In article
,
RHF wrote:

On Dec 29, 12:37*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,



*RHF wrote:
On Dec 28, 8:36*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,
*John Smith wrote:

SNIP

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-

Right. That's because you are to stupid to understand a concept
until someone rubes your nose in it. This would not even occur
to you until someone else brought it up.

-that is, taking for granted that the match from your rig to
the feedline is perfect.

SNIP

You are really worried about the match of 50 ohm *coax to your
radios 50 ohm output? Now that's funny.

IIRC - The Characteristically 50 Ohm Impedance Coax Cable is
'only' 50 Ohms nominal . . . Until you attach something to it.

SNIP

Nope. The cable itself has a characteristic impedance of some
design value. The spacing and size of the conductors along with the
dielectric constant of the insulator between them dictates the
impedance of the coax.

You are confusing the characteristic impedance of the coax with its
ability to be an effective transmission line. The coax only behaves
as an effective transmission line when both ends of it are
terminated at its characteristic impedance.


Telamon,

OK -restatement- The "Measured" {by You} 50 Ohm Impedance Coax Cable
is 'only' 50 Ohms nominal* * Until you attach something to it.

-IF- You then attach a Transmitters Output that is a Nominal 50 Ohms
to one end of the Coax Cable and then the 'other' end will still
"Measure*" about 50 Ohms. * This is what the Antenna will see.

However -if- You attach an Unknown "Z" Antenna and Ground to one end
of the Coax Cable; then the 'other' end may "Measure*" near or far
from 50 Ohms. * This is what the Transmitter will see.

Unknown "Z" Antenna = Random Wire Antenna

as always . . . i may be 'w-r-o-n-g' - iane ~ RHF

You are just confusing a few things. You need to understand that at RF
all parts of a circuit are not "seen" by the RF energy "at the same
time." The energy has to propagate through the circuit. This is
different from DC where the whole circuit "is seen" by the energy
source at once. I'm sure that at DC you are familiar with adding up
resistor networks or loads into a total load resistance where you can
figure out what the total current would be if you applied a certain
voltage. This is also know as a lump sum circuit.

At RF since it takes time for the energy to propagate through parts of
the circuit so they are not seen at the same time and you have to use
vector math that has magnitude and phase components, instead of just
magnitude, to describe the current that results from an applied
voltage. Now with this vector math representing the circuit impedance
as opposed to just magnitude resistance you can make transformations
similar to an equivalent DC total load resistance for RF current
calculations but you have to keep in mind that these are time or phase
dependent. A complication of this is some of the energy can even go
backward depending on the circuit so these time dependent voltages and
currents need to be summed as vectors with magnitude and phase, which
represent a voltage or current at a spot in the circuit.

The practical upshot of this is that RF paths like coax have to be
viewed as transmission lines where the RF energy only "sees" a part of
the coax at any one moment in time and after a short period of time the
energy "sees" the next part of the coax and so on until it reaches the
end. With this understanding it is the "environment" of the coax that
causes it to represent an "impedance" or how it reacts to the RF energy
as a complex resistance to its flow. This reactive environment is
created by the size, spacing, and DC resistance of the two conductors
along with the dielectric value of the insulator between them.

Now with that said you can still make the R total type of RF impedance
calculation with a resistor or a reactive load on the far end of a coax
cable as a total transformed circuit impedance value but it does not
change in any way the intrinsic impedance of the coax itself, which is
fully dependent on its physical construction.

Now, if you are still with me, the coax will only function properly as a
transmission line when the source impedance at one end and the load
impedance at the other end are the same value. In this state all the RF
energy is internal to the coax and if the load or source impedance is
not the same currents start to flow on the outside of the coax so it
will not shield properly. All the energy will not even enter the coax at
the source end and energy will be reflected at the load end creating
standing waves of energy on the coax, which is the sum of the forward
and reverse waves at any one point. Where these waves sum the voltages
can be many times higher than the source causing excessive heating or
even breakdown of the dielectric at that point or arcing at the
connectors. Under these conditions the coax specifications will not be
met. The coax will not meet its isolation, insertion loss, or VSWR
specifications even though there is nothing wrong with it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Dave wrote:

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.

This is a closed loop type of antenna, which in my opinion is safer than
a single wire connected to a portable as far as static charge on the
single wire blowing the radios front end FET amplifier.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
Dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article
,
Telamon wrote:

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.

Here is an example of the 5/8 wavelength antenna I recall using in the
center of the page. The one I used was permanent mount not magnetic
though. The van roof it was installed on was the ground plane.

http://www.new-tronics.com/main/html/mobile_vhf.html

When this antenna was changed for a 1/2 wave a lot of coverage was lost.
This was before cell phones so I had to start using pay phones a lot.


The one with the center coil is a collinear. It is 2 stacked verticals
with a "delay" between.

I don't think it works that way. The coil is just a way to shorten the
total whip length. I haven't looked at the design but I would be
surprised if what you posted was true.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
"RP" wrote:

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

You dumb twit. We don't care about transmitting.

We don't...?

Yeah we don't. This was posted in the shortwave group and cross posted
to the amateur group.

Receiving is EQUALLY as important as the transmitting element in the
above.

Again you dumb twit, we don't care about transmitting.

We don't...?

Yes we don't care.

Yeah, very sad of you to keep plonking and then continue to read me.

I thought this was your trick?

No not mine although filters do get turned off from time to time for
various reasons.

What a goofball.

Takes one to know one.

And that make you one now doesn't it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

RP wrote:
You ridiculous fool. You are the most complete brain dead example of a
sub-human which has ever been presented to me ...
You dumb twit. We don't care about transmitting.

We don't...?

Receiving is EQUALLY as important as the transmitting element in the
above.
Again you dumb twit, we don't care about transmitting.

We don't...?

Yeah, very sad of you to keep plonking and then continue to read me.

I thought this was your trick?

What a goofball.

Takes one to know one.



Hey, telemundo is a great man, in his own mind, leave him alone ...
humor here is sparse, he provides for a needed demand ... :-)

You are just a comprehension impaired fool that talks to himself. How
you doing today? Have any nice conversations with yourself you would
like to share with the newsgroup?

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Dec 31, 1:34*pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Dec 29, 1:44 pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

[...]

- Anyway you cut it ... a matchbox never will improve
- the performance of a poor antenna,

JS,

- - So you are saying that I have an Antenna and Transceiver
- - and can hear 5 Radio Operators in a Net on a Frequency;
- - but only 2 of them can hear me.

= BAD {Lousy} Poorly "Radiating" Antenna
without the 'matchbox' in the circuit.

- - I then put a MatchBox in-line between my Antenna and
- - Transceiver and Adjust-It; and can still hear all 5 Radio
- - Operators on a Frequency and now all 5 of them can
- - hear me.

= GOOD {Better} Nicely "Radiating" Antenna
with the 'MatchBox' in the circuit.

Once Again 'why' is it that with the MatchBox and the
same Antenna and Transceiver : Now more people can
hear me or hear me better : It the same Poor Antenna

Hey may be MatchBoxs are Super Radiators ? and they
are now hearing me off my MatchBox versus my Poor
Antenna without the 'matchbox'.

- - AGAIN - -
- - To Me That Is Very Real Improved Performance from
- - My Antenna and Transceiver that is a direct result of
- - using the MatchBox between them. ~ RHF
- - *.

increase the capture area of a poor antenna, etc.

It will MASK that antennas' short-comings ... same as sweeping dirt
under a rug (notice, another mechanical analogy to the above.)

Regards,
JS

I guess, any possibly way it can be explained to you, will fail ...

If you introduce an inductance to resonate the antenna, you introduce a
loss, if you introduce a capacitance, the same ... LC or PI networks,
commonly used in matchboxes, have notable losses.

I have a 60ft longwire, mounted ~40 ft. in the air. *Since it is only
physically resonate on but a couple/few freqs, and, since I am not
employing some form of matching on the antenna, and since the antenna
does not, naturally, present a correct impedance to my feedline/rig,
some form of lossy matching must be tolerated ... since the matchbox is
located at my receiver, whatever feedlines I choose will also become a
part of the "antenna." *The ideal placement for a matchbox would be at
the antenna, as everyone is and has been aware of for a long time, or
should have been aware.

As I stated, continue to state, and have no other choice than to state
when worried about being correct--no matchbox will ever improve the
performance of a poor antenna--all it can do is allow you to get maximum
benefit of that poor performance.

You have separate components, affects/effects, terms, etc. all confused
and lumped together. *Antenna design, capture area, etc. effect antenna
efficiency--the impedance that/those designs/constructions entail, and
the method of matching (transforming) that impedance to one acceptable,
is another "thing", all-together.

Regards,
JS

In article ,
John Smith wrote:

RHF wrote:
On Dec 29, 1:44 pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

[...]

- Anyway you cut it ... a matchbox never will improve
- the performance of a poor antenna,

JS,

So you are saying that I have an Antenna and Transceiver
and can hear 5 Radio Operators in a Net on a Frequency;
but only 2 of them can hear me.

I then put a MatchBox in-line between my Antenna and
Transceiver and Adjust-It; and can still hear all 5 Radio
Operators on a Frequency and now all 5 of them can
hear me.

To Me That Is Very Real Improved Performance from
My Antenna and Transceiver that is a direct result of
using the MatchBox between them. ~ RHF
.

increase the capture area of a poor antenna, etc.

It will MASK that antennas' short-comings ... same as sweeping dirt
under a rug (notice, another mechanical analogy to the above.)



I guess, any possibly way it can be explained to you, will fail ...

If you introduce an inductance to resonate the antenna, you introduce a
loss, if you introduce a capacitance, the same ... LC or PI networks,
commonly used in matchboxes, have notable losses.

I have a 60ft longwire, mounted ~40 ft. in the air. Since it is only
physically resonate on but a couple/few freqs, and, since I am not
employing some form of matching on the antenna, and since the antenna
does not, naturally, present a correct impedance to my feedline/rig,
some form of lossy matching must be tolerated ... since the matchbox is
located at my receiver, whatever feedlines I choose will also become a
part of the "antenna." The ideal placement for a matchbox would be at
the antenna, as everyone is and has been aware of for a long time, or
should have been aware.

As I stated, continue to state, and have no other choice than to state
when worried about being correct--no matchbox will ever improve the
performance of a poor antenna--all it can do is allow you to get maximum
benefit of that poor performance.

SNIP

"all it can do is allow you to get maximum benefit of that poor
performance"

What the hell is this supposed to mean?

My best guess is you can continue to wrong.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Dec 31, 5:57*pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:

* ...



- - So you are saying that I have an Antenna and Transceiver
- - and can hear 5 Radio Operators in a Net on a Frequency;
- - but only 2 of them can hear me.

= BAD {Lousy} Poorly "Radiating" Antenna
without the 'matchbox' in the circuit.

- - I then put a MatchBox in-line between my Antenna and
- - Transceiver and Adjust-It; and can still hear all 5 Radio
- - Operators on a Frequency and now all 5 of them can
- - hear me.

= GOOD {Better} Nicely "Radiating" Antenna
with the 'MatchBox' in the circuit.

Once Again 'why' is it that with the MatchBox and the
same Antenna and Transceiver : Now more people can
hear me or hear me better : It the same Poor Antenna

Hey may be MatchBoxs are Super Radiators ? and they
are now hearing me off my MatchBox versus my Poor
Antenna without the 'matchbox'.

- - AGAIN - -
- - To Me That Is Very Real Improved Performance from
- - My Antenna and Transceiver that is a direct result of
- - using the MatchBox between them. ~ RHF
- - *.
...

As, I have said, the terms you think and communicate in are in error.
Because of preconceived notions you have formed, everything you hear
just brings you back to your previous errors.

Arguing though all that mess would only lead you further astray ... a
matchbox will do NOTHING to improve a poor antenna, whether you are
transmitting on that poor antenna or receiving on that poor antenna ...
once you realize that single point, progress forward will be possible,
end-of-story.

The world is full of "testimonials for a particular antenna(s)", many of
those testimonials are worth less than the paper they are written on.
Combine that with unscrupulous claims, "facts", figures and charts which
has been hoisted on an ignorant public (most famous might be the past
practices of CB antenna manufacturers/suppliers, although you can find
it in other radio venues also) and it is easy to see why so much
confusion exists.

One thing a matchbox is excellent at, getting the maximum amount of
power transferred to a poor antenna--where it will promptly be lost in
heat ... both, in the matchbox and in the feed-line/antenna-components.

Regards,
JS

JS - OK to use your 'words'

This here MatchBox thingee "is excellent at, getting
the maximum amount of power transferred to a poor
antenna"

CONDITION # 1 'Before' the MatchBox thingee :
Less Power Going to the Antenna; which is
Wasted as Heat; with no MatchBox Loses.
-or- Just may be less Power being Effectively
Radiated by the Antenna

JS -what-about- The 'Before' Condition of the Transmitter
with a Poor Antenna and NO MatchBox is IT's Power
Output "Optimum" {Full Power} or may be 'sub-optimum'
some reduced power level due to the Poor Antenna ?

Wouldn't the "maximum amount of power" = Full Power ?
And some thing less be a reduced power level ?

System : Transceiver Coax Cable Antenna
"" Power Out and Reflected Power

CONDITION # 2 'After' the MatchBox thingee :
More Power Going to the Antenna; which is
also Wasted as Heat; with MatchBox Loses.
-or- Just may be More Power being Effectively
Radiated by the Antenna.

JS -what-about- The 'After' Condition of the Transmitter
with a Poor Antenna and using a MatchBox is IT's
Power Output now at "Optimum" {Full Power} with the
MatchBox and the Poor Antenna ?

Wouldn't the "maximum amount of power" = Full Power ?

System : Transceiver Coax Cable MatchBox Antenna
"" Power Out

JS -obtw- What's with these references to CB Radio ?

is the nature of electricity and radio frequencies
and the laws of physics different for amateur and
cb radio two-way communications ? ? ? ~ RHF

RHF wrote:

...
JS - OK to use your 'words'

This here MatchBox thingee "is excellent at, getting
the maximum amount of power transferred to a poor
antenna"

CONDITION # 1 'Before' the MatchBox thingee :
Less Power Going to the Antenna; which is
Wasted as Heat; with no MatchBox Loses.
-or- Just may be less Power being Effectively
Radiated by the Antenna

JS -what-about- The 'Before' Condition of the Transmitter
with a Poor Antenna and NO MatchBox is IT's Power
Output "Optimum" {Full Power} or may be 'sub-optimum'
some reduced power level due to the Poor Antenna ?

Wouldn't the "maximum amount of power" = Full Power ?
And some thing less be a reduced power level ?

System : Transceiver Coax Cable Antenna
"" Power Out and Reflected Power

CONDITION # 2 'After' the MatchBox thingee :
More Power Going to the Antenna; which is
also Wasted as Heat; with MatchBox Loses.
-or- Just may be More Power being Effectively
Radiated by the Antenna.

JS -what-about- The 'After' Condition of the Transmitter
with a Poor Antenna and using a MatchBox is IT's
Power Output now at "Optimum" {Full Power} with the
MatchBox and the Poor Antenna ?

Wouldn't the "maximum amount of power" = Full Power ?

System : Transceiver Coax Cable MatchBox Antenna
"" Power Out

JS -obtw- What's with these references to CB Radio ?

is the nature of electricity and radio frequencies
and the laws of physics different for amateur and
cb radio two-way communications ? ? ? ~ RHF
.

You now just wish to produce so much BS that original statements and
facts become confusing, along with readers which you have a chance of
confusing ... all original statements stand ... your attempt to blow up
the "problem" to n'th degrees of magnitude is a tactic most lose with
age, discipline, experience, logic, etc. ... your hunt for a special
case to justify some bizarre anomaly which you might find along the way,
and justify some debate, may interest some ... since I have no need, not me.

Going to extraordinary lengths so that you may regain some bit of
credibility on some minor point is a complete waste of my time--indeed,
it makes a statement about you and your mental state which is blatantly
obvious to those with an understanding of the concepts we have been
discussing, and "have been around the block" ... end-of-story.

Perhaps someone else will finally be able to get through to you, if they
are kind and have the time to waste ... in the meantime, no one attempts
to halt your practices ... have at it big boy. ;-)

Regards,
JS

On Dec 31, 8:57*pm, John Smith wrote:
RHF wrote:
...
JS - OK to use your 'words'

This here MatchBox thingee "is excellent at, getting
the maximum amount of power transferred to a poor
antenna"

CONDITION # 1 'Before' the MatchBox thingee :
Less Power Going to the Antenna; which is
Wasted as Heat; with no MatchBox Loses.
-or- Just may be less Power being Effectively
Radiated by the Antenna

JS -what-about- The 'Before' Condition of the Transmitter
with a Poor Antenna and NO MatchBox is IT's Power
Output "Optimum" {Full Power} or may be 'sub-optimum'
some reduced power level due to the Poor Antenna ?

Wouldn't the "maximum amount of power" = Full Power ?
And some thing less be a reduced power level ?

System : Transceiver Coax Cable Antenna
"" Power Out and Reflected Power

CONDITION # 2 'After' the MatchBox thingee :
More Power Going to the Antenna; which is
also Wasted as Heat; with MatchBox Loses.
-or- Just may be More Power being Effectively
Radiated by the Antenna.

JS -what-about- The 'After' Condition of the Transmitter
with a Poor Antenna and using a MatchBox is IT's
Power Output now at "Optimum" {Full Power} with the
MatchBox and the Poor Antenna ?

Wouldn't the "maximum amount of power" = Full Power ?

System : Transceiver Coax Cable MatchBox Antenna
"" Power Out

JS -obtw- What's with these references to CB Radio ?

is the nature of electricity and radio frequencies
and the laws of physics different for amateur and
cb radio two-way communications ? ? ? ~ RHF
*.

You now just wish to produce so much BS that original statements and
facts become confusing, along with readers which you have a chance of
confusing ... all original statements stand ... your attempt to blow up
the "problem" to n'th degrees of magnitude is a tactic most lose with
age, discipline, experience, logic, etc. ... your hunt for a special
case to justify some bizarre anomaly which you might find along the way,
and justify some debate, may interest some ... since I have no need, not me.

Going to extraordinary lengths so that you may regain some bit of
credibility on some minor point is a complete waste of my time--indeed,
it makes a statement about you and your mental state which is blatantly
obvious to those with an understanding of the concepts we have been
discussing, and "have been around the block" ... end-of-story.

Perhaps someone else will finally be able to get through to you, if they
are kind and have the time to waste ... in the meantime, no one attempts
to halt your practices ... have at it big boy. *;-)

Regards,
JS

JS,

Oh Well I Give Up You Have Worn Me Down: You Clearly
Don't Have The Answer To The Ultimate Question.

hint "42" ~ RHF