|
In article , "Wes Stewart"
wrote: Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving. The reciprocity principle is usually good physics (but watch out for Faraday rotation). However, the engineering virtues of a good transmitting and good receiving antenna are different. At HF and below, efficiency is much less important for receiving than it is for transmitting. The reason is that the natural noise level is high at these frequencies: at 10 MHz it's 30 dB above thermal, while a good receiver's noise floor is 10 dB above thermal. This leaves plenty of room for inefficiency without SNR degradation. At lower frequencies the natural noise is higher. In practice 10 meters of untuned inverted L into a 500 ohm input suffices to reach the natural noise floor from 100 kHz to 30 MHz with a good receiver. Back in the days of the omega navigation system, we used tuned 2 meter whips to receive signals from around the world in the 10 kHz band. For the results of quantitative engineering calculations on this subject, see: http://anarc.org/naswa/badx/antennas/SWL_longwire.html -- | John Doty "You can't confuse me, that's my job." | Home: | Work: |
In article , "w4jle" W4JLE(remove this
to wrote: Believe what you will, the law of reciprocity will ignore your beliefs and continue to function. 1. It's only a "law" for scalar radiation (like sound), not vector radiation (radio). To be sure, it's a fine approximation for most HF antenna systems, but watch out a microwave frequencies, especially if your antenna system contains a "circulator". 2. In the cases where reciprocity applies you would be correct to say that it requires that the antenna directivity and efficiency are the same for transmitting and receiving. It does not follow, however, that a poor transmitting antenna is necessarily a poor receiving antenna. Efficiency matters much more when transmitting than it does when receiving. Franks's observations are correct, and can be verified if you do a detailed signal to noise calculation. You could also try the experiment yourself. "Frank" wrote in message news:01c3b0a2$989de120$0125250a@cqvdqntcxxawvjpo.. . Wes Stewart ... ^ Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for ^ transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving. I don't believe that. It's been my experience that an antenna used for receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for transmitting under those same conditions. Frank -- | John Doty "You can't confuse me, that's my job." | Home: | Work: |
Outwitting Home Owner Associations/Condo Associations Regarding Antennas
Hello All!
I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. In essence he says that the: "...[Federal] government will defend your right to crawl up on the roof and put up a BIG, HONKING antenna, despite the protests of nosy neighbors, community planners, rental management companies, local governemnt bureaucrats and other meddlesome busybodies." Want to know how? Here is the URL: www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Now you may have to prove to "the opposition" that the antenna you have erected can indeed receive "local" television stations, but that should not be that difficult to do... |
Thank you.... .......
I am moving into a housing plan with such antenna restrictions. But what housing plan doesn't have them. There is always someone trying to tell some else how to live their lives, or knows what's best for you. "A.Pismo Clam" wrote: Hello All! I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. In essence he says that the: "...[Federal] government will defend your right to crawl up on the roof and put up a BIG, HONKING antenna, despite the protests of nosy neighbors, community planners, rental management companies, local governemnt bureaucrats and other meddlesome busybodies." Want to know how? Here is the URL: www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Now you may have to prove to "the opposition" that the antenna you have erected can indeed receive "local" television stations, but that should not be that difficult to do... |
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:37:02 -0800, "A.Pismo Clam"
wrote: ... I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. Such feelings are generally indications of dreaming. In essence he says that the: "...[Federal] government will defend your right to crawl up on the roof and put up a BIG, HONKING antenna..." The government will DO NOTHING! Which means you won't get arrested. The converse notion of their helping is dreaming in technicolor. Want to know how? Here is the URL: www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Now you may have to prove to "the opposition" that the antenna you have erected can indeed receive "local" television stations, but that should not be that difficult to do... Hi Pismo, Big honkin' antennas? This completes the picture with dreaming in surround-sound: (1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement (3) ... Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements. Such interpretation of the law, while asleep, has created a vast culture of lawyers who are willing to do follow-up work. The trick is to design your antenna to within the law. 1. Choose the highest point of your roof line and erect the allowed 12 foot mast; 2. Place suitable dish or simple TV antenna (remember, local means no 40 element booms); 3. Run your favorite coax STRAIGHT UP (as nearly you can) to the top; 4. Ground to radial system and AC earth ground at bottom; 5. Gamma match to coax shield at the bottom (hidden). Antenna does not have to be functional. It only needs to look functional (do not point at the northern star, Polaris, for example). If it is functional, you may need to provide for a choke at the feedpoint to the antenna (to separate the two functions - your hobby from your TV). Try to place this effort away from major home interference sources (TV's and computer monitors, fish tanks, fluorescent fixtures, and so on). To extend the service frequencies in the HF region (because the mast is still too short), then add guy wires attached at the top electrically and physically, which are insulated about halfway down with egg type insulators, or use rope the rest of the way to ground. This top-load skirt may also serve as the choke, but don't count on it without figuring in the time to experiment and confirm. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
The only one you can blame for this problem is your
self. You signed the lease... 'Doc |
"A.Pismo Clam" wrote in message ... Hello All! I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. [snip] Why do you want to live in a neighborhood in which all the homes have a dress code? I suppose renters are stuck with such restrictions, but what do "owners" "own" if they can get hassled for stringing a wire? Frank Dresser |
Frank Dresser wrote: "A.Pismo Clam" wrote in message ... Hello All! I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. [snip] Why do you want to live in a neighborhood in which all the homes have a dress code? I suppose renters are stuck with such restrictions, but what do "owners" "own" if they can get hassled for stringing a wire? Frank Dresser The thought occurs to me that in the "good old days" aircraft used to have wire antennas, either strung around the airframe or trailing below and behind. Modern, high speed, aircraft can't do this so they have various solutions including HF probes and conformal antennas (I have seen unpainted panels on some large military aircraft which were identified as HF antennas) and it is not difficult to receive their signals over distances of several thousand miles. I wonder why no one has, at least as far as I am aware, attempted to adapt these solutions to Ham Radio? I have personal experience, some 40 years ago, with an HF antenna which consisted of the top half of the tail (about a 15 to 20 foot square metal surface) which was tuned by a remote ATU (Collins CU-351 ISTR) and performed at least as well as a fixed wire over the range of 2.5 to 30 MHz. I had considered at one time covering one end of the house with foil and trying the idea against ground, but for some reason I encountered some opposition from another member of my household. I think she figured 15 antennas was enough! Dave VE3HLU |
Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement
that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. In other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair business. Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^) Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped problem. Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance, nobody wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a CB "base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of what the "external antenna" rules are meant to curb. -- Stinger "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "A.Pismo Clam" wrote in message ... Hello All! I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. [snip] Why do you want to live in a neighborhood in which all the homes have a dress code? I suppose renters are stuck with such restrictions, but what do "owners" "own" if they can get hassled for stringing a wire? Frank Dresser |
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:58:40 -0600, "Stinger"
wrote: |Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement |that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the |specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. In |other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and |having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen |wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair business. |Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to |infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^) I happen to subscribe to Fine Homebuilding Magazine and in one of the latest issues there is some discussion about people who will not make any changes to their house without considering resale value. They could be eight feet tall and planning to remodel the kitchen, but will they think of raising the height of the countertops to make it easier on themselves? Nooooo. It will affect resale value. They might be planning to die in the house but they worry that their heirs will have a hard time selling. The same mentality prevails in people who willingly submit to the whims of the homeowners' association board. If I want to leave my garage door open while I use my woodworking tools or work on my car, I don't want the guy across the street getting his panties in a bunch over it. Likewise, I don't want to be told when to mow the grass. Of course, in my case, across the street is 80 acres of Sonoran Desert and my landscaping is whatever grows here. (I gave the lawnmower to the guy that bought my last house.) And I'm not trying to keep up with Jones either because where I live, *I'm* Jones. Heh heh. | |Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the |street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped problem. If you don't want to hear anything, by all means conceal your antenna. Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving. | |Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. Broadcasting is done by broadcasting stations. Broadcasting is one-way communication. Hobbists; licensed radio amateurs (hams), and CBers (not to be confused with hams) are operating transmitting stations designed for two-way communications. |For instance, nobody |wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a CB |"base station." Nobody? That is an all-encompassing term. "Few", "some", "not too many" might be better. Not that I'm in favor of CBers running illegal stations. |It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable |television connections, and is a nuisance. A "well-shielded" system will not "see" anything of the sort. The problem will more likely be from some upstanding homeowner, who wouldn't dare leave his garage door open and violate association rules, making an illegal tap on the cable. | I think that's a lot of what the |"external antenna" rules are meant to curb. No, most antenna restrictions have nothing to do with the possibility of interference. The restrictions are for the same reasons as not wanting the garage door open, the grass an inch too high, painting the house the wrong shade of white, etc... |
Dave Holford article ...
^ I have personal experience, some 40 years ago, with an ^ HF antenna which consisted of the top half of the tail ^ (about a 15 to 20 foot square metal surface) which was ^ tuned by a remote ATU (Collins CU-351 ISTR) and performed ^ at least as well as a fixed wire over the range of 2.5 to ^ 30 MHz. If I could put an antenna like that 20,000 feet over my house I would be very happy indeed! Frank |
Wes Stewart ...
^ Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for ^ transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving. I don't believe that. It's been my experience that an antenna used for receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for transmitting under those same conditions. Frank |
Believe what you will, the law of reciprocity will ignore your beliefs and
continue to function. "Frank" wrote in message news:01c3b0a2$989de120$0125250a@cqvdqntcxxawvjpo.. . Wes Stewart ... ^ Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for ^ transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving. I don't believe that. It's been my experience that an antenna used for receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for transmitting under those same conditions. Frank |
Frank wrote: Dave Holford article ... ^ I have personal experience, some 40 years ago, with an ^ HF antenna which consisted of the top half of the tail ^ (about a 15 to 20 foot square metal surface) which was ^ tuned by a remote ATU (Collins CU-351 ISTR) and performed ^ at least as well as a fixed wire over the range of 2.5 to ^ 30 MHz. If I could put an antenna like that 20,000 feet over my house I would be very happy indeed! Frank Worked very nicely between 50 and 100 feet, and very seldom were we above 5,000. I am aware of it being used to communicate from Australia to the East Coast of Canada while on the ground, and I have personally used it to communicate to North America from Europe while on the ground - never ran over 400 Watts. Dave |
"Stinger" wrote in message . .. Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. Homeowners associations are private governmental authorities which rule over people who signed away their Constitutional rights! For what -- the promise that othersuch people will pay more later on? Well, maybe so. This Homeowner Association thing sounds like yet another odious invention of the New World Order. In other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair business. Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^) Common sense says there's considerable value in a neighbor who can fix your car. Especially if you need a Sunday afternoon repair! I've done plenty of car work, back when I had a driveway. I got along fine with the neighbors. I suppose fixing their cars helped. We'd talk about cars, laugh at the Cubs, etc. It's the American way! Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped problem. Anyone who is bothered by the sight of a wire belongs on another planet. Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance, nobody wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a CB "base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of what the "external antenna" rules are meant to curb. -- Stinger External antenna rules and the rest are meant to intimidate lily-livered weenies who won't help fix their cars but are happy to sign away their Constitutional rights. And if some radio operator is splattering all over, there's plenty of Real Governmental Authority to answer to. Frank Dresser |
Sit on a cactus or something, Wes? You seem a little edgy.
Nobody is forced to buy into a neighborhood with covenants. One can do exactly what you have done and buy some distance from your neighbors. That's great if it works out for you. However, my case is obviously different from yours. The home where I now live is not the home I will own when I retire. I won't need nearly as many bedrooms, etc., and it will be out on an acreage I own (that's currently a little farther than I care to commute to my job). Living in a good neighborhood with covenants makes sense for me right now, because I do want to protect the hefty investment I've made in my home, specifically because I do intend to sell it someday. Just because covenants aren't ideal for your situation doesn't make them a bad thing. As for your hair-splitting over "broadcasting," it was clear my intent was "transmitting." -- just as it is clear your intent is to act like an asshole. -- Stinger "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:58:40 -0600, "Stinger" wrote: |Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement |that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the |specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. In |other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and |having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen |wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair business. |Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to |infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^) I happen to subscribe to Fine Homebuilding Magazine and in one of the latest issues there is some discussion about people who will not make any changes to their house without considering resale value. They could be eight feet tall and planning to remodel the kitchen, but will they think of raising the height of the countertops to make it easier on themselves? Nooooo. It will affect resale value. They might be planning to die in the house but they worry that their heirs will have a hard time selling. The same mentality prevails in people who willingly submit to the whims of the homeowners' association board. If I want to leave my garage door open while I use my woodworking tools or work on my car, I don't want the guy across the street getting his panties in a bunch over it. Likewise, I don't want to be told when to mow the grass. Of course, in my case, across the street is 80 acres of Sonoran Desert and my landscaping is whatever grows here. (I gave the lawnmower to the guy that bought my last house.) And I'm not trying to keep up with Jones either because where I live, *I'm* Jones. Heh heh. | |Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the |street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped problem. If you don't want to hear anything, by all means conceal your antenna. Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving. | |Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. Broadcasting is done by broadcasting stations. Broadcasting is one-way communication. Hobbists; licensed radio amateurs (hams), and CBers (not to be confused with hams) are operating transmitting stations designed for two-way communications. |For instance, nobody |wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a CB |"base station." Nobody? That is an all-encompassing term. "Few", "some", "not too many" might be better. Not that I'm in favor of CBers running illegal stations. |It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable |television connections, and is a nuisance. A "well-shielded" system will not "see" anything of the sort. The problem will more likely be from some upstanding homeowner, who wouldn't dare leave his garage door open and violate association rules, making an illegal tap on the cable. | I think that's a lot of what the |"external antenna" rules are meant to curb. No, most antenna restrictions have nothing to do with the possibility of interference. The restrictions are for the same reasons as not wanting the garage door open, the grass an inch too high, painting the house the wrong shade of white, etc... |
Frank,
As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood with covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my case, they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I did was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they built nearby. I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk cars on the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my neighbor won't. By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon Claw 1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son how to change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage. So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car argument. I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's the real problem? -- Stinger "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Stinger" wrote in message . .. Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. Homeowners associations are private governmental authorities which rule over people who signed away their Constitutional rights! For what -- the promise that othersuch people will pay more later on? Well, maybe so. This Homeowner Association thing sounds like yet another odious invention of the New World Order. In other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair business. Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^) Common sense says there's considerable value in a neighbor who can fix your car. Especially if you need a Sunday afternoon repair! I've done plenty of car work, back when I had a driveway. I got along fine with the neighbors. I suppose fixing their cars helped. We'd talk about cars, laugh at the Cubs, etc. It's the American way! Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped problem. Anyone who is bothered by the sight of a wire belongs on another planet. Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance, nobody wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a CB "base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of what the "external antenna" rules are meant to curb. -- Stinger External antenna rules and the rest are meant to intimidate lily-livered weenies who won't help fix their cars but are happy to sign away their Constitutional rights. And if some radio operator is splattering all over, there's plenty of Real Governmental Authority to answer to. Frank Dresser |
The difference between "satisfactory" in receiving and in transmitting antennas
is that in receiving, one just needs an antenna that provides signals strong enough over the on-frequency noise for the receiver to process. In transmitting, the output has to be a strong as possible to be above the noise in the desired receiving location. A better antenna will increase the transmission's erp toward the desired direction. In summary: For better reception, put your money into the receiver. For better transmission, put your money into the antenna. Bill, K5BY |
In article , "Wes Stewart"
wrote: Heh heh. When the guys from MIT come out to argue with you, you know you're in trouble. But fools rush in... I have made thousands of measurements in anechoic antenna ranges and I have never seen a difference between measuring s21 and s12. (Without the circulators, and accounting for mismatch effects of course) Where did I go wrong? You didn't ionize the air in the range :-) Seriously, for your purposes you did nothing wrong. Just don't call reciprocity a "law", OK? It's a useful idea of wide applicability, but physics does not require it in general. Calling it a law confuses people. Many years ago in grad school my advisor would vex visitors to his office with a little disk that looked like a piece of tinted glass. Put a quarter on the table, put the disk on top of it, the quarter looks black. Flip the disk over, put it back on the quarter, the quarter looks shiny. What was the construction of this thing? Some world class physicists couldn't figure it out. |2. In the cases where reciprocity applies you would be correct to say that |it requires that the antenna directivity and efficiency are the same for |transmitting and receiving. It does not follow, however, that a poor |transmitting antenna is necessarily a poor receiving antenna. Efficiency |matters much more when transmitting than it does when receiving. It also does not follow that a lousy receiving antenna is good enough. For example, I *always* got better moon echos on 2-meter EME using the same antenna for transmit and receive. When I tried a wet string on receive I didn't hear nuthin' g Directivity matters equally for receiving and transmitting. Was your wet string as directive as your other antenna? 2 meters is also quiet enough that there's not much room for inefficiency: in some directions the sky temperature is 200K. I have observed the same on 20 meters. My Yagi at a modest height of 50 feet is *always* better than an indoor wire. Throw a thin wire with dark brown insulation over a tall tree, up over one side, partway down the other (shaped like a "?"). Tie it in place with nylon fishing line. It will be invisible unless you're very close. Couple to coax with a grounded 9:1 broadband matching transformer. Bury the coax run to the house. Not only will this be much less conspicuous than a Yagi, but it will outperform your Yagi as a receiving antenna for nearly every signal over the range 100 kHz - 30 MHz. A Yagi is just too specialized an antenna for a listener. A trailing wire under sea water receives just fine at ELF and doesn't work worth a damn for transmitting. But those are special cases that can always be manufactured. Beverage antennas are also not something to be used for transmitting but you won't be disguising one as a chimney cap either :) For the listener from ELF to HF these are not manufactured special cases, they are the general case. MW and tropical band listeners often target their regions of interest with Beverages, either temporary or permanent. A Beverage is another antenna that can be very inconspicuous: if your soil's dry you can even bury a Beverage! For listening, a simple broadband antenna like a Beverage is much more practical than a complicated narrowband antenna like a Yagi. In the general sense of h-f to microwave, I stand by my claim. For the special case of confinement to a small number of narrow bands (as in ham radio), you are reasonably correct above 10 MHz. To me as a hobbyist listing to LW/MW/SW, that isn't the general case. Of course the game changes when I'm operating a satellite, but that isn't my *hobby*. -- | John Doty "You can't confuse me, that's my job." | Home: | Work: |
"Stinger" wrote in message . .. Frank, As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood with covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my case, they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I did was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they built nearby. I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk cars on the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my neighbor won't. By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon Claw 1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son how to change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage. So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car argument. I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's the real problem? -- Stinger I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized, he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty, sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues, it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees who are directly answerable to the courts. And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence. So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me. I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting improperly in the private sector and vice versa. My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up. |
Different strokes for different folks, Frank.
In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well. Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights arguments isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are just fine, thank you. However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector (government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private property to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over the United States. It' just plain wrong. -- Stinger "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Stinger" wrote in message . .. Frank, As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood with covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my case, they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I did was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they built nearby. I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk cars on the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my neighbor won't. By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon Claw 1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son how to change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage. So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car argument. I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's the real problem? -- Stinger I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized, he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty, sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues, it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees who are directly answerable to the courts. And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence. So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me. I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting improperly in the private sector and vice versa. My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up. |
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:44:57 -0000, "Frank"
wrote: |Wes Stewart ... | |^ Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for |^ transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving. | |I don't believe that. It's been my experience that an antenna used for |receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of |conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for |transmitting under those same conditions. Mmm. In the case of atmospheric limited SNRs that is true. A trailing wire under sea water receives just fine at ELF and doesn't work worth a damn for transmitting. But those are special cases that can always be manufactured. Beverage antennas are also not something to be used for transmitting but you won't be disguising one as a chimney cap either :) In the general sense of h-f to microwave, I stand by my claim. Wes |
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:47:29 -0600, "Stinger"
wrote: |just as it is clear your intent is to act like |an asshole. No, just having a little fun, but some folks take this stuff waaaay too seriously. |
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:17:33 +0500, "John Doty" wrote:
|In article , "w4jle" W4JLE(remove this |to wrote: | | Believe what you will, the law of reciprocity will ignore your beliefs | and continue to function. | |1. It's only a "law" for scalar radiation (like sound), not vector |radiation (radio). To be sure, it's a fine approximation for most HF |antenna systems, but watch out a microwave frequencies, especially if your |antenna system contains a "circulator". Heh heh. When the guys from MIT come out to argue with you, you know you're in trouble. But fools rush in... I have made thousands of measurements in anechoic antenna ranges and I have never seen a difference between measuring s21 and s12. (Without the circulators, and accounting for mismatch effects of course) Where did I go wrong? |2. In the cases where reciprocity applies you would be correct to say that |it requires that the antenna directivity and efficiency are the same for |transmitting and receiving. It does not follow, however, that a poor |transmitting antenna is necessarily a poor receiving antenna. Efficiency |matters much more when transmitting than it does when receiving. It also does not follow that a lousy receiving antenna is good enough. For example, I *always* got better moon echos on 2-meter EME using the same antenna for transmit and receive. When I tried a wet string on receive I didn't hear nuthin' g I have observed the same on 20 meters. My Yagi at a modest height of 50 feet is *always* better than an indoor wire. | |Franks's observations are correct, and can be verified if you do a |detailed signal to noise calculation. You could also try the experiment |yourself. Two experiments cited above. |
Hi,
For ongoing topic on antenna restrictions and related subject go he http://www.eham.net/forums/AntennaRestrictions I also live in a restricted lower middle class working guy/gal development ( PUD) all new construction in the area had these restricted covenants. No way around it unless you buy older homes in older neighborhoods and you may pay a lot of money for smaller home but well built and no restrictions. Most restrictions duplicate local rules, like letting the lawn grow a foot tall or parking any cars on the front lawn or backyard, etc... a few crazy people on our board, one rides his mobility scooter and takes photos of any and all things he don't like, get a life pal ! he is crazy. As you will read in the above eham topic, one poster points out that the homes in the big buck area like beverly hills etc, have NO RESTRICTIONS and many are hams ! he also writes that these restrictions do nothing to increase home values. do visit the above link very informative 73 and keep it stealth ! "A.Pismo Clam" wrote: Hello All! I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. In essence he says that the: "...[Federal] government will defend your right to crawl up on the roof and put up a BIG, HONKING antenna, despite the protests of nosy neighbors, community planners, rental management companies, local governemnt bureaucrats and other meddlesome busybodies." Want to know how? Here is the URL: www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Now you may have to prove to "the opposition" that the antenna you have erected can indeed receive "local" television stations, but that should not be that difficult to do... |
Hi,
For ongoing topic on antenna restrictions and related subject go he http://www.eham.net/forums/AntennaRestrictions I also live in a restricted lower middle class working guy/gal development ( PUD) all new construction in the area had these restricted covenants. No way around it unless you buy older homes in older neighborhoods and you may pay a lot of money for smaller home but well built and no restrictions. Most restrictions duplicate local rules, like letting the lawn grow a foot tall or parking any cars on the front lawn or backyard, etc... a few crazy people on our board, one rides his mobility scooter and takes photos of any and all things he don't like, get a life pal ! he is crazy. As you will read in the above eham topic, one poster points out that the homes in the big buck area like beverly hills etc, have NO RESTRICTIONS and many are hams ! he also writes that these restrictions do nothing to increase home values. do visit the above link very informative 73 and keep it stealth ! "A.Pismo Clam" wrote: Hello All! I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you might find a copy in your local library. In essence he says that the: "...[Federal] government will defend your right to crawl up on the roof and put up a BIG, HONKING antenna, despite the protests of nosy neighbors, community planners, rental management companies, local governemnt bureaucrats and other meddlesome busybodies." Want to know how? Here is the URL: www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html Now you may have to prove to "the opposition" that the antenna you have erected can indeed receive "local" television stations, but that should not be that difficult to do... |
Big BIG mistake, its all over for him.
Nothing worse then board members of these associations, I rather live in an airplane fuselage with livestock. I suggest this guy try and get out of the lease Show up to a meeting babbling in pajamas and pee on the floor !!! -RP "'Doc" wrote in message ... The only one you can blame for this problem is your self. You signed the lease... 'Doc |
In article , "Wes Stewart"
wrote: |Seriously, for your purposes you did nothing wrong. Just don't call |reciprocity a "law", OK? It's a useful idea of wide applicability, but |physics does not require it in general. Calling it a law confuses people. I never made that statement. Oops, you're right.. It was "w4jle". But you took his side :-) See, one of the groups this got cross-posted to is an *Amateur Radio Antenna* group. I'm reading and writing it from this group and commenting from that perspective. I normally don't cross post but did the first one by accident and since I've developed such a loyal following I didn't want to lose anybody G. But we were discussing Frank's observation: It's been my experience that an antenna used for receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for transmitting under those same conditions. Certainly below 30 MHz this is represents a correct observation, verifiable both by calculation and experiment. Why should this reality change with the newsgroup? Tall tree? What's a tall tree? The best I have is some 35 foot tall Saguaro cactii. They're a bitch to climb, although when the coyotes went after the cat, she managed. Let's see, I could tie a string to the cat's tail and find a coyote..... Sounds like you're in "Beverage on the ground" territory. That works too, I'm told (I live next to a swamp, so the tall maples are my friends :-). I've never tried a Beverage on the ground, although I have used a long skinny island as a slot antenna (worked very well from longwave through tropical bands, useless above 10 MHz). -- | John Doty "You can't confuse me, that's my job." | Home: | Work: |
"Stinger" wrote in message .. . Different strokes for different folks, Frank. In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well. Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights arguments isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are just fine, thank you. This probably doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it crossed my mind some weeks ago, with all the controversy over the removal of Judge Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments. After the removal, I pretty much expected Judge Moore would put the monument on his front lawn. It's his property, and he should be free to do so. Well, maybe Judge Moore rents an apartment or lives in a condo and doesn't own a front lawn. But wouldn't be ironic if Judge Moore negligently signed onto a list of restrictions which effectively banned any such monument on his own property? However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector (government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private property to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over the United States. It' just plain wrong. -- Stinger If it's government using eminent domain to effectivly transfer private property from one owner to another private owner, yeah, there's a big problem there. Even if it's not a Constitutional problem, the voters should be deeply skeptical of all the promises the politicians make about these wasteful projects. But we have a long history of being negligent with our votes, as well. Frank Dresser |
"RP Jones" wrote in
: I work with a guy that is the president of a Home Owners Association. Talk about an asshole. A woman in his area approached him to get permission to have a yard sale. Of course he vacillated, and she grew angry. He reassured her that her request would be considered by the council. Of course, her request was denied. All those cars parking in front of other people's property would not be fair to the other people. Fair, fair, fair. boy have I tired of this word. This guy seems severely traumatized by the fact that these neighborhood associations no longer have the ability to regulate satellite antennas 39.37" or smaller in diameter. We have trouble with our interloping neighbor even though we don't live in an area covered by these prohibitions. The neighbor is the vice president of the city council in the small borough that we live in near Pittsburgh. We first moved here, she expressed a desire for us to cut down (for safety reasons of course LOL), every freakin tree on our property. She made sure to tell us that the leaves on our property were "our responsibility" to rake up. (hell, I didn't put them there, the trees should have to rake them up). We had the diseased trees removed at a considerable cost, and had the others trimmed. You think that she would have had a geriatric orgasm. Noooo, she found more things to harp about. My son had bought a 1967 Chevy that we parked at the top of our driveway, even though the car was not licensed, as it needed work before it was roadworthy. We were away for the weekend when the local police drove onto our property and tagged our car as abandoned, we had a week to get the car licensed. Enter Classic car plates. We had to get regular plates for our car, then subsequently applied and were issued classic car plates. The car was legal, they couldn't tow it, and there it sat as before her interloping started. But she never quits. We wanted to erect a privacy fence, but in this relatively dilapidated neighborhood, believe it or not, there is an ordinance against them. We had to resort to a shadow box fence. Prior to this, we had the property surveyed, and the front of our property includes a small part of what the neighbors assumed were theirs. Apparently the loss of a small part of their property was too much to bear, as the survey spike was removed and moved closer to our property. Imagine this woman in charge of a homeowners association? I'd rather live in the country in West Virginia (I like West Virginia, very pretty country) with a refrigerator on the front porch and a small junk yard in my front yard than to live in a neighborhood covered by a covenant. Years ago in a telecommunications magazine, I read an article in which an amateur had crafted an antenna, essentially a pole with a narrow skirt, and placed it in the yard. He told the neighbors that it was a birdfeeder, and that the design was to preclude squirrels from climbing it. The only problem was that other neighbors began to ask if he could help them construct similar birdfeeders. Well, at least theirs won't require a buried wire running to them. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...trictions.html Big BIG mistake, its all over for him. Nothing worse then board members of these associations, I rather live in an airplane fuselage with livestock. I suggest this guy try and get out of the lease Show up to a meeting babbling in pajamas and pee on the floor !!! -RP "'Doc" wrote in message ... The only one you can blame for this problem is your self. You signed the lease... 'Doc |
WShoots1 wrote:
The difference between "satisfactory" in receiving and in transmitting antennas is that in receiving, one just needs an antenna that provides signals strong enough over the on-frequency noise for the receiver to process. In transmitting, the output has to be a strong as possible to be above the noise in the desired receiving location. A better antenna will increase the transmission's erp toward the desired direction. In summary: For better reception, put your money into the receiver. For better transmission, put your money into the antenna. Bill, K5BY I certainly believe in buying a nice receiver, but honestly, the difference in performance I got switching from a horizontal loop near the house to a "Doty style" antenna that's 225 feet away from the house was more dramatic than you'd find if you compared the performance of my best military receiver with a decent portable if they both used the same antenna. |
That's how much you know about me. I don't sign leases.
'Doc wrote: The only one you can blame for this problem is your self. You signed the lease... 'Doc |
The supreme court has ruled that it s perfectly legal if the aim is to
improve the tax base. The most oppressive, draconian, government entities are your local zoning boards. "Stinger" wrote in message .. . .. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private property to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over the United States. It' just plain wrong. -- Stinger "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Stinger" wrote in message . .. Frank, As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood with covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my case, they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I did was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they built nearby. I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk cars on the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my neighbor won't. By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon Claw 1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son how to change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage. So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car argument. I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's the real problem? -- Stinger I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized, he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty, sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues, it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees who are directly answerable to the courts. And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence. So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me. I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting improperly in the private sector and vice versa. My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up. |
Stinger, HOA are mostly comprised of residents that never have had a
job where they supervised other humans and now is their chance to tell someone what to do. I do agree that no one want's a junk yard in their neighborhood. But I don't agree that the guy next door can/should be able to tell you what you are permitted to do on property you pay the mortgage, taxes and up keep on. He/she or they can frankly go to hell. The plan I (for DOC) "BOUGHT" a home in even has restrictions of 18' satellite dishes, part of the antenna restriction clause. Since the latest FCC decision the HOA can kiss that part good by. And yes, receiving antennas can be hidden quite well. Some of us are licensed ham and enjoy our hobby as you do. Just because we move into a new home in a new area why should we give up the hobby we so enjoy? We shouldn't have too. Not all hams have gigantic towers and beams, some of use are satisfied to use a piece of wire to TRANSMIT on. I have and will continue to do so when I move. HOA's bring out the evils in good people, we have to get sneaky and stealthy to enjoy life as we have for many years. I know, I've heard this before. It was our choice to purchase in a plan with restrictions, show me a plan or find me a plot (1/2 acre) of land where there there are no restrictions in the U.S.A.. If the politicians arn't telling you what to do it's some nosey neighbor. Ya'll have a positive day. Stinger wrote: Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. In other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair business. Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^) Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped problem. Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance, nobody wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a CB "base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of what the "external antenna" rules are meant to curb. -- Stinger |
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:23:52 +0500, "John Doty" wrote:
|In article , "Wes Stewart" wrote: | | Heh heh. When the guys from MIT come out to argue with you, you know | you're in trouble. But fools rush in... | | I have made thousands of measurements in anechoic antenna ranges and I | have never seen a difference between measuring s21 and s12. (Without the | circulators, and accounting for mismatch effects of course) | | Where did I go wrong? | |You didn't ionize the air in the range :-) | |Seriously, for your purposes you did nothing wrong. Just don't call |reciprocity a "law", OK? It's a useful idea of wide applicability, but |physics does not require it in general. Calling it a law confuses people. I never made that statement. [snip] | |Directivity matters equally for receiving and transmitting. Was your wet |string as directive as your other antenna? I don't know. Remember I live in the desert; I couldn't keep the string wet long enough to find out. |2 meters is also quiet enough |that there's not much room for inefficiency: in some directions the sky |temperature is 200K. Yep. Love that quiet sky. | | | I have observed the same on 20 meters. My Yagi at a modest height of | 50 feet is *always* better than an indoor wire. | |Throw a thin wire with dark brown insulation over a tall tree, up over one |side, partway down the other (shaped like a "?"). Tie it in place with |nylon fishing line. It will be invisible unless you're very close. Couple |to coax with a grounded 9:1 broadband matching transformer. Bury the coax |run to the house. Tall tree? What's a tall tree? The best I have is some 35 foot tall Saguaro cactii. They're a bitch to climb, although when the coyotes went after the cat, she managed. Let's see, I could tie a string to the cat's tail and find a coyote..... [snip] | In the general sense of h-f to microwave, I stand by my claim. | |For the special case of confinement to a small number of narrow bands (as |in ham radio), you are reasonably correct above 10 MHz. To me as a |hobbyist listing to LW/MW/SW, that isn't the general case. Of course the |game changes when I'm operating a satellite, but that isn't my *hobby*. See, one of the groups this got cross-posted to is an *Amateur Radio Antenna* group. I'm reading and writing it from this group and commenting from that perspective. I normally don't cross post but did the first one by accident and since I've developed such a loyal following I didn't want to lose anybody G. Regards, Wes Stewart, N7WS |
Typical example where that woman runs her house with an iron hand and
tries to do the same with other households, like yours. Just do as she tells you or she may sell your home from under you. She needs to wake up. The would doesn't revolve around her. Soliloquy wrote: "RP Jones" wrote in : I work with a guy that is the president of a Home Owners Association. Talk about an asshole. A woman in his area approached him to get permission to have a yard sale. Of course he vacillated, and she grew angry. He reassured her that her request would be considered by the council. Of course, her request was denied. All those cars parking in front of other people's property would not be fair to the other people. Fair, fair, fair. boy have I tired of this word. This guy seems severely traumatized by the fact that these neighborhood associations no longer have the ability to regulate satellite antennas 39.37" or smaller in diameter. We have trouble with our interloping neighbor even though we don't live in an area covered by these prohibitions. The neighbor is the vice president of the city council in the small borough that we live in near Pittsburgh. We first moved here, she expressed a desire for us to cut down (for safety reasons of course LOL), every freakin tree on our property. She made sure to tell us that the leaves on our property were "our responsibility" to rake up. (hell, I didn't put them there, the trees should have to rake them up). We had the diseased trees removed at a considerable cost, and had the others trimmed. You think that she would have had a geriatric orgasm. Noooo, she found more things to harp about. My son had bought a 1967 Chevy that we parked at the top of our driveway, even though the car was not licensed, as it needed work before it was roadworthy. We were away for the weekend when the local police drove onto our property and tagged our car as abandoned, we had a week to get the car licensed. Enter Classic car plates. We had to get regular plates for our car, then subsequently applied and were issued classic car plates. The car was legal, they couldn't tow it, and there it sat as before her interloping started. But she never quits. We wanted to erect a privacy fence, but in this relatively dilapidated neighborhood, believe it or not, there is an ordinance against them. We had to resort to a shadow box fence. Prior to this, we had the property surveyed, and the front of our property includes a small part of what the neighbors assumed were theirs. Apparently the loss of a small part of their property was too much to bear, as the survey spike was removed and moved closer to our property. Imagine this woman in charge of a homeowners association? I'd rather live in the country in West Virginia (I like West Virginia, very pretty country) with a refrigerator on the front porch and a small junk yard in my front yard than to live in a neighborhood covered by a covenant. Years ago in a telecommunications magazine, I read an article in which an amateur had crafted an antenna, essentially a pole with a narrow skirt, and placed it in the yard. He told the neighbors that it was a birdfeeder, and that the design was to preclude squirrels from climbing it. The only problem was that other neighbors began to ask if he could help them construct similar birdfeeders. Well, at least theirs won't require a buried wire running to them. http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...trictions.html Big BIG mistake, its all over for him. Nothing worse then board members of these associations, I rather live in an airplane fuselage with livestock. I suggest this guy try and get out of the lease Show up to a meeting babbling in pajamas and pee on the floor !!! -RP "'Doc" wrote in message ... The only one you can blame for this problem is your self. You signed the lease... 'Doc |
Frank it's called a "sky hook".
Frank wrote: Dave Holford article ... ^ I have personal experience, some 40 years ago, with an ^ HF antenna which consisted of the top half of the tail ^ (about a 15 to 20 foot square metal surface) which was ^ tuned by a remote ATU (Collins CU-351 ISTR) and performed ^ at least as well as a fixed wire over the range of 2.5 to ^ 30 MHz. If I could put an antenna like that 20,000 feet over my house I would be very happy indeed! Frank |
Wes Stewart ...
^ Tall tree? What's a tall tree? The best I have is some ^ 35 foot tall Saguaro cactii. That might serve as a 40m vertical if the roots are dry and shallow. Frank |
"RP Jones" wrote in message ... Big BIG mistake, its all over for him. Nothing worse then board members of these associations, I rather live in an airplane fuselage with livestock. I suggest this guy try and get out of the lease Show up to a meeting babbling in pajamas and pee on the floor !!! -RP That's also prohibited by the CC&R's. Ed WB6WSN |
Pappy127, You are absolutely right! I don't know anything about you. The point being, that if you sign an agreement with the knowledge that you do not intend to abide by that agreement, then you shouldn't be upset when you are penalized for breaking the agreement. Is that so hard to understand? 'Doc |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com