Dave wrote:

...
You pretend to be powerless to fight this...

My single voice IS powerless against the sheer magnitude of the
onslaught I would launch it against. However, the power of my voice
combined with thousands, tens-of-thousands, hundreds-of-thousands ... of
other voices eventually can and does make changes; and, is as it should be.

Regards,
JS

Telamon wrote:

...
Yeah but we don't care about transmitting goofball, we care about
receiving and so that statement "A random wire (e.g. inverted L)
transmits nicely if you use a tuner at the feed point" by Dave is
relevant where you are not.


You ridiculous fool. You are the most complete brain dead example of a
sub-human which has ever been presented to me ...

Receiving is EQUALLY as important as the transmitting element in the
above. Or, to explain it to the necessary point, for a mental midget,
such as yourself: "If the signal being transmitted is low power, or
there are bad conditions, and, perhaps, the guy is in Australia, I'd
better have the "best" antenna possible. However, if I am receiving the
"50,000 watt atmosphere burner", 50 miles away, a rusty coat-hanger,
most likely, would work ..."

However, you mileage may vary with you "magical antenna logic!" grin

You hit me as a guy attempting to pass off "magical physics" to
kindergarten-ers; but then, even that is, most likely, a challenge for
you ... sad, so very, very sad ... :-(

plonk ...

Regards,
JS

On Dec 27, 8:44*pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

OK then what is a 'matchbox' in :
* a poorly designed transmitting antenna,
* a mismatched transmitting antenna,
* a non-physically resonate transmitting antenna,

Consider the 'matchbox' to be one element
in the RF Energy Radiating System :
Feed-Line + 'matchbox' + Antenna Element

- - i want to know - iane ~ RHF
- - *.

- It would be far more "in the realm of correct" to
- consider what a matchbox DOES, rather than
- what it IS--as it is simply some combination
- of inductive and capacitive components which
- ALWAYS will induce some form of loss into
- any system it is inserted into.

Yeah - Once it is 'placed' in the "System" the MatchBox
becomes part of the "System" and becomes one of the
loses within the "System"

- However:
- *a matchbox will allow you to use a poorly designed/
- constructed antenna--it will NOT improve the antenna.

Now -if- That is True : Then Why Us The MatchBox
within an RF Energy Radiating System ?

- *a matchbox will allow you to "match" differing
- impedances to achieve proper power transfer to
- the antenna--again, it will NOT improve the
- efficiency of that antenna, and the power will be
- "simply lost" (as heat.)

So you are say that a MatchBox will not improve
the ERP of an RF Energy Radiating System ?
And that the Receiving Station will not hear you
'better' when the MatchBox is properly used with
the RF Energy Radiating System ?

- *a matchbox CAN allow you to alter the electrical
- length of an antenna--physical and electrical lengths
- are two different animals.

Electrical Characteristics = 'apparent electrical length'

- And, this is all-in-a-nut shell;

- as you realize, a proper education
- in this field is NOT a trivial thing.

A proper education in 'any' field is not a trivial thing.
And that education can take many forms : formal
practical, vocational {life time of work} and avocation
{life time hobby}

- That said, I frequently carry a cheap portable with me on trips and
- launch a longwire into a tree, etc., find acceptable signals and
enjoy
- listening ... or else, just grab the SW stations audio from the
net ...
- being an old-timer, the first is more enjoyable, for me.
-
- Regards,
- JS

being an old timer myself - i still find simply listening
to the radio to be enjoyable ~ RHF

On Dec 27, 6:45*pm, Dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Dave wrote:

* ...
Not when you're talking about VSWR.

Really? *First time I have ever heard someone state that!

Pray tell, what laws of physics come into play, which disrupts reality,
when the antenna is fed from the ether (receiving), rather than
developing its' load into the ether? (transmitting)

Regards,
JS

"Pray tell"?

- Alas and alack. *Zounds!

Dave "Zounds!" - by golly wally - that is one
you don't hear to often these days ~ RHF
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9759/23oq.jpg


Unfortunately, your editing is a bit severe and I have no idea what
you're talking about.

RHF wrote:

...
Yeah - Once it is 'placed' in the "System" the MatchBox
becomes part of the "System" and becomes one of the
loses within the "System"
...

Actually, the ONLY reason to use a matchbox is that the antenna is less
than optimal for the freq(s) in question, end-of-story. However,
multi-band operation and simply having to cover a wide swath of
frequencies makes this the logical way to go, a matchbox ... in an ideal
situation, a matchbox would be avoided.


Now -if- That is True : Then Why Us The MatchBox
within an RF Energy Radiating System ?


There is nothing magical about a transmitting antenna, like I stated
earlier, the exact same physics govern that antenna in receive or xmit
modes. The matchbox allows you to achieve "maximum POOR performance"
from the POOR antenna ...

...
So you are say that a MatchBox will not improve
the ERP of an RF Energy Radiating System ?
And that the Receiving Station will not hear you
'better' when the MatchBox is properly used with
the RF Energy Radiating System ?
...

I said NO such thing, indeed, I stated the EXACT opposite, it allows
maximum power transfer to the antenna, however, the losses in the POOR
antenna are now increased due to the losses in the matchbox--as heat.
And, no problems which exist in the POOR antenna have been rectified,
they are just masked ...

...
Electrical Characteristics = 'apparent electrical length'
...

As I stated before, physical length need not be related to electrical
length, however, in the most efficient design possible, they WILL be ...
and that is only considering maximum transfer of power to the antenna,
not, necessarily, the ether--and, that is NOT necessarily related to a
desirable pattern of radiation of that power from the POOR antenna--the
patten, IMHO, is governed, mainly, by antenna length and shape, however,
some designs actually can cheat this, at least a bit.

- And, this is all-in-a-nut shell;

- as you realize, a proper education
- in this field is NOT a trivial thing.
...

being an old timer myself - i still find simply listening
to the radio to be enjoyable ~ RHF
.
.

As I stated before, a complete explanation/understanding of all factors
involved defies a simple explanation ... as, if that were possible, no
one would spend years in college, they could attend a week or a month
and come away an expert.

And, my field is computer science, this is all just a hobby with me.
The little knowledge which I have assembled has been done over the
course of years, even decades. I am hear to find out just "how deep
this rabbit hole goes ..."

Regards,
JS

On Dec 27, 7:46*pm, John Smith wrote:
wrote:

Well, sure, but what does transmitting have to do with
anything? We are not talking about transmitting.

* ...

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, it is the same communication, both
ways, simply in reverse ... like I have stated before, the exact same
laws of physics governing the antenna makes it equally acceptable to
both transmitting and receiving. *The same pattern seen in the signal
transmitted will be seen in the signal(s) received.

- Your argument is the equivalent to arguing that
- a car designed to go forward would not be
- acceptable when backing up ...
- simply ridiculous!
-
- Regards,
- JS

JS -think-about-it-

IF 'by-design' the Car is in-fact designed
to go "Only" Forward :
* It may 'only' have Forward Gears and
a Transmission that has NO Reverse.
* No Rear Window
* No Rear Mirror
NOT So Ridiculous ~ RHF
http://www.prweb.com/prfiles/2006/10...onmeteor72.jpg

RHF wrote:


Consider the 'matchbox' to be one element
in the RF Energy Radiating System :
Feed-Line + 'matchbox' + Antenna Element

i want to know - iane ~ RHF
.



It depends where the current node[s] end[s] up.

John Smith wrote:

However, in side-by-side comparisons on 10-6-2m antennas I have built,
comparing a 5/8 against the 1/2 (construction methods/materials and
matching components identical) ... the actual difference, in the real
world, must be less than the width of a meter needle in the readings ...
or, put simply, I no longer deal with the extra length required of the
5/8 ... your mileage may vary ...

Regards,
JS

The advantage of a physical height (antenna length) between 180 and 215
degrees (see previous post regarding the magic number being around 195
degrees) is improved take-off angle and reduced skywave-groundwave
interaction, not dramatic nearfield voltage increases.

John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

...
"N",

Don't know too many 'Hams' would would take 50 Feet
of common Speaker Wire and tie-a-knot at 30 Feet and
then split the two Wires in the remaining 20 Feet and
use the thing as a "Stealth" Dipole Antenna with their
Transmitter -but- a Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL)
can do that and have a very practical SWL Antenna
to use with many 'portable' AM&FM Shortwave Radios.

50-Ft. 24-Gauge Clear 2-Conductor Speaker Wire
RadioShack Catalog # 278-1301
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=2102499

"n" - practically speaking {in practice} there is a
difference between between hams and swls ~ RHF
.
.


I have taken ordinary lamp zip cord, split the two leads apart to for a
1/4 wave dipole and fed the end of the remaining length of zip cord with
a balun to the rig (some zip cord is ~68-72 ohm balanced line, the
mismatch is more than acceptable for field/emergency use.)

Never, say never ... some ham will do it!

Regards,
JS
Yes,some ham will do it, with a 3 Watt transmitter tucked into a Sucrets
tin, and work 50 countries with his zip cord dipole.

John Smith wrote:
wrote:


Well, sure, but what does transmitting have to do with
anything? We are not talking about transmitting.
...

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, it is the same communication, both
ways, simply in reverse ... like I have stated before, the exact same
laws of physics governing the antenna makes it equally acceptable to
both transmitting and receiving. The same pattern seen in the signal
transmitted will be seen in the signal(s) received.

Your argument is the equivalent to arguing that a car designed to go
forward would not be acceptable when backing up ... simply ridiculous!

Regards,
JS
How does one transmit MW with a ferrite bar antenna?