On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:31:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized for
the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made
that
the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas.
All
of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great.

Kim W5TIT


What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole
that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That
is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based.


There's nothing at all wrong with having some part of the test be based on
something related to performance--other than CW; comment on that in a
moment--if there could be a generally agreed upon topic. I think
establishing something like a digital station would be more appropriate than
building an antenna, because I think what should be tested is something
everyone will do at one point or another. While not everyone may dabble in
digital, APRS, SSTV, or whatever, everyone will have to establish a radio
set up at some point or another. The best would be a sucessful mobile
installation, but doing testing outside just wouldn't be feasible.

On your latter comment, be careful how you word things in this debate: the
test is performance based right now. It baseed on one's ability to
understand CW, and that is performance.

Only if they know how to connect the antenna to the radio. ;-)

I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE.

Dan/W4NTI

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:31:17 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:30:30 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote:


You're right, Dee. That's the point I try to make...I rote memorized
for
the test. Now, the argument for the above scenario could also be made
that
the instrukshions can be looked up. I've built quite a few antennas.
All
of them I used instrukshions for; and they all worked great.

Kim W5TIT


What would be wrong with requiring them to build a quarter wave dipole
that is resonate at a specified frequency as part of the test? That
is, if the test were changed to be written and performance based.


There's nothing at all wrong with having some part of the test be based
on
something related to performance--other than CW; comment on that in a
moment--if there could be a generally agreed upon topic. I think
establishing something like a digital station would be more appropriate
than
building an antenna, because I think what should be tested is something
everyone will do at one point or another. While not everyone may dabble
in
digital, APRS, SSTV, or whatever, everyone will have to establish a radio
set up at some point or another. The best would be a sucessful mobile
installation, but doing testing outside just wouldn't be feasible.

On your latter comment, be careful how you word things in this debate:
the
test is performance based right now. It baseed on one's ability to
understand CW, and that is performance.

Only if they know how to connect the antenna to the radio. ;-)

I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE.

Dan/W4NTI


Dan dont tell them that, if they keeping using a Quarter Wave Dipole we will
never have to listen to them

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE.

Sure Dan, come along and spoil the fun! And Bob thinks I'm a dummy! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE.

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.

LHA

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.

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 -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...

In article . net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I hate to break it to you fine folks....But.....there is no such thing as a
1/4 wave DIPOLE.

Incorrect. The word "dipole"...(SNIP)

This has WHAT to do with Amateur Radio POLICY, Lennie?

(Your rules...remember?)

Steve, K4YZ