Dave wrote:

...
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.

As I previously stated, works nicely on paper/software; in real life, I
have not been able to construct an antenna which demonstrates an
advantage to justify the difficulty of dealing with the extra length.
Now, a 2m on down, why not "toss it on", just in case?

Now, when loading a 1/4 wave physical length antenna to a 1/2 wave
electrical length, I DO see an advantage, increased radiation
resistance, minimal counterpoise required, etc. Even when taking into
consideration the losses added by the coil ...

Regards,
JS

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Smith wrote:

Billy Burpelson wrote:

...
Say what?

He said he "ain't here to be a ham", so why would he want to transmit?

Well, consider me a "different type of ham."

SNIP

Yeah, you are a Trolling Ham and a well done one at that.

And Telamon is just a newgroup troll....so he trumps you.

John Smith wrote:
Dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:


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 ...

That is vastly oversimplified.

Absolutely, and at some point I must trust the reader has the resources
to extrapolate; otherwise, all postings would soon turn in to the
length, depth and completeness of a college textbook ...

For example, an antenna is a two lane road, running in both
directions(T/R), the same parameters which allow it to be the best
choice for transmitting, also are in action when that same antenna
"plucks" its' signals from the ether ... something I have pointed out in
multiple ways, multiple times ...

The average person must hear, read, study the same material six times
before "learning" it. And, an instructor once pointed out to me, not
all people respond to the same method, personality, mode-of-presentation
as another or others ... so, he pointed out the importance of gathering
data from multiple sources until the "epiphany" is realized ...

Regards,
JS

You're the guy from Lost in Space!

In article , Dave
wrote:

John Smith wrote:
Dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:


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 ...

That is vastly oversimplified.

Absolutely, and at some point I must trust the reader has the resources
to extrapolate; otherwise, all postings would soon turn in to the
length, depth and completeness of a college textbook ...

For example, an antenna is a two lane road, running in both
directions(T/R), the same parameters which allow it to be the best
choice for transmitting, also are in action when that same antenna
"plucks" its' signals from the ether ... something I have pointed out in
multiple ways, multiple times ...

The average person must hear, read, study the same material six times
before "learning" it. And, an instructor once pointed out to me, not
all people respond to the same method, personality, mode-of-presentation
as another or others ... so, he pointed out the importance of gathering
data from multiple sources until the "epiphany" is realized ...


You're the guy from Lost in Space!

You are to kind Dave. The lost in Space Dr. Smith fooled some of the
people some of the time where our Smith fools none of the people none of
the time.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.


"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

I would just call it following your interests.

Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.

A tuner in the shack matches the radio to the transmission line. There
is still a mismatch at the feedpoint.

Exactly. Then the transmit energy ends up heating the coax to the
antenna and components in the tuner. sarcasm on As a bonus you get RFI
in the shack. Another bonus is high voltage at points in the coax to the
antenna where you could have a flashover condition. Sarcasm off

A tuner at the antenna is a much better setup. You are doing things
right. Most HAM's don't. When Mr. Smith imagines doing this he does it
wrong.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Dave wrote:

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 ...


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.

Regarding Mr. Smith's comments above my experience and others is the
opposite. 5/8 is a much better performing antenna than a 1/2 wave for
local VHF and UHF communications. Well worth the effort to build a 5/8
wave antenna over a 1/2 wave. The 5/8 had some kind of series load coil
part way up the whip where the 1/2 wave match/compensation was done at
the base so the whip was solid. Sorry I can't more specific then that as
those experiments were many years ago.

Mr. Smith is still lost in space.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:

RHF wrote:

Dave,

IIRC a good Amateur Radio 1/4 WL Vertical-Up-Leg
by 1/4 WL Horizontal-Out-Arm {Inverted "L" Antenna
requires very little Tuning and performs very well near
and far on the HF Band that it is 'cut' to use on.
Using a direct-connect or 1:1 UnUn at the Feed-Point
* Half-Wave Inverted "L" Antenna : 1/4 WL + 1/4 WL


Where-as the more common Shortwave Listener (SWL)
type of {Random Wire} Inverted "L" Antenna is un-equal
and usually has a shorter Vertical-Up-Leg and a longer
Horizontal-Out-Arm of at least 1V-to-2H and often
1V-to-3H or more. Using a 9:1 Matching Transformer
and Ground Rod at the Feed-Point which is at the base
of the Vertical-Up-Leg.

"Random" implies otherwise. Instead of a 9:1 UnUn, imagine one of these
at the feed point:

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/Produc...ductid=MFJ-927

I enjoy playing with these kind of things. So I got a license to
transmit. Some call that "elitist", I call it self-indulgent.

I would just call it following your interests.

Remote tuners are the right way to do things. Much better than a tuner
in the shack.

A tuner in the shack matches the radio to the transmission line. There
is still a mismatch at the feedpoint.

Exactly. Then the transmit energy ends up heating the coax to the
antenna and components in the tuner. sarcasm on As a bonus you get RFI
in the shack. Another bonus is high voltage at points in the coax to the
antenna where you could have a flashover condition. Sarcasm off

A tuner at the antenna is a much better setup. You are doing things
right. Most HAM's don't. When Mr. Smith imagines doing this he does it
wrong.


He's right, too. My sloper is resonant but I still use a tuner to
protect the transceiver. I was going to use the Remote Autotuner but
don't need it. I get a decent match even on 160.

Dave wrote:

...
A tuner at the antenna is a much better setup. You are doing things
right. Most HAM's don't. When Mr. Smith imagines doing this he does it
wrong.


He's right, too. My sloper is resonant but I still use a tuner to
protect the transceiver. I was going to use the Remote Autotuner but
don't need it. I get a decent match even on 160.

Actually, Telemundo is just the same old idiot, pulling the same old
tricks and attempting to appear as a guru to those possessing even less
knowledge than himself ...

I never even commented on where the placement of the matchbox would be,
and, as everyone knows, anywhere along the line you can place it. The
best place would be between the coax (feedline) and the antenna--that
is, taking for granted that the match from your rig to the feedline is
perfect.

However, no matter where you place the matchbox (including up telemundos
butt), its' losses remain constant, and, it is a net loss to the system
.... and the poor antenna remains just as poor--its' faults having been
masked.

Next end-run please?

Regards,
JS

On Dec 28, 12:14*pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:
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
*.
Just an Example of "Single Focus" Thinking :
Optimizing Your Results For One Purpose.

Sort of what Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWL)
do when they consider how they are going to
Design, Build and Use an Antenna for the
Hobby of Shortwave Radio Listening *(SWLing)

Yes as you have pointed out : There is a Greater
Boby of Knowledge and Practicum Out There
That Could Be Considered and Used -but- The
Shortwave Listener (SWL) often is 'selective' in
what they consider and use to achieve their
specific limited goals.

It Has To Do With "Level-of-Involvement" :
* Many/Most Amateur Radio Operators {Hams}
have the well earn knowledge and experience
to function 'like' an Auto Mechanic -wrt- Cars
* * Hams at their best are Advocates of the
Technology [ Practicers of The Craft ]
* Many/Most Shortwave Radio Listeners (SWLs)
simply enjoy a level of knowledge and experience
to function 'like' a Car Driver -wrt- Cars
* * SWLs at their best are Hobbyists Enjoyers
of the Technology [ Users of the Technology ]
TBL : Both are Need -and- Both are Different

~ RHF
*.

I see you are ready to go to extraordinary lengths to justify your
statements or propose "special cases" which are only correct in extreme
circumstances of very limited parameters--this is all fine, however,
carry on without me ...

Again, it is as true as when I originally stated it, the same antenna,
its efficiency, fitness-for-purpose, pattern delivered, etc. will work
the same, both forward (transmitting), or in reverse (receiving.) *I am
sure there exists the possiblily of "breaking" or "orchastrating" the
antenna physics to bring about a special case or cases ... no practical
use I have yet seen has required this.

Many hams wish to think themselves "special" because of their hobby, now
you have brought me to the realization that there is the equivalent in
the SWL'ers hobby ... to me, it just looks like one of my other hobbies,
like tropical fish, for example.

Regards,
JS

JS - You started using 'Car' Analogy; and
I followed through with 'Car' Analogy ~ RHF

To many/most Hobbyists there 'hobbies are simply
"Hobbies" : Some thing that they do in their spare
time to enjoy and pass the time. Most Shortwave
Radio Listeners (SWL) fit into this Category of
Hobbyists.

For some/many Hobbyists there 'hobby' is their true
"Avocation" in-fact for some Their HOBBY is Their
Life : Some thing that They Do All The Time : They
Live and Breath Their Hobby : Many Amateur Radio
Operators {Hams} fit into this Category of HOBBYISTS.
http://www.answers.com/Avocation

This is Why I refer to Amateur Radio as "The Craft" :
The Mastery* of the Body of Knowledge and Practices
related to the Science and Art of Radio Operating.
* All Praise Be To Them That Do.
-but- that is not me : for i remain simply a plain old
shortwave radio listener : who keeps his swling
"k-i-s-a-p" = keep/ing it simply and practical

If some one asks "Where To Buy" :
I tell them 'where to buy'.

If some one asks "How To" {Build It} :
I tell them 'how to' {build it}
They Did Not Ask for "The Theory Behind It"
-and- i don't give them 'the theory behind it'

If some asks "What Do You "Recommend" :
I 'recommend' a something or two and usually
provide a few links as pointers to get them going.

hey it is just my opinion and nothing more - kisap ~ RHF
-ps- JS Yes You Are Right "I Am Extremely Special" ;-}

John Smith wrote:

...
Actually, Telemundo is just the same old idiot, pulling the same old
tricks and attempting to appear as a guru to those possessing even less
knowledge than himself ...

I never even commented on where the placement of the matchbox would be,
and, as everyone knows, anywhere along the line you can place it. The
best place would be between the coax (feedline) and the antenna--that
is, taking for granted that the match from your rig to the feedline is
perfect.

However, no matter where you place the matchbox (including up telemundos
butt), its' losses remain constant, and, it is a net loss to the system
... and the poor antenna remains just as poor--its' faults having been
masked.

Next end-run please?

Regards,
JS

Now, let me give you a mechanical example, so those willing and/or able
may grasp the concept, in fact, let me give you a couple:

1) The neighbors light is shining in my window(s), it is too bright too
sleep--I place a thick blanket over the window--WAALAA, "masked" the
problem!

2) The neighbors stereo is too loud. I plug my ears, again, WAALAAA,
problem fixed!

3) [add your own example here]

telemundo is an argumentative idiot with a poor working knowledge of
what discussions he engages in ... :-(

But then, if you don't possess the knowledge/experience to be able to
realize this, no one can blame you for being fooled ... later.

Regards,
JS