In article ,
N8KDV wrote:

"Eric F. Richards" wrote:

"phil " wrote:

hi Eric:

i am responding here as my reader ate the thread...

Quite true, but that's not what you said -- you said it was
"resonant." A nit-pick, perhaps,

at 3/4 wavelenghts resonance is at 736-kHz. as a 2 wavelengths
beverage: 1.9-MHz. your antenna is quite capable on MW.

Oh, I don't argue *that*, I just argue that it wasn't resonant.

Not that it matters, really, my WR-G303i reports its signal
strength as 30 mV 120 miles away on a 400 foot wire broadside to
the antenna. Flamethrower, indeed.

As for the "flamethrower" at the end of the wire, they are in
violation of 47 CFR 22.369, which explicitly lays out the field
strength limits on Table Mountain. They may get grandfathered
in, but now that the feds are reopening Table Mountain for NIST
projects, the local HDTV wannabes are chafing at the
restrictions -- even though their antennas would be about 40
miles away.

what frequency are they on?


Dunno. I don't keep up with the local doings of the broadcasters
much. I assume they are in the old standard TV UHF band; 47 CFR
369 says that from 470 to 890 MHz, field strength on Table Mountain
must be less than 30 mV/m.

radios are black boxes: feed them signals within specs and they
perform predictably. ICOM probably left off the LW BPF to save
$1. companies are cheap.

Actually I got word from someone who said that the '75 was
considered a work in progress that never progressed.

That's an understatement if I ever heard one!

Welcome to the real world. Engineers will play with a design until they
are happy with it but management runs the show. As soon as the pointy
haired boss thinks that the design has met its goals the effort ends.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California