Dave Holford article ...

^ I have personal experience, some 40 years ago, with an
^ HF antenna which consisted of the top half of the tail
^ (about a 15 to 20 foot square metal surface) which was
^ tuned by a remote ATU (Collins CU-351 ISTR) and performed
^ at least as well as a fixed wire over the range of 2.5 to
^ 30 MHz.

If I could put an antenna like that 20,000 feet over my house I would be very
happy indeed!

Frank

Wes Stewart ...

^ Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for
^ transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving.

I don't believe that. It's been my experience that an antenna used for
receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of
conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for
transmitting under those same conditions.

Frank

Believe what you will, the law of reciprocity will ignore your beliefs and
continue to function.

"Frank" wrote in message
news:01c3b0a2$989de120$0125250a@cqvdqntcxxawvjpo.. .
Wes Stewart ...

^ Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for
^ transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving.

I don't believe that. It's been my experience that an antenna used for
receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of
conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for
transmitting under those same conditions.

Frank

Frank wrote:

Dave Holford article ...

^ I have personal experience, some 40 years ago, with an
^ HF antenna which consisted of the top half of the tail
^ (about a 15 to 20 foot square metal surface) which was
^ tuned by a remote ATU (Collins CU-351 ISTR) and performed
^ at least as well as a fixed wire over the range of 2.5 to
^ 30 MHz.

If I could put an antenna like that 20,000 feet over my house I would be very
happy indeed!

Frank


Worked very nicely between 50 and 100 feet, and very seldom were we
above 5,000. I am aware of it being used to communicate from Australia
to the East Coast of Canada while on the ground, and I have personally
used it to communicate to North America from Europe while on the ground
- never ran over 400 Watts.

Dave

"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an
agreement
that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for
the
specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone.

Homeowners associations are private governmental authorities which rule
over people who signed away their Constitutional rights! For what --
the promise that othersuch people will pay more later on? Well, maybe
so. This Homeowner Association thing sounds like yet another odious
invention of the New World Order.


In
other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house
and
having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen
wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair
business.
Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start
to
infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^)

Common sense says there's considerable value in a neighbor who can fix
your car. Especially if you need a Sunday afternoon repair! I've done
plenty of car work, back when I had a driveway. I got along fine with
the neighbors. I suppose fixing their cars helped. We'd talk about
cars, laugh at the Cubs, etc. It's the American way!


Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from
the
street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped
problem.

Anyone who is bothered by the sight of a wire belongs on another planet.


Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance,
nobody
wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps
through a CB
"base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable
television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of
what the
"external antenna" rules are meant to curb.

-- Stinger


External antenna rules and the rest are meant to intimidate lily-livered
weenies who won't help fix their cars but are happy to sign away their
Constitutional rights.

And if some radio operator is splattering all over, there's plenty of
Real Governmental Authority to answer to.

Frank Dresser

Sit on a cactus or something, Wes? You seem a little edgy.

Nobody is forced to buy into a neighborhood with covenants. One can do
exactly what you have done and buy some distance from your neighbors.
That's great if it works out for you.

However, my case is obviously different from yours. The home where I now
live is not the home I will own when I retire. I won't need nearly as many
bedrooms, etc., and it will be out on an acreage I own (that's currently a
little farther than I care to commute to my job). Living in a good
neighborhood with covenants makes sense for me right now, because I do want
to protect the hefty investment I've made in my home, specifically because I
do intend to sell it someday.

Just because covenants aren't ideal for your situation doesn't make them a
bad thing. As for your hair-splitting over "broadcasting," it was clear my
intent was "transmitting." -- just as it is clear your intent is to act like
an asshole.

-- Stinger


"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:58:40 -0600, "Stinger"
wrote:

|Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an
agreement
|that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for
the
|specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. In
|other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and
|having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen
|wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair
business.
|Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to
|infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^)

I happen to subscribe to Fine Homebuilding Magazine and in one of the
latest issues there is some discussion about people who will not make
any changes to their house without considering resale value. They
could be eight feet tall and planning to remodel the kitchen, but will
they think of raising the height of the countertops to make it easier
on themselves? Nooooo. It will affect resale value. They might be
planning to die in the house but they worry that their heirs will have
a hard time selling.

The same mentality prevails in people who willingly submit to the
whims of the homeowners' association board. If I want to leave my
garage door open while I use my woodworking tools or work on my car, I
don't want the guy across the street getting his panties in a bunch
over it. Likewise, I don't want to be told when to mow the grass.

Of course, in my case, across the street is 80 acres of Sonoran Desert
and my landscaping is whatever grows here. (I gave the lawnmower to
the guy that bought my last house.) And I'm not trying to keep up
with Jones either because where I live, *I'm* Jones. Heh heh.

|
|Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the
|street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped
problem.


If you don't want to hear anything, by all means conceal your antenna.
Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for transmitting,
they will work equally poorly for receiving.

|
|Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though.

Broadcasting is done by broadcasting stations. Broadcasting is
one-way communication.

Hobbists; licensed radio amateurs (hams), and CBers (not to be
confused with hams) are operating transmitting stations designed for
two-way communications.

|For instance, nobody
|wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a
CB
|"base station."

Nobody? That is an all-encompassing term. "Few", "some", "not too
many" might be better. Not that I'm in favor of CBers running illegal
stations.

|It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable
|television connections, and is a nuisance.

A "well-shielded" system will not "see" anything of the sort. The
problem will more likely be from some upstanding homeowner, who
wouldn't dare leave his garage door open and violate association
rules, making an illegal tap on the cable.

| I think that's a lot of what the
|"external antenna" rules are meant to curb.

No, most antenna restrictions have nothing to do with the possibility
of interference. The restrictions are for the same reasons as not
wanting the garage door open, the grass an inch too high, painting the
house the wrong shade of white, etc...

Frank,

As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood with
covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my case,
they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I did
was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they built
nearby.

I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk cars on
the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my neighbor
won't.

By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon Claw
1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son how to
change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage.

So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car argument.

I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's the
real problem?

-- Stinger



"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an
agreement
that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for
the
specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone.

Homeowners associations are private governmental authorities which rule
over people who signed away their Constitutional rights! For what --
the promise that othersuch people will pay more later on? Well, maybe
so. This Homeowner Association thing sounds like yet another odious
invention of the New World Order.


In
other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house
and
having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen
wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair
business.
Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start
to
infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^)

Common sense says there's considerable value in a neighbor who can fix
your car. Especially if you need a Sunday afternoon repair! I've done
plenty of car work, back when I had a driveway. I got along fine with
the neighbors. I suppose fixing their cars helped. We'd talk about
cars, laugh at the Cubs, etc. It's the American way!


Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from
the
street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped
problem.

Anyone who is bothered by the sight of a wire belongs on another planet.


Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance,
nobody
wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps
through a CB
"base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable
television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of
what the
"external antenna" rules are meant to curb.

-- Stinger


External antenna rules and the rest are meant to intimidate lily-livered
weenies who won't help fix their cars but are happy to sign away their
Constitutional rights.

And if some radio operator is splattering all over, there's plenty of
Real Governmental Authority to answer to.

Frank Dresser

In article , "Wes Stewart"
wrote:

Heh heh. When the guys from MIT come out to argue with you, you know
you're in trouble. But fools rush in...

I have made thousands of measurements in anechoic antenna ranges and I
have never seen a difference between measuring s21 and s12. (Without the
circulators, and accounting for mismatch effects of course)

Where did I go wrong?

You didn't ionize the air in the range :-)

Seriously, for your purposes you did nothing wrong. Just don't call
reciprocity a "law", OK? It's a useful idea of wide applicability, but
physics does not require it in general. Calling it a law confuses people.

Many years ago in grad school my advisor would vex visitors to his office
with a little disk that looked like a piece of tinted glass. Put a quarter
on the table, put the disk on top of it, the quarter looks black. Flip the
disk over, put it back on the quarter, the quarter looks shiny. What was
the construction of this thing? Some world class physicists couldn't
figure it out.

|2. In the cases where reciprocity applies you would be correct to say
that
|it requires that the antenna directivity and efficiency are the same
for
|transmitting and receiving. It does not follow, however, that a poor
|transmitting antenna is necessarily a poor receiving antenna.
Efficiency
|matters much more when transmitting than it does when receiving.

It also does not follow that a lousy receiving antenna is good enough.

For example, I *always* got better moon echos on 2-meter EME using the
same antenna for transmit and receive. When I tried a wet string on
receive I didn't hear nuthin' g

Directivity matters equally for receiving and transmitting. Was your wet
string as directive as your other antenna? 2 meters is also quiet enough
that there's not much room for inefficiency: in some directions the sky
temperature is 200K.


I have observed the same on 20 meters. My Yagi at a modest height of
50 feet is *always* better than an indoor wire.

Throw a thin wire with dark brown insulation over a tall tree, up over one
side, partway down the other (shaped like a "?"). Tie it in place with
nylon fishing line. It will be invisible unless you're very close. Couple
to coax with a grounded 9:1 broadband matching transformer. Bury the coax
run to the house.

Not only will this be much less conspicuous than a Yagi, but it will
outperform your Yagi as a receiving antenna for nearly every signal over
the range 100 kHz - 30 MHz. A Yagi is just too specialized an antenna for
a listener.

A trailing wire under sea water receives just fine at ELF and doesn't
work worth a damn for transmitting. But those are special cases that
can always be manufactured. Beverage antennas are also not something to
be used for transmitting but you won't be disguising one as a chimney
cap either

For the listener from ELF to HF these are not manufactured special cases,
they are the general case. MW and tropical band listeners often target
their regions of interest with Beverages, either temporary or permanent. A
Beverage is another antenna that can be very inconspicuous: if your soil's
dry you can even bury a Beverage! For listening, a simple broadband
antenna like a Beverage is much more practical than a complicated
narrowband antenna like a Yagi.


In the general sense of h-f to microwave, I stand by my claim.

For the special case of confinement to a small number of narrow bands (as
in ham radio), you are reasonably correct above 10 MHz. To me as a
hobbyist listing to LW/MW/SW, that isn't the general case. Of course the
game changes when I'm operating a satellite, but that isn't my *hobby*.

--
| John Doty "You can't confuse me, that's my job."
| Home:
| Work:

"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Frank,

As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood
with
covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my
case,
they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I
did
was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they
built
nearby.

I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk
cars on
the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my
neighbor
won't.

By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon
Claw
1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son
how to
change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage.

So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car
argument.

I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's
the
real problem?

-- Stinger




I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These
are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized,
he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty,
sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues,
it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in
Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the
publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees
who are directly answerable to the courts.

And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another
marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and
paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some
damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought
to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence.

So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me.

I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting
improperly in the private sector and vice versa.

My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the
driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up.

Different strokes for different folks, Frank.

In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with
restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the
neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants
that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well.

Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights arguments
isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are just
fine, thank you.

However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector
(government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am
vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over the
United States. It' just plain wrong.

-- Stinger

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Frank,

As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood
with
covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my
case,
they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I
did
was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they
built
nearby.

I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk
cars on
the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my
neighbor
won't.

By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon
Claw
1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son
how to
change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage.

So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car
argument.

I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's
the
real problem?

-- Stinger




I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These
are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized,
he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty,
sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues,
it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in
Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the
publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees
who are directly answerable to the courts.

And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another
marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and
paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some
damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought
to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence.

So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me.

I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting
improperly in the private sector and vice versa.

My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the
driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up.