protocols should be followed and what constitutes following them. So, how would we go about starting a movement towards perfromance based testing? I would be willing to do what I could to help. You could start by writing up a petition to the FCC suggesting replacement of the code test with an operating skills test. Use my description if you want, modiufy it, whatever. There are 8 petitions now, what could one more hurt? The big stumbling blocks that I see a - NCVEC will have a fit. - Some hams will too. - You need an objective testing and marking method that minimizes the need for VE judgement - You need to convince FCC that we really *need* this sort of test, and that serious problems will result without it. (That's the toughest part.) Good luck! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: Then what do you think that they test for? Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are nothing more than jumping thru hoops In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the correct answer then? Both the pool AND answers are published. Let's take a typical question: What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz? Of what wavelength???? That is an important factor in the equation. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Bob Brock" wrote in message ... On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: Then what do you think that they test for? Oh I know what they Test for, and it is not knowledge,it is nothing then Memozizing some Q&As that have no meaning to the test taker. The writtens are nothing more than jumping thru hoops In other words, since they provide the question pool, you don't think that people have to learn the answers in order to correctly answer the questions? How do you think that they figure out how to fill in the correct answer then? Both the pool AND answers are published. Let's take a typical question: What is the length of a dipole for 14.240Mhz? Of what wavelength???? That is an important factor in the equation. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. .. --. .... - . .-. ... Congratulations you have just proven you have NO CONCEPT of what was asked. Does 468 divided by Frequency in Mhz mean anything to you? Dan/W4NTI |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked "How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied, "It doesn't matter..." 73, Jeff KH6O -- Operations Specialist 1st, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
|
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. then "Bob Brock" wrote in message Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about 39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds So Bob, go ahead and build a "1/4 wave dipole" and tell us how it performs! "Dipole" *is* defined as half-wave, for within any half-wave segment, there are two (di-) voltage/current poles. You cannot have a "1/4 wave dipole." When that term is used (such as in your Google search), they're really refering to each of the two elements as being 1/4 wave- length each, and 1/4 * 2 = 1/2. I did the same search. You don't get anywhere as many hits (104) when searching on 1/4 wave dipole. Interestingly enough, you get some where people are asking if a poster *really* meant 1/2 wave dipole. If you just type in 1/4 wave dipole, you'll get hits on 1/4 1/4 wave. 1/4 wave dipole, wave, and dipole. I don't doubt that you could get around 39,000 hits with that broad a search. At best, it is a misnomer, at worst, a pretty poor antenna. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Jeffrey Herman wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked "How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied, "It doesn't matter..." Jeffrey, the answer is "thousands, and growing every day." It's too bad that a person that refuses to give out even the basic numbers of devotees decides to ask for a numerical breakdown of a rival groups numbers. Assuming his accounting methods are acceptable, the answer is thousands, and growing every day. - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:58:46 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Jeffrey Herman wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. then "Bob Brock" wrote in message Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about 39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds So Bob, go ahead and build a "1/4 wave dipole" and tell us how it performs! "Dipole" *is* defined as half-wave, for within any half-wave segment, there are two (di-) voltage/current poles. You cannot have a "1/4 wave dipole." When that term is used (such as in your Google search), they're really refering to each of the two elements as being 1/4 wave- length each, and 1/4 * 2 = 1/2. I did the same search. You don't get anywhere as many hits (104) when searching on 1/4 wave dipole. Interestingly enough, you get some where people are asking if a poster *really* meant 1/2 wave dipole. If you just type in 1/4 wave dipole, you'll get hits on 1/4 1/4 wave. 1/4 wave dipole, wave, and dipole. I don't doubt that you could get around 39,000 hits with that broad a search. At best, it is a misnomer, at worst, a pretty poor antenna. - Mike KB3EIA - I provided a working link and cut/pasted the search results. Why didn't you just click on the link? If you had, your search results would have been exactly the same. Try searching the web and not the ng's. |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:04:18 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Jeffrey Herman wrote: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked "How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied, "It doesn't matter..." Jeffrey, the answer is "thousands, and growing every day." It's too bad that a person that refuses to give out even the basic numbers of devotees decides to ask for a numerical breakdown of a rival groups numbers. Assuming his accounting methods are acceptable, the answer is thousands, and growing every day. - Mike KB3EIA - The code requirement is dead, so numbers don't matter. |
Bob Brock wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:58:46 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Jeffrey Herman wrote: "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave DIPOLE. then "Bob Brock" wrote in message Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about 39,100. Search took 0.17 seconds So Bob, go ahead and build a "1/4 wave dipole" and tell us how it performs! "Dipole" *is* defined as half-wave, for within any half-wave segment, there are two (di-) voltage/current poles. You cannot have a "1/4 wave dipole." When that term is used (such as in your Google search), they're really refering to each of the two elements as being 1/4 wave- length each, and 1/4 * 2 = 1/2. I did the same search. You don't get anywhere as many hits (104) when searching on 1/4 wave dipole. Interestingly enough, you get some where people are asking if a poster *really* meant 1/2 wave dipole. If you just type in 1/4 wave dipole, you'll get hits on 1/4 1/4 wave. 1/4 wave dipole, wave, and dipole. I don't doubt that you could get around 39,000 hits with that broad a search. At best, it is a misnomer, at worst, a pretty poor antenna. - Mike KB3EIA - I provided a working link and cut/pasted the search results. Why didn't you just click on the link? If you had, your search results would have been exactly the same. Try searching the web and not the ng's. Against my better judgement, I'll communicate with you. Re-read my post. Explain how a search engine works. Explain how I can get 104 hits vs your 39,000. Explain how you can get 39,000 hits. I got 24,500 hits when I did it your way, but those numbers can change. Think about how being specific in search params will give you more relevent results than just typing in the words, which will give you many many hits on sometimes only one of the words. Oh I forgot, you don't have to explain. But that won't make you correct, either. - mike KB3EIA - |
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:57:21 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Bob Brock wrote: Try searching the web and not the ng's. Against my better judgement, I'll communicate with you. Re-read my post. Explain how a search engine works. Explain how I can get 104 hits vs your 39,000. Explain how you can get 39,000 hits. I got 24,500 hits when I did it your way, but those numbers can change. Click on the link. I did and here is what I got...BTW, this is copy and paste, so it's exactly what's there. ----------------------------- Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about 38,900. Search took 0.20 seconds ----------------------------- Someone is lying and anyone who wants to click on the link can tell who. BTW, I found five sites that list 1/4 wave dipoles and one site that lists a 3/4 wave dipole in the first ten listed. Think about how being specific in search params will give you more relevent results than just typing in the words, which will give you many many hits on sometimes only one of the words. Oh I forgot, you don't have to explain. But that won't make you correct, either. - mike KB3EIA - No, since I'm already correct and have documented it, there is no need for me to prove anything. You know, I have better things to do right now than to click on a link that I've already provided to show that it says the same thing that it said when I posted it. Plonk for now. I may take you back out when I get caught up on things, but I really don' have time to deal with liars right now. |
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 17:47:08 GMT, "Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this
mindspring.com wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:04:18 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Jeffrey Herman wrote: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote: How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick? Geez, talk about a page from history! It was years ago that I posed almost the same question to you, Carl, except I asked "How many members of NCI are licensed" to which you replied, "It doesn't matter..." Jeffrey, the answer is "thousands, and growing every day." It's too bad that a person that refuses to give out even the basic numbers of devotees decides to ask for a numerical breakdown of a rival groups numbers. Assuming his accounting methods are acceptable, the answer is thousands, and growing every day. - Mike KB3EIA - The code requirement is dead, so numbers don't matter. How is it dead? The FCC has not changed the rules. And until they do. Morse code is still a requirement for ARS operation on HF. Dan/W4NTI If you can't see the handwriting on the wall, that's your problem..not mine. |
Bob Brock wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:57:21 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: Bob Brock wrote: Try searching the web and not the ng's. Against my better judgement, I'll communicate with you. Re-read my post. Explain how a search engine works. Explain how I can get 104 hits vs your 39,000. Explain how you can get 39,000 hits. I got 24,500 hits when I did it your way, but those numbers can change. Click on the link. I did and here is what I got...BTW, this is copy and paste, so it's exactly what's there. ----------------------------- Searched the web for 1/4 wave dipole. Results 1 - 10 of about 38,900. Search took 0.20 seconds ----------------------------- Someone is lying and anyone who wants to click on the link can tell who. BTW, I found five sites that list 1/4 wave dipoles and one site that lists a 3/4 wave dipole in the first ten listed. Think about how being specific in search params will give you more relevent results than just typing in the words, which will give you many many hits on sometimes only one of the words. Oh I forgot, you don't have to explain. But that won't make you correct, either. - mike KB3EIA - No, since I'm already correct and have documented it, there is no need for me to prove anything. You know, I have better things to do right now than to click on a link that I've already provided to show that it says the same thing that it said when I posted it. Plonk for now. I may take you back out when I get caught up on things, but I really don' have time to deal with liars right now. Perhaps if Mr. Brock does have me killfiled, someone could explain to him that if he wants to find relevant hits on 1/4 wave dipole, he can just put the words in quote marks on Yahoo or Google. Then the search will return relevant hits, rather than simple occurrences of the individual words, along with the hits wanted. There is no doubt in my mind that he got those 39,500 hits. It is symptomatic of poor database searching technique. His 39,500 hit number, for all it's sound and fury, signifies nothing. Then please tell him I will be happy to be filtered from his mail forever if possible. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bob Brock wrote:
If you can't accept the fact that people build, sell, and buy 1/4 wave dipoles for use in UHF, get over it. Just don't try to make stuff up and post it. Again, by definition "dipole" means two current or voltage poles; it does not refer to the number of elements of the antenna. You can't have two (di-) current or voltage poles in just a 1/4-wave segment. Calling it such doesn't make it so. It takes a 1/2-wavelength for two (di-) such poles to appear. Jeff KH6O -- Operations Specialist 1st, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
In article ,
Mike Coslo wrote: Perhaps if Mr. Brock does have me killfiled, someone could explain to him that if he wants to find relevant hits on 1/4 wave dipole, he can just put the words in quote marks on Yahoo or Google. Then the search will return relevant hits, rather than simple occurrences of the individual words, along with the hits wanted. There is no doubt in my mind that he got those 39,500 hits. It is symptomatic of poor database searching technique. His 39,500 hit number, for all it's sound and fury, signifies nothing. Then please tell him I will be happy to be filtered from his mail forever if possible. - Mike KB3EIA - What's really scary, Mike, is that folks like Bob believe everything they read on the web. A manufacturer might advertise a misnomer such as "1/4-wave dipole" and someone like Bob believes such an item can really exist, when in fact "1/4-wave" and "dipole" are contradictions. Jeff KH6O -- Operations Specialist 1st, U.S. Coast Guard Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System |
|
On 13 Sep 2003 05:26:01 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
wrote: In article , Mike Coslo wrote: Perhaps if Mr. Brock does have me killfiled, someone could explain to him that if he wants to find relevant hits on 1/4 wave dipole, he can just put the words in quote marks on Yahoo or Google. Then the search will return relevant hits, rather than simple occurrences of the individual words, along with the hits wanted. There is no doubt in my mind that he got those 39,500 hits. It is symptomatic of poor database searching technique. His 39,500 hit number, for all it's sound and fury, signifies nothing. Then please tell him I will be happy to be filtered from his mail forever if possible. - Mike KB3EIA - What's really scary, Mike, is that folks like Bob believe everything they read on the web. A manufacturer might advertise a misnomer such as "1/4-wave dipole" and someone like Bob believes such an item can really exist, when in fact "1/4-wave" and "dipole" are contradictions. Jeff KH6O When about 10-15,000 of them get together and do it, it does give it some creedence. What I find really ironic is that, instead of simply providing adefinition, someone would dance all around it and tell lies. Here, let me do your homework for you... http://rhyme.lycos.com/r/d?u=dipole_antenna http://dict.die.net/dipole%20antenna/ http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dicti...dipole+antenna There, do you feel better now??? The way the discussions go is that if you make an assertion, it's up to you to support it. I'm getting damn sick and tired of having to do you guys homework for you. |
|
|
"Bob Brock" wrote in message
... On 13 Sep 2003 04:50:38 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman) wrote: Bob Brock wrote: If you can't accept the fact that people build, sell, and buy 1/4 wave dipoles for use in UHF, get over it. Just don't try to make stuff up and post it. Again, by definition "dipole" means two current or voltage poles; it does not refer to the number of elements of the antenna. You can't have two (di-) current or voltage poles in just a 1/4-wave segment. Calling it such doesn't make it so. It takes a 1/2-wavelength for two (di-) such poles to appear. Jeff KH6O You must have replied to the wrong post. But out of curiousity, how many current or voltage poles is a "J" as in J-pole. *GASP*!!!! Bob! Don't get them going with the word i-m-p-e-d-a-n-c-e!!!! ; ) Kim W5TIT |
You must have replied to the wrong post. But out of curiousity, how
many current or voltage poles is a "J" as in J-pole. You Morron a J-Pole is a half wave ant , not a quarter wave. It appears that Brock knows nothing about ants, my guess is hes nothing more then a Dumb Down CBplusser Knuckle Dragger, at Im sure a member of NCI |
"Brian" wrote in message m... (N2EY) wrote in message ... There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing, saying the Tech test is too hard. The Tech test And privs are insane for an entry level license. 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 |
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:35:53 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Bob Brock" wrote in message .. . On 13 Sep 2003 04:50:38 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman) wrote: Bob Brock wrote: If you can't accept the fact that people build, sell, and buy 1/4 wave dipoles for use in UHF, get over it. Just don't try to make stuff up and post it. Again, by definition "dipole" means two current or voltage poles; it does not refer to the number of elements of the antenna. You can't have two (di-) current or voltage poles in just a 1/4-wave segment. Calling it such doesn't make it so. It takes a 1/2-wavelength for two (di-) such poles to appear. Jeff KH6O You must have replied to the wrong post. But out of curiousity, how many current or voltage poles is a "J" as in J-pole. *GASP*!!!! Bob! Don't get them going with the word i-m-p-e-d-a-n-c-e!!!! ; ) Kim W5TIT ROTFLMAO... |
Yep, and I didn't see it specifying whether it was a half-wave or not.
Regardless of the fact I DO know how to calculate it or any fraction of a full wavelength. If the question was "What is the length of a quarter-wave dipole for 14.240Mhz?" or "What is the length of a half-wave dipole for 14.240Mhz?" or whatever then I would have answered right of the bat. Yeah, it is simple to do that formula, but to give the answer would be hard unless you gave ALL of the possibilities such as below: one-sixteenth wave @ 14.240Mhz = 4.108146 one-eighth wave @ 14.240Mhz = 8.216292 three-sixteenth wave @ 14.240Mhz = 12.324438 quarter-wave @ 14.240Mhz = 16.432584 five-sixteenth wave @ 14.240Mhz = 20.54073 three-eighths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 24.648876 seven-sixteenths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 28.757022 half-wave @ 14.240Mhz = 32.8651685 nine-sixteenths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 36.973314 five-eighths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 41.08146 eleven-sixteenths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 45.189606 three-quarter wave @ 14.240Mhz = 49.297752 thirteen-sixteenths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 53.405898 seven-eigths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 57.514044 fifteen-sixteenths wave @ 14.240Mhz = 61.62219 full wave dipole @ 14.240Mhz = 65.730337 All of the above answers would be correct (barring accidental typos), but the original poster of the question in the first place DID NOT SPECIFY. See, it is important, unless you consider ALL antennas to be exactly one-half wavelength in length. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... As you know from studying for your Technician license (and the material also appears in the General study guide), you can calculate the length of your half-wave dipole directly knowing only the frequency. The equation is: Length in feet = 468 divided by the frequency in megahertz. Also from these same study guides, you can calculate the wavelength by the following equation. Wavelength in meters = 300 divided by the frequency in megahertz (of course if you wish you can then convert the answer to feet). Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
Kim, within a year the only debate in here about CW will be about the consequences of it no longer being required. The whining will be terrible for awhile, but like the no-code tech discussions, they will eventually disappear. Ooooh, huge, huge miscalcualtion, Brock. You give these guys way too much credit. These guys have memories like an elephant, and they will carrry the debate to their graves. Which is why I say that the only cure are the actuarial tables. They are as unyielding as the PCTA, till the bitter end. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com