|
|
"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 |
|
|
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 - |
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 - Thanks for the attempt. Probably futile. Your point on 'approach' should be payed attention to. 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 |
Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: 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. It's even worse. She has no idea how to break a sine wave down into its components, nor anything about the 360 degrees involved. Don't bring up degrees, it's a sore point for her. To say nothing about how voltage/current/impedance values appear at each point on the waveform when it is expressed as a dipole antenna, and how they interrelate. NOTHING about electrical wavelength versus linear measurement, or what that even means.. .. . . I wonder how she'd tweak the length of her "quarter wave" dipole if ya tossed her the free-space length equation and told her to crank in the Vf term for a specific radiator material . . All that is really quite simple and can be easily learned and understood with no help from NEC. It's antenna basics. Right: We were both Novices back when newbies had KNOW somthing about antennas. But with the testing requirements now in place, it won't be. **OBVIOUSLY!** I dunno who it was who made the comment in this thread but he's right, the more "quarter wave dipoles" these refugees from 27 Mhz use the less QRM we have to deal with. That antenna is simply not going to work well at all. Until she figures out how to match her 50 ohm transiciever output to several thousand ohms or more. But.....she isn't actually *using* a 1/4 wave dipole - she just thinks she is. In fact she's sure of it. She said so. Along these lines . . Field Day a few years back and one of the codeless village idiots had put up some tribander or another which I was using on 20 CW. I pointed it just south of due west from here in Philly. To check things out I quickly worked a couple Euros, an OA, a VK and a JA. Without touching the rotator control box. I put the 259B to it and the SWR was flat at about 1.7:1 from 13.5 to 14.5 Mhz. I asked him what the hell kinda "beam" this crapper was. "Well, it's not a CW antenna, it's tuned for the phone bands . . ". I figger that pile of aluminum tubing at the high end of the coax was acting as a top hat for the gawdawful lossy feedline which was doing all the radiating. Then came his buddy, another one, who stated that the reason g5rv's "work" is because they're "trap antennas". I asked him to show me the traps in the 40M g5rv we'd put up. "I don't know where they are but they have to be there somewhere." N2EY was there too . . And neither of us have been back to run FD with that pack of 21st Century nitwits. w3rv |
Brian Kelly wrote in message ... 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. A search on google on quarter wave dipole will give plenty of sources. |
A search on google on quarter wave dipole will give plenty of sources.
Good, keep using 1/4 wave Dipoles |
JJ wrote:
Brian Kelly wrote in message ... 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. A search on google on quarter wave dipole will give plenty of sources. That's where we started on this sorry thread. Go back and read the posts, including my 1/4 vs 1/2 wave dipole design done in EZNEC, and then let us know how well a 1/4 wave dipole works. Then why don't you build a 1/4 wave dipole for whatever band gets you into Central PA. We'll do a sked, and see how well your antenna works. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote in message That's where we started on this sorry thread. Go back and read the posts, including my 1/4 vs 1/2 wave dipole design done in EZNEC, and then let us know how well a 1/4 wave dipole works. Then why don't you build a 1/4 wave dipole for whatever band gets you into Central PA. We'll do a sked, and see how well your antenna works. Geeesh what a knuckle headed bunch. I never claimed that a 1/4 dipole would work as well as a 1/2 wave. However hook it to some ladder line and a tuner and you might be supprised. This all started when the so called "experts" here said there is no such thing. All I am saying is go to google and do a search and it will be obvious to the most casual observer that there is. Was I too fast for you are do I need to slow down? |
JJ wrote:
Brian Kelly wrote in message ... 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. A search on google on quarter wave dipole will give plenty of sources. It surely does but not many of them actually have anything to do with a quarter wave dipole. Many deal with comparisons between half wave dipoles and quarter wave monopoles. While it is possible to construct a quarter wave dipole, such an antenna would be quite difficult to match and would not be very efficient. Despite this, our resident airhead, Kim, has come up with a number of urls which she is positive prove her case. She even thinks she is using a quarter wave dipole at home. Kim is a ditz who knows nothing about morse code or antennas. Dave K8MN |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: That's where we started on this sorry thread. Go back and read the posts, including my 1/4 vs 1/2 wave dipole design done in EZNEC, and then let us know how well a 1/4 wave dipole works. Did you pay Roy for your copy of EZNEC or are you one of the software bootleggers who steal from Roy Lewallen's work? Do you know how to operate EZNEC properly? Then why don't you build a 1/4 wave dipole for whatever band gets you into Central PA. We'll do a sked, and see how well your antenna works. Why don't you write a Famous Paper on "Why a 1/4-Wave Dipole Will NOT Work" and have it published in RF Design magazine? [that's an electronics trade publication, usually well-respected among RF industry folks] I'd love to see the Letters to the Editor section on that one. LHA |
|
However hook it to some ladder line and a tuner
and you might be supprised Good Idea, I suggest all No-Coders use this as there Antenna of choice |
Dick Carroll wrote in message ... I would think you'd know that ladder line and a fixed dipole, while they will work well on a wide range of bands and frequencies, are not the cureall for all ills. I never said they were. Attempting to match a dipole at it's highest natural impedance point isn't even close to "good engineering practice". It isn't even good "poor engineering practice". There are antennas that just can't be adequately matched and this is one. I never said it was "good or bad engineering practrice". You can always call a dipole whatever you want it to be. A halfwave dipole at 40 meters is a quarterwave dipole at 80 meters, if you want it to be that way. But it sure isn't very smart. And don't expect it to work out. I never said it would. Some claimed there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole, I simply stated there is, I never made any claims it would be a good antenna. Gee, your reading comprehension isn't any better than some of the others. |
"WA8ULX" wrote:
Big difference, you know nothing about the subject matter, your Licenses is nothing more than a FREE WELFARE HANDOUT, that is given out to the MIND Challenged people. So, according to you, every single American who receives a ham license from this day forward is actually receiving a welfare handout because he or she is mind challenged? Hardly, Bruce. The only mind challenged people around here are those with views similar to yours. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Dick Carroll wrote:
JJ wrote: Some claimed there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole, I simply stated there is, I never made any claims it would be a good antenna. Ok. Since it was me who said there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole, I'll modify my statement to read "There is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole other than at the station of a clueless ham who knows no better". That should take care of it. Probably not! I think this thread should be forwarded to the F.C.C. as an example of why the testing requirement might be at a bit too low of a level right now. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
I think this thread should be forwarded to the F.C.C. as an example of
why the testing requirement might be at a bit too low of a level right now. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA Sad part is its worse than that, TIT is a Techplus, and doesnt have the slighest idea how a simple Dipole works. |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... All dipoles are 1/4 wave at some frequency. You just wouldn't want to use them. Thanks for proving my point, I never made ANY claims on the performance of a 1/4 wave dipole. Some said there was no such thing, I simply stated there is. So you admit the same I stated earlier in the thread, any dipole is a quarter wave at some frequency. |
Dwight Stewart wrote in message ... "WA8ULX" wrote: Big difference, you know nothing about the subject matter, your Licenses is nothing more than a FREE WELFARE HANDOUT, that is given out to the MIND Challenged people. So, according to you, every single American who receives a ham license from this day forward is actually receiving a welfare handout because he or she is mind challenged? Hardly, Bruce. The only mind challenged people around here are those with views similar to yours. You have to have a mind to be mind challenged, that leaves brucie out. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Brian Kelly wrote in message ... 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. A search on google on quarter wave dipole will give plenty of sources. That's where we started on this sorry thread. Go back and read the posts, including my 1/4 vs 1/2 wave dipole design done in EZNEC, and then let us know how well a 1/4 wave dipole works. Then why don't you build a 1/4 wave dipole for whatever band gets you into Central PA. We'll do a sked, and see how well your antenna works. - Mike KB3EIA - Why bother ? I just used my 20 meter dipole, coax fed with 50 ohm cable on 7.030. The SWR was off the scale. I then hit the tune button on my FT-1000mp and that piece of junk wouldn't tune it. So I called CQ for a couple of hours. No replies. I then called my buddy across town to fire up and give me a listen. I was S1 and almost in the noise. So, for an experiment, knowing it was just a lark because the Texas Twit said so, I hooked up my 40 meter half wave, center fed with 50 ohm coax. My signal was now 30 db over S9. Can you get the Texas Twit to explain this for me please. Dan/W4NTI |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... I think this thread should be forwarded to the F.C.C. as an example of why the testing requirement might be at a bit too low of a level right now. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA Sad part is its worse than that, TIT is a Techplus, and doesnt have the slighest idea how a simple Dipole works. Its even worse than that Bruce. Give a listen to the 'Ektra' subbands on 75 some night. Now there is a eye opener. Dan/W4NTI |
|
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (Brian Kelly) writes: Then came his buddy, another one, who stated that the reason g5rv's "work" is because they're "trap antennas". I asked him to show me the traps in the 40M g5rv we'd put up. "I don't know where they are but they have to be there somewhere." N2EY was there too . . And neither of us have been back to run FD with that pack of 21st Century nitwits. Tell us all how it feels to be an 1896 Nitwit, nitwit. Beep, beep. Why not regale us with some tales of your years as an uninvolved nitwit, Netwit? Dave K8MN |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
... JJ wrote: Some claimed there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole, I simply stated there is, I never made any claims it would be a good antenna. Ok. Since it was me who said there is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole, I'll modify my statement to read "There is no such thing as a 1/4 wave dipole other than at the station of a clueless ham who knows no better". That should take care of it. JJ: I just read the posts in this thread. It's pretty comical. These folks are just plain desperate...not even worth the strokes of your fingers... Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com