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

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

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

John Smith wrote:


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
Telemundo is a subsidiary of General Electric.

Your analogies don't hold up. You cannot transmit with a Beveridge and
you cannot transmit with a ferrite loop.

Dave wrote:

...
Your analogies don't hold up. You cannot transmit with a Beveridge and
you cannot transmit with a ferrite loop.


You CAN transmit with both.

And, only emphasizes the importance of what I have been saying, most
would pick the most efficient possible antenna--both examples, of yours,
are less than most efficient ... even for receiving, the ferrite
loop-stick on an a AM/MW radio is far from first choice ... it is
convenient, cheap and highly-portable, however.

Regards,
JS

On Dec 29, 5:52*am, Dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:

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

- Telemundo is a subsidiary of General Electric.
-
- Your analogies don't hold up.
-*You cannot transmit with a Beveridge
- and you cannot transmit with a ferrite loop.

Dave -says- You cannot transmit with a Beveridge and

Dave that is "Beverage" Antenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_antenna
and sure you can Transmit with it.
http://www.qsl.net/k2hq/bev.htm
http://www.kkn.net/~n2nc/bev_arrays/
http://members.cox.net/kb1gw/bev-page.htm
http://www.n0hr.com/hamradio/66/10/ham_radio0.htm
http://www.seed-solutions.com/gregor...n/Beverage.htm

-IF- You really wanted a Beverage Antenna for very
Directional Transmitting : Single-point on a Single
Frequency : You might try one at 1.5 WL or 3 WL

Dave -says- you cannot transmit with a ferrite loop.

Sure you can Dave and Ferrite Rod Transmitting
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...rt7/page5.html
Antennas are just about every where you go . . .
http://www.radio-electronics.com/inf...od_antenna.php
-think- Low Power Very Directional Transmitting
Antenna RFID Detection Exit Door Systems in
many Retail Stores : Some/Many of these use
Ferrite Rod Transmitting Antennas {Transponders}.
http://www.elnamagnetics.com/library/rfant.pdf

Dave even Arnie Coro "DXers Unlimited" [RHC]
says it can be done ;-}
http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions...s/01-1222.html
"you can build a ferrite rod loop antenna"

RHF wrote:

Dave even Arnie Coro "DXers Unlimited" [RHC]
says it can be done ;-}
http://www.radiohc.org/Distributions...s/01-1222.html
"you can build a ferrite rod loop antenna"
.
all things are 'possible' : especially for the man
who does not know that he can not do it ~ RHF

Arnie Coro also recommends the T2FD.

On Dec 28, 6:24*pm, Dave wrote:
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.

-IF- Your main objective is to protect the Transceiver
-then- a Tuner in the Radio-Shack will do that.
-however- If your main objective is to 'optimize' your
Transmitting Signal : Then a Tuner at the Antenna's
Feed-Point will do that better. ~ RHF