"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" wrote in
message m...

Thanks, but don't put too much stock in the idiot.

You sure put a lot of stock into the idiots Dave Ruff, Shawn and
realitytrasher and the lies you post prove that asshole.

So why are you calling anybody else an idiot when you put so much stock into
Idiots just like Dave Ruff, Shawn realitytrasher and John/nightruanch do?

More at:
http://MTT.JusticeGoneWild.com

In article ,
Dave wrote:

richard wrote:

Do you know the wavelength of 11 meters?

This is a joke, right?

It's called sarcasm.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

"richard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:51:28 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
wrote:

"Zeke" wrote in message ...
uuuuhhhh..... you're wrong as usual Bulli****.

Top was career Military and got his commo expertise there. IIRC he's
not a truck driver at all.


Exactly, a matter of public record here that Richard has seen several
times previously, and just forgot.


Since this thread is going to groups who do not know me, I will try to
clairify the lies here.

snicker

Here's Richard's esteemed military career (and how he was caught lying
about it): http://bolo_bullis.tripod.com/

First, that is an exact copy of my dd214 acquired under the FOIA.
It states I served. Unlike the lies that promulgate from it that says
I did not.
2nd, why is the word before "discharge" blacked out?

No one wonders "why".

You've had three or four decades to get a new one, and you don't, and
we -know- why.

That was not done
by the US goverment. It was done to make it look more damning.
I never claimed to be anything I was not. I said I never got beyond
boot camp and my highest rank was E1. The dd214 confirms that.
I said I had enlisted for the ASA but never got involved with it.
While others claimed I had claimed to be super secret spy or in
special forces. Most of those lies were all created by "Just Taylor".


What's amazing is that Richard and I were just discussing what a total,
absolute and complete asshole he makes himself look like every time he
tries
to make himself look tough or smart at anyone's expense.

I'm not saying I am smarter than many, in this thread I have been
trying to point out that a lot of information given in this thread is
totally wrong. As have others. Why don't you pick on them, asshole.

But whether you're right or wrong, Richard, you can't state anything
without a demeaning attack on others, usually embarrassingly incorrect, like
you just did to Top.

It's because of your angst and poor self-esteem, probably because of the
inbreeding.

And not man enough to correct yourself, from your flagrantly idiotic rant
about Top being "billy bigrigger" (when he doesn't drive truck), a term you
use frequently, that describes, well, you and Roger, more than anyone else
here.

If Top was wrong, you could have -easily- made your point without being
abrasive, as others did, yet you attacked.

Which is why -you're- always attacked.

Because you DESERVE it, Richard.

You actively -earn- the animosity of others, because you CAN'T KEEP YOUR
****ING MOUTH SHUT.

Of course he can't hear a word of that, and immediately starts this.

Richard, who is also a career pedophile and damn proud of it, has had,
and
will always have, the same problem, and that's that he just can't keep his
festering gob shut.

Pedophile being defined here

No, Richard.

No.

Not "pedophile being defined" however it's convenient to you.

Pedophile -has- a definition, and I've posted it many times, with your
grossly inapropriate posting history.

It's a matter of -permanent- record, Richard, and you can't spin puppy
**** into butterscotch pudding.

as a person who others claim is a
pedophile because the damning word sticks to more feeble brains than
any other word. No one has ever proven, in 10 years, that I am, have
been, or currently am, a true pedophile. It's nothing more than ill
words on a screen.


What amazes me is that he's skunked a dozen usenet groups over the
years,
is internationally know as a scumbag, but still sees the world through his
own rose colored glasses, like we might have forgotten his previous and
extensive bombast and flummery.

While ****heads like you keep wanting to let the world know about the
past anyway they can. No proof, just a lot of hot air.

I just state the facts, -with- the proof.

You're the one with the revolving definitions and X-files DD214.

You could clear that discharge up -anytime-, and choose to make excuses
instead.

We -know- why, Richard.

Funny, or sad?

Sad boy you are

If I was any happier, I'd have to be -two- people.

and you wore a uniform?

Yeah, for an entire enlistment, imagine that.

I know that's a foriegn concept to you.

God help us all.

Worry about yourself, dude.



--
Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

www.finalprotectivefire.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762

"richard" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:29:49 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

In article ,
Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick wrote:

But hhhhhere's a question for the braintrust:

I'm after a (mobile) VHF radio that's common to northern (i.e., the
Yukon,
and Northwest Territories) Canadian truckers- who don't monitor CB bands.

(info http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=171741

I'm sure, as a sine wave challenged layman, that I can't use the same
antenna and coax as my CB?

In principle, you could combine the CB output (27 MHz) with the VHF
radio output (up above the 2-meter band) using a diplexer, and feed
the result down a single coax.

At the antenna end, you'd have a couple of choices. You can use
another diplexer to split out the HF and VHF signals, and feed them to
two separate antennas. Or, you might be able to find a single CB-type
antenna which is also capable of matching up well enough on these VHF
frequencies to work tolerably well.

The chances are very poor that a randomly-selected CB antenna would
give you a tolerable SWR on the 160-or-so-MHz VHF band... and if it
did, there's no telling what its vertical radiation pattern would look
like. An antenna intended for these two bands would probably have to
be custom designed - I can think of a couple of possible ways to do
it. Such a dualband antenna would almost certainly be a compromise
antenna on both bands - it wouldn't work as well as separate antennas
designed for best operation on a single band each.

Commercial HF/VHF diplexers run somewhere around $80, last time I
looked. You'd probably find it less expensive in the end to just run
a second coax and put up a second (VHF-only) whip antenna.

Trust me. he has no clues as to what you just said.

Not a ****in clue, Richard, and not ashamed to admit it.

What ever it is, I can learn it, teach it to myself.

I'm not afraid to ask questions, like the one that set you off on this
rant, and I'm not afraid to ask for help.

It's -easy- when you're a man.

This fool wants to run a vhf radio in Canada just to talk to Canadian
truckers.

That's all in your mind, a baseless lie you repeat with no evidence.

I've stated, clearly and concisely, what the radio is for.

It's your projection of your own actions that leaves you apoplectic.

I'm sure when you're on the radio that you irritate working drivers for
miles, till they won't respond to you anymore, and then you key the mike on
pathetic country music.

Since -you- do that, -everybody- must...

He thinks those radios can be bought and used just like a
CB.

Well, sort of, yes.

My CB is illegal too... ;-)

And no one gives a -damn-.

My 78 Suburban has a ten meter radio and a boat radio in it, neither with
a license, for twenty years now.

As I have operated radios on 47mhz, held a 2nd class fcc license, I
think I know a lot more than he does.

No one cares.

Still waiting for you, 10 posts later, to provide some actual information
instead of the screeching and wailing.


--
Popeye
"Best thing for him, really. His therapy
was going nowhere," -Hannibal Lector.

www.finalprotectivefire.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:06:53 -0800, (Dave Platt)
wrote:

Planning to use the "Officer, it's only for emergency use" response,
when challenged, could be a very expensive tactic. You might find
out, the hard way, that the local regulatory body takes a "possession
is considered proof of intent to use" approach... even if you don't
get hit with criminal charges or a civil forfeiture order, you could
find that your radios are considered de facto "contraband" and are
subject to being seized without warning.

....That only works under two conditions:

1) The Gestapo Pig is able to recognize when a 2-way radio is anything
*other* than a CB Radio. Those Fifes are actually pretty rare these
days, and probably less than 2% of them can recognize a 2-Meter rig
when they see one. These days, they could care less if you've got a CB
in your car because CB is unlicensed.

2) And then there's the issue of "possession with intent". In this
case, if they bust you for it, then they have to deal with the FCC.
This requires about *nine* different forms to be filled out, and
essentially doubles - and in some cases *triples* - the paperwork the
poor little Piggies have to process. They don't like paperwork because
it takes away from their donut time.

,,,So while there *is* a danger, there isn't anywhere near as much a
danger as the Hams would *love* for you to believe. That's part of the
deterrent that's necessary to keep the bumbling FCC out of the Hams'
own internal politics, and perpetuate the myth that their
self-policing wields more power than Uncle Charlie and a pink slip
book.


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:58:56 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"
wrote:

Contrary to Stupid Richard's rantings, I've never seen an FCC roadblock in
35 years of driving.

....They actually *tried* that something like four times in three
different test locations back in 1976, and while they did bust a lot
of truckers for running footwarmers, they had to drop the program when
the Carter Misadministration neutered the FCC by slicing their budget
to damn near next to nothing - the only smart act Mr. Peanut's reign
of idiocy accomplished! By the time the number of CB channels was
increased from 23 to 40, the maximum number of FCC field agents was
reduced from a max of 100 in some states to a maximum of *two* for
each state(*). This occurred at the same time the courts ruled that
the FCC didn't have the right to levy fines, and some 14,000 CBers
who'd been fined for breaking some of Part 95's more bull**** rules -
QSOs longer than 5 minutes, failure to use callsigns, using profanity,
talking over the 60-mile limit in areas where the metropolitan region
was *over* 60 miles as the crow flies, etc, etc - suddenly found they
had their cases overturned and those who paid fines during a specified
period were issued refunds and license reinstatements were applicable.

(*) I never did get this confirmed, but one report was that Montana
and Wyoming had to share one field agent, and he was only a part-time
employee!
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

"The Honorable Dr. Rocky Roads Presiding Judge" wrote in
message ...

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" wrote in
message m...

Thanks, but don't put too much stock in the idiot.

You sure put a lot of stock into the idiots Dave Ruff, Shawn and
realitytrasher and the lies you post prove that asshole.

So why are you calling anybody else an idiot when you put so much stock
into
Idiots just like Dave Ruff, Shawn realitytrasher and John/nightruanch do?

More at:
http://MTT.DogwasherGoneWild.com

Quit your crying and get over your loss coward, and just go and buy a new
boyfriend doll..

richard wrote in
:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:55:02 -0800,
(Dave Platt) wrote:

In article ,
Top wrote:

Cophase being omindirectional? You need to do some more
reading before you try to correct anything.

The directionality of a broadside array (with the two
radiators fed exactly in phase) depends very strongly on
the separation between the two antennas. For separations
of 1/4 wavelength or less, there's very little
directionality - the pattern is very close to
omnidirectional.

Every dual-antenna truck setup I've seen has been a
side-by-side mounting (e.g. one on the left mirror and one
on the right), and the harness feeds them both in-phase.
I've been assuming that this was what was being meant by
"co-phase".

If so, I stand by my statement that two CB antennas, fed in
phase through a co-phase harness (i.e. no phase difference
between the two), and separated by only 54 inches, produces
a nearly-omnidirectional signal. The two antennas need to
be further apart, before the pattern becomes significantly
directional.

Take a look at the NEC plots at
http://www.cosjwt.com/index.php?a=20 to see... the 4.5-foot
separation model produces a pattern which is almost
circular. There is little gain towards the front and back,
and very little loss off to the sides. These plots seem to
jibe well with other references I've read (Terman, Kraus,
and the graphs in the ARRL Antenna Book).

The other alternative is an end-fire array, with the
antennas fed signals of opposite phase - with these then
there can be significant directionality even with close
spacing of the antennas. In a truck-antenna system, this
would require placing the antennas one in front of the
other, separating them by several feet, and inverting the
phase of the signal sent to one of the two antennas
(perhaps by having the feed coax to one antenna be
1/2-wavelength longer than the other). You could get
several dB of gain this way... but the close spacing will
cause the antenna feedpoint impedance to drop a lot, and
some form of matching network will certainly be required to
keep the radio happy and develop maximum power from the
transmitter.

The two bottom plots on the site I mentioned above, show
the effect of feeding the antennas with signals of
different phase. In these examples, the pattern is being
skewed off to one side - the difference in feedline length
is converting the antenna from a broadside array to an
end-fire array. With the right amount of phase shift, you
end up with a cardioid pattern, with a broad lobe in one
direction and a very deep null in the other.

Ya gots to understand with whom you are trying to
communicate. "Top" is the master know it all who has
absolutely no background in electronics. He just drives a
truck and thinks that gives him the knowledge. You've heard
of "Billy Big Rigger"? You just met the dude. Top just goes
along with what other truckers have said over the years.

I have the actual working experience to back me up with.
The only thing Top knows about CB is how to yack on it.



Dave let's agree to our own experiences.

Now to Richard

You forgot who you are talking to again. Nothing unusual for
you to get things wrong. I don't drive a truck unless you are
talking about a pickup. As far as electronics backround I was
in communications in the Army. I spent a good bit of time in
the field in sitiuations where I had no backup so I had to
know enough to make things work when they broke. I don't mean
simple backpack radios either. Then there was the year I spent
teaching radio wave propagation. Another year teaching
programming small and meduim size telephone switches. In 2005
(well after I had retired) I spent the year assembling boards
to build MRI machines. If you think I have no electronics
knowledge then as usual you brain is no bigger than you little
toe.

richard wrote in
:

On 2 Dec 2008 06:15:20 GMT, Top wrote:

(Dave Platt) wrote in
:

In article
, Douglas
W. \"Popeye\" Frederick
wrote:
I suspect you'd get more bang for your buck by simply
mounting a single antenna in a better location (e.g. roof
mount) and paying attention to making the antenna's
grounding to the chassis/groundplane as direct and solid
as possible.


Cophase being omindirectional? You need to do some more
reading before you try to correct anything.



IF the cophased antennas are less than 1/4 wave apart,
there is virtually no change.


I love it when you make an ass of yourself.

Top wrote:
richard wrote:
IF the cophased antennas are less than 1/4 wave apart,
there is virtually no change.

I love it when you make an ass of yourself.

The ARRL Antenna Book says that with 1/8WL spacing,
one can achieve 4.1 dB gain with a high F/B ratio.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com