"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


WA8ULX wrote:
Works darned great, doesn't it?! Did all my MARS on it, including net
control for nearly a year. So, yer right, apparently the "high" (high
all
right) class hams just don't know how to do it!

Kim W5TIT


Spoken like a TRUE Dump Down CBplusser who doesnt have a Clue.


Don't pay them too much attention, Bruce. Neither JJ nor TwIT realizes
they were NOT using a 1/4 wave dipole. If they had been, neither would
have gotten a signal out of the back yard.

If the *antenna system* took a load and performed under the
circumstances
they describe, then both JJ and TwIT were loading the outer surface of the
coax shield, and *that* was doing a major part of the radiating.

Of course when one side of a 1/4 wave dipole is attached to the braid
of the coax with no decoupling, then the dipole is no longer a 1/4 wave
dipole! What it becomes then depends entirely on
the feedline length as well as other local factors. So then it will
probably take some load, and maybe even load up to full supplied power,
as JJ described. At that point it's a crap shoot-you don't know *what*
you've got! For sure it ISN'T a 1/4 wave dipole! But the uninformed will
think their "1/4 wave dipole" worked just fine!

If JJ had used a good isolation choke or 1:1 balun to decouple the coax
from the 40 meter dipole at the feedpoint the tuner would have balked big
time, and all that RF would have bounced around inside it, and made
itself known quite loudly in the form of arcs. The KWM-2 finals might
have sparked a bit, too.

Been there, done that, seen it happen, got the RF burns.

As I said earlier, they weren't using a 1/4 wave dipole, they just
thought
they were.

All this stuff is in the books.

Dick


I was trying to be 'funny' on my post of using the 20 meter dipole on 40. I
can see that was a waste of time. As is trying to explain antenna theory to
the Texas Twit. Why bother?

Dan/W4NTI