Strange Antenna in old 73 magazine ?
 

Hi,
Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a 60's (or
early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched PCBs (like spaced plates)
mounted inside a plastic bucket, and fed with coax?
Does anyone know more details of this?
JEFF
ZL3TNV

Was it in the April issue? A lot of "fools" fell for such articles in
73 Magazine, Hi.
One such antenna was to be buried under ground then the "polarity" of
the radiated
wave would be "inverted". ;-)

There are a few who experiment with "EH" antennas, where a coil is
placed in coffee cans,
spaced at different intervals for the band the antenna is to be used.
http://www.qsl.net/w0kph/can.html

JJJHS

Jeff wrote:

Hi,
Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a 60's (or
early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched PCBs (like spaced plates)
mounted inside a plastic bucket, and fed with coax?
Does anyone know more details of this?
JEFF
ZL3TNV

Was it in the April issue? A lot of "fools" fell for such articles in
73 Magazine, Hi.
One such antenna was to be buried under ground then the "polarity" of
the radiated
wave would be "inverted". ;-)

There are a few who experiment with "EH" antennas, where a coil is
placed in coffee cans,
spaced at different intervals for the band the antenna is to be used.
http://www.qsl.net/w0kph/can.html

JJJHS

Jeff wrote:

Hi,
Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a 60's (or
early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched PCBs (like spaced plates)
mounted inside a plastic bucket, and fed with coax?
Does anyone know more details of this?
JEFF
ZL3TNV

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a
60's

I recall one in a publication (S9) aimed at CB'ers back in the 60's. It used
printed circuit boards as you mentioned but also incorporated a nice husky
resistor that turned the critter into a dummy load. The article didn't fess
up that it was an April fool joke until the next issue. Wonder how many fell
for it? RM~

"Groom Lake" wrote in message
news:40e9cf82.1579216@chupacabra...
In posted on Mon, 5

I believe it might have been one of Kneitel's humor pieces.

Your memory is better than mine on the details but you've got it. If I
recall their were a lot of disgruntled readers. RM~

"Groom Lake" wrote in message
news:40e9e5f1.7323874@chupacabra...
In Message-ID:9i4Gc.1747$%w5.1570@okepread05 posted on Sun, 4 Jul 2004

Latter when the Browning labs introducedtheir "Eagle" series, I often
wondered why the TR switch they used was configured to produce that feedback
ping,

Ok, I'll fess up; I had the eagles but mine refused to ping after I built a
Wayne Green circuit (I think he nick named it the "Mule Box") which was a
clamp tube circuit that ran the Brownies double sideband reduced carrier. It
drove the locals nuts watching their s meters going nuts. I wasn't much into
gab but enjoyed tinkering with the equipment more than gabbing on them so
soon sold out except for a CB I used in the truck. I drove an 18 for a
living and retired in 84 and haven't keyed anything since. RM~

JJJHS,

"EH Antennas" eGroup on YAHOO !
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eh-antenna/

"EH Antenna Users" eGroup on YAHOO !
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eh_antenna_users/

"E-H Antenna Builders & Users" eGroup on YAHOO !
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ehantennausers/

"WTAL Fans" eGroup on YAHOO !
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WTALfans/
The EH antenna has exceptional promise. It is about 10' in
diameter, requires no extensive underground radials, uses
approximately 75% less energy and is more efficient.

WebSite with Tools and Tips to Assist "EH" Antenna Design & Building
http://www.eh-antenna.com/EH_Antenna_Tools_and_Tips.htm
http://www.geocities.com/ke0vh/eh
http://www.qsl.net/vk5br/EHAntennaTheory.htm
http://www.eh-antenna.se/

That's My Name Too ~ RHF
LYRICS= http://www.walkthroughlife.com/midis...jjhschmidt.htm
MUSIC= http://www.walkthroughlife.com/midis...idis/jjjhs.mid
SONGS= http://www.walkthroughlife.com/midis/kidsmidis/
http://www.backyardgardener.com/loowit/song/song48.html
http://www.backyardgardener.com/loowit/janeellen.html
http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/johnjacob.html
NIH= http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/john.htm
NIEHS-INDEX= http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/music.htm#index
..
..
= = = JohnJacobJingleHimerSchmidt wrote in message ...
Was it in the April issue? A lot of "fools" fell for such articles in
73 Magazine, Hi.
One such antenna was to be buried under ground then the "polarity" of
the radiated
wave would be "inverted". ;-)

There are a few who experiment with "EH" antennas, where a coil is
placed in coffee cans,
spaced at different intervals for the band the antenna is to be used.
http://www.qsl.net/w0kph/can.html

JJJHS

Jeff wrote:

Hi,
Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a 60's (or
early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched PCBs (like spaced plates)
mounted inside a plastic bucket, and fed with coax?
Does anyone know more details of this?
JEFF
ZL3TNV

..

= = = "Jeff" wrote in message
= = = ...
Hi,
Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a 60's (or
early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched PCBs (like spaced plates)
mounted inside a plastic bucket, and fed with coax?
Does anyone know more details of this?
JEFF
ZL3TNV
..

JEFF [ZL3TNV]

You may wish to try posting this same question 'separately'
on the: "Rec.Radio.Amateur.Antenna" NewsGroup.

RRAA= http://tinyurl.com/2hlw7
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.radio.amateur.antenna

hth ~ RHF

..

On 5 Jul 2004 01:26:17 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

The EH antenna has exceptional promise. It is about 10' in
diameter, requires no extensive underground radials, uses
approximately 75% less energy and is more efficient.

Hi OM,

More efficient that what, a resistor? 75% less energy than what, a
resistor?

The eh antenna is one of several of a class that take more effort for
less return than simply putting up as much wire as you have room for -
even if it is the same size as any of these "amazing!" antennas.

The absurd claims that attend the cfa/eh/fractal crowing societies is
matched by their inability to prove them except through their own
special math (never mind the S-Meter).

However, there are those who argue SWLers need poor antennas and I
suppose these fit the bill nicely. The technical equivalent of cell
phones VS string-and-dixie cups tho'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Groom Lake wrote:

In Message-ID:Kl6Gc.1758$%w5.429@okepread05 posted on Mon, 5 Jul 2004
01:15:08 -0500, Rob Mills wrote:


I wasn't much into
gab but enjoyed tinkering with the equipment more than gabbing on them so
soon sold out except for a CB I used in the truck. I drove an 18 for a
living and retired in 84 and haven't keyed anything since. RM~


Back in '66 I put one of those (pre-bucket brigade) delay boxes* with a
spring and two transducers in line with my audio and some of the locals
thought the echo was due to the enormous power level, similar to 15
meter multipath, rather than just a precursor to today's echo-mike.
*note - those delay boxes were more commonly used in conjunction with
automotive 8-track players, and would make that distinctive boing effect
whenever you hit a pothole or crossed the tracks too fast. ;-)

Well, since the topic is shifting, can anyone tell me what the echo is
supposed to do? in my travels, with my CB on, I can "hear" people with
echo mic's and I'll be darned if I can hear them well at all. Now echo
AND way overmodulated, now there's the ticket to complete
unintelligibility! (is that a word?)

- Mike -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Groom Lake wrote:

In Message-ID:Kl6Gc.1758$%w5.429@okepread05 posted on Mon, 5 Jul 2004
01:15:08 -0500, Rob Mills wrote:


I wasn't much into
gab but enjoyed tinkering with the equipment more than gabbing on them
so
soon sold out except for a CB I used in the truck. I drove an 18 for a
living and retired in 84 and haven't keyed anything since. RM~


Back in '66 I put one of those (pre-bucket brigade) delay boxes* with a
spring and two transducers in line with my audio and some of the locals
thought the echo was due to the enormous power level, similar to 15
meter multipath, rather than just a precursor to today's echo-mike.
*note - those delay boxes were more commonly used in conjunction with
automotive 8-track players, and would make that distinctive boing effect
whenever you hit a pothole or crossed the tracks too fast. ;-)

Well, since the topic is shifting, can anyone tell me what the echo is
supposed to do? in my travels, with my CB on, I can "hear" people with
echo mic's and I'll be darned if I can hear them well at all. Now echo
AND way overmodulated, now there's the ticket to complete
unintelligibility! (is that a word?)

- Mike -


They "think" it makes them sound better or more cool, not sure which.
Problem is, most are turned up TOO far. Some isn't so objectionable and
doesn't sound bad, even though they're not supposed to be permitted per part
95. I've heard so many that sounded like they were talking either
underwater or with a mouth full of something. REALLY SUCKED.

Being both a ham and Cber, I can't see what their sense of existence is.
Then too, you got everyone and his brother cranking up the RF out, and if
they go channel hopping, that bleeds like hell. I had to take a double take
one time when I and a friend of mine were in another CB shop, and actually
heard two CBers swear off the extra garbage and go back to stock TO HEAR!
WOW. I asked my friend if I heard right, and he agreed. I don't do any mods
to CBs or other radios unless permitted by law or needed to get the thing
working, when a unit comes to my shop. Many don't like my approach, but so
be it.

Lou

RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

- - - - - The Original Question - - - - -

Hi,

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured
in a 60's (or early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched
PCBs (like spaced plates) mounted inside a plastic bucket, and
fed with coax?

Does anyone know more details of this?

JEFF
ZL3TNV

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's much nicer and rewarding to be honestly helpful
.. . . then simply hateful.

A 'noted' Yahoo ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Richard Clark wrote in message
= = = . ..
On 5 Jul 2004 01:26:17 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

The EH antenna has exceptional promise. It is about 10' in
diameter, requires no extensive underground radials, uses
approximately 75% less energy and is more efficient.

Hi OM,

More efficient that what, a resistor? 75% less energy than what, a
resistor?

The eh antenna is one of several of a class that take more effort for
less return than simply putting up as much wire as you have room for -
even if it is the same size as any of these "amazing!" antennas.

The absurd claims that attend the cfa/eh/fractal crowing societies is
matched by their inability to prove them except through their own
special math (never mind the S-Meter).

However, there are those who argue SWLers need poor antennas and I
suppose these fit the bill nicely. The technical equivalent of cell
phones VS string-and-dixie cups tho'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
..

On 5 Jul 2004 18:12:09 -0700, (RHF) wrote:

RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Your ego is showing.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

Like you? ;-)

Instead of playing twenty questions:
First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?
Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?
Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?
Let's all note that it was your introduction of 6 off-topic links to
an antenna who I have already responded to against these same three
preceding questions.

Hi OM,

The eh and their ilk are on every sucker list on the web. It is a
simple matter to NOT cross post your responses if they don't shine
under examination. It is also a simply matter to either stay
on-topic, or to at least follow your own side-thread.

Respond to the technical issue, or learn to unlink your posts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In article ,
(RHF) wrote:

RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

Snip

Because he's an amateur.

And a cross posting amateur at that.

Newsgroups sniped.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

RHF wrote:
RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

A Dummy Load


Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Makes a pretty good Dummy load


Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

Acts like a Dummy load.



- - - - - The Original Question - - - - -

Hi,

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured
in a 60's (or early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched
PCBs (like spaced plates) mounted inside a plastic bucket, and
fed with coax?

Does anyone know more details of this?

JEFF
ZL3TNV

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's much nicer and rewarding to be honestly helpful
. . . then simply hateful.

Oh Gee, Richard isn't being hateful, just responding to your post
responding to the original posters msg.

The world of engineering is like this - gotta have a tough skin, yaknow?
rule 1 is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If your antenna works, no amount of his scorn will stop it.

rest snipped

- mike KB3EIA -

I seem to recall that Hammond Organ put their reverb unit's springs in oil, to
dampen sudden changes.

And wasn't Collins' mechanical IF filter a similar device as you all are
discussing?

Bill, K5BY

MC,

"If your antenna works, no amount of his scorn will stop it."

If Your Antenna Works... Your Will Hear and Be Heard [.]

Hey, What Works... WORKS ! ~ RHF
..
..
= = = Mike Coslo wrote in message
= = = ...
RHF wrote:
RC,

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Why don't you be helpful to the original poster and attempt
to answer his question.

First - What type (name) antenna is he talking about ?

A Dummy Load


Second - What is your 'expert' opinion about this antenna ?

Makes a pretty good Dummy load


Third - What are the technical aspects of this antenna ?

Acts like a Dummy load.



- - - - - The Original Question - - - - -

Hi,

Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured
in a 60's (or early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched
PCBs (like spaced plates) mounted inside a plastic bucket, and
fed with coax?

Does anyone know more details of this?

JEFF
ZL3TNV

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's much nicer and rewarding to be honestly helpful
. . . then simply hateful.

Oh Gee, Richard isn't being hateful, just responding to your post
responding to the original posters msg.

The world of engineering is like this - gotta have a tough skin, yaknow?
rule 1 is extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If your antenna works, no amount of his scorn will stop it.

rest snipped

- mike KB3EIA -
..

On 07 Jul 2004 05:36:12 GMT, (WShoots1) wrote:

And wasn't Collins' mechanical IF filter a similar device as you all are
discussing?

Bill, K5BY

Hi Bill,

Only in the abstract, yes. Same physics, only more precision and at a
higher frequency (and much harder to make go BOING) and to a different
purpose (steep selectivity skirts for better fidelity).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

at a higher frequency

Roger, Richard, much higher. Hi Like 455 kHz. (Or was it kc back then?)

73,
Bill, K5BY

On 08 Jul 2004 04:38:58 GMT, (WShoots1) wrote:

at a higher frequency

Roger, Richard, much higher. Hi Like 455 kHz. (Or was it kc back then?)

73,
Bill, K5BY

Hi Bill,

455000 cps ;-)

Used in the Collins R-390 and URC-32 (course material for the Navy's
ETA school, 6 week N branch section A4).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC, ET1

Richard Clark ) writes:
On 08 Jul 2004 04:38:58 GMT, (WShoots1) wrote:

at a higher frequency

Roger, Richard, much higher. Hi Like 455 kHz. (Or was it kc back then?)

73,
Bill, K5BY

Hi Bill,

455000 cps ;-)

Used in the Collins R-390 and URC-32 (course material for the Navy's
ETA school, 6 week N branch section A4).

Didn't the R390 have a 500KHz IF?

Michael

On 8 Jul 2004 18:46:00 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

Richard Clark ) writes:
On 08 Jul 2004 04:38:58 GMT, (WShoots1) wrote:

at a higher frequency

Roger, Richard, much higher. Hi Like 455 kHz. (Or was it kc back then?)

73,
Bill, K5BY

Hi Bill,

455000 cps ;-)

Used in the Collins R-390 and URC-32 (course material for the Navy's
ETA school, 6 week N branch section A4).

Didn't the R390 have a 500KHz IF?

Michael

Hi Michael,

Hmm, three chances to be right (this is a triple conversion receiver)
but, no, 500KHz is not one of them. Consult:
http://www.r390a.com/VARIF.htm
for the fascinating tale of variable IFs and band switching. This
gave my students hours of entertainment in playing with the
mechanics/electronics of tracking the tuning indicator (and prepared
them for my class in the SRC-20, a synthesized mechanical nightmare of
gears and shaped capacitors).

There are a world of IFs to choose from, certainly, with surplus and
otherwise exotic gear consult:
http://www.nzvrs.pl.net/aaa/ifreqs.htm
I've owned the BC453 with an IF of 85KHz that I used to tune to a
cheap SW (Knight Kit Star Roamer) set's IF for a poor man's double
conversion.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Instead of playing the 'game' of posting a reply to anything I post.

Your ego is showing.

Uh oh -- worlds are colliding. Remember, rec.radio.shortwave is not a radio
newsgroup, the people there are not knowledgeable about, or interested in,
the technical aspects of radio. If it doesn't involve nasty name-calling or
wild-eyed, mouth-foaming political looniness, then it doesn't belong in
rec.radio.shortwave.

Richard: 455000 cps ;-)

LOL Also: 0.455 Mc.

Michael: Didn't the R390 have a 500KHz IF?

That sounds familiar. Could that have been one of the differences between the
390 and the 390A?

73,
Bill, K5BY

On 10 Jul 2004 05:22:58 GMT, (WShoots1) wrote:

Richard: 455000 cps ;-)

LOL Also: 0.455 Mc.

Michael: Didn't the R390 have a 500KHz IF?

That sounds familiar. Could that have been one of the differences between the
390 and the 390A?

73,
Bill, K5BY

Hi Bill,

Close, but not in the 390 series. Collins built similar rigs such as
the 75, 51 and R388 (and maybe R389) series only some of which used a
500KHz IF in a fantastic variety of double, triple, and quadruple
conversion versions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Collins built similar rigs such as
the 75, 51 and R388 (and maybe R389) series only some of which used a
500KHz IF in a fantastic variety of double, triple, and quadruple
conversion versions.

Thanks,Richard.

73,
Bill, K5BY

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Hi,
Does anyone remember a weird compact antenna that was featured in a 60's (or
early 70's) edition of "73" magazine. Had 2 etched PCBs (like spaced plates)
mounted inside a plastic bucket, and fed with coax?
Does anyone know more details of this?
JEFF
ZL3TNV


Wouldn't be a patch antenna by any chance?