Steveo wrote:
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
Does anybody know which local radio club(s) will be providing back up
communications during the Detroit Woodward Dream Cruise this weekend?
And also what frequency(s) will be used for the control net(s)? I know
last year it was the Hazel Park Radio Club but I can't find their web
site on the net currently for contact information.

Will you be using your 96 Dodge van for an antenna platform?

Or will you be operating from Concord?

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
Does anybody know which local radio club(s) will be providing back up
communications during the Detroit Woodward Dream Cruise this weekend?
And
also what frequency(s) will be used for the control net(s)? I know
last year it was the Hazel Park Radio Club but I can't find their web
site on the net currently for contact information.

Will you be using your 96 Dodge van for an antenna platform?

I don't own a van.

So you were lying to Frank when you posted this Aug 1?


I did just for grins and giggles Frank. On my old 1/4 wave 6m mag mount, I
used on my old Dodge minivan, I measured 490pf. The base was 4.75 inches in
diameter. The base was placed on a steel sheet using 3 sheets of notebook
paper. Notebook paper is around 0.003 inches thick, so that gives me the
0.010 inch spacing. Plus this mount also used a thin sheet of rubber over
the foil making the spacing a bit higher, thus you would expect the
capacitance to be down a bit from the calculated value. So the value I
measured is about what I expected. It is important that the foil be intact
on the bottom. If missing then the measured value will be much lower.
--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Will you be using your 96 Dodge van for an antenna platform?

I don't own a van.

So you were lying to Frank when you posted this Aug 1?

Nope.

I used on my "old" Dodge minivan

Hey chicken you got trouble with reading comprehension.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Will you be using your 96 Dodge van for an antenna platform?

I don't own a van.

So you were lying to Frank when you posted this Aug 1?

Nope.

I used on my "old" Dodge minivan

Hey chicken you got trouble with reading comprehension.

Dunno about you but I consider 96 old when it comes
to vans. Talk to ya later.

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Will you be using your 96 Dodge van for an antenna platform?

I don't own a van.

So you were lying to Frank when you posted this Aug 1?

Nope.

I used on my "old" Dodge minivan

Hey chicken you got trouble with reading comprehension.

Dunno about you but I consider 96 old when it comes
to vans. Talk to ya later.

Can't educate the village idiot I see. Oh well, I like my new 04 ride
better. I've only put on 7900 miles since I took delivery at the dealer last
December. Only took about 4 weeks to get it built after placing the order
and came in at a sticker price of $38,400. Leather interior, factory 180
watt sound system with 6-way Pioneer speakers, built in Nav system with DVD
player and LCD map display/voice promtps for turn by turn directions, 10
disk CD changer, dual zone climate control etc.
--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 21:17:27 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Will you be using your 96 Dodge van for an antenna platform?

I don't own a van.

So you were lying to Frank when you posted this Aug 1?

Nope.

I used on my "old" Dodge minivan

Hey chicken you got trouble with reading comprehension.

Dunno about you but I consider 96 old when it comes
to vans. Talk to ya later.

Can't educate the village idiot I see.


You have reduced yourself to taking cheap shots. So are you going to
address the facts of the issue and do the test or not?





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
You have reduced yourself to taking cheap shots. So are you going to
address the facts of the issue and do the test or not?

Frank, first you can't answer the technical questions I put to you why
everybody isn't using those connectors at UHF. You claim to be so
"knowledgeable" in the area so what's your problem with explaining it?
Here's your chance to make me look dumb and you can't even take adavntage of
it because you're wrong. The burden of proof is on you, not me. The simple
fact that they are not used in most cases is an answer in it self, and not
from any lack of trying either. I'm sure many people better than you have
tried and discarded the idea of using them.

Second I have made qualitative measurements as I mentioned before in my
E-mails to you. You seem to ignore that every time you bring up the subject.

Third, somebody else has already done the test, described the test set up in
enough detail to allow people with the experience using vector network
analyzers to repeat the test for themselves, and published the actual
equipment plots. As far as I'm concerned his comments about the test
connector "being of poor quality" could mean anything from for example maybe
his preference is silver plating over nickel plating on the body of the
connector, or gold plating instead of tin coat for the contacts.

Forth, your test is completely useless since there isn't sufficient
information to even duplicate the setup you used. I don't know what kind of
cable you used, it's length, where the power meter was located in relation
to the tested connector "system", what kind of power meter was used, and
finally what EXACTLY was the configuration of the connector system you
tested. Was it a simple plug socket combo, a barrel connector and two plugs,
how long was the barrel connector was, or something else completely and what
dielectric was used in each component etc. And all of that does matter as
was pointed out in the link below.

http://iwce-mrt.com/ar/radio_swr_name/

The link below used exactly the same connector configuration I made my
calculations for in the Mathcad worksheet I sent you as a HTML copy, which
pretty much reflected the same conclusions reached by the gentlemen using
the vector network analyzer. And I'll even bet if you asked nicely he would
provide more details of the tests he did.

http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/pl259tst.html


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:59:47 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
You have reduced yourself to taking cheap shots. So are you going to
address the facts of the issue and do the test or not?

Frank, first you can't answer the technical questions I put to you why
everybody isn't using those connectors at UHF. You claim to be so
"knowledgeable" in the area so what's your problem with explaining it?
Here's your chance to make me look dumb and you can't even take adavntage of
it because you're wrong. The burden of proof is on you, not me. The simple
fact that they are not used in most cases is an answer in it self, and not
from any lack of trying either. I'm sure many people better than you have
tried and discarded the idea of using them.


I answered your question both in the newsgroup and via email, but I'll
answer it once again using simpler words: Because there are other
connectors that are better suited for those frequencies. In fact, in
I wrote:

I never suggested that the N-type connector -wasn't- better. I will
agree that they are better.....

But (and this is the part you have a problem understanding) the
existence of better connectors doesn't negate the fact that UHF-type
connectors are, more or less, very usable on UHF, which I stated in
the very next line of the same post:

... But I said that the UHF connectors work
fine, and for the OP's intended use they will probably work just as
well as an N-type connector.

And I also pointed out that much equipment, both commercial and
professional (and I'll even add that some military equipment), has
used them on UHF with satisfactory results. So in addition to
answering your question in both venues and once again in this post, I
even answered it once -before- you asked it!


Second I have made qualitative measurements as I mentioned before in my
E-mails to you. You seem to ignore that every time you bring up the subject.


You said your brother was having problems with UHF-type connectors on
his 2-meter line. I recommended checking the coax near the connectors
for overheating during soldering (a cause of UHF problems -regardless-
of which connector you use). I also described a method of cleaning the
connectors that will not leave behind any residue (which is also a
cause of problems with UHF connectors). Did you even bother to try my
suggestions?


Third, somebody else has already done the test, described the test set up in
enough detail to allow people with the experience using vector network
analyzers to repeat the test for themselves, and published the actual
equipment plots. As far as I'm concerned his comments about the test
connector "being of poor quality" could mean anything from for example maybe
his preference is silver plating over nickel plating on the body of the
connector, or gold plating instead of tin coat for the contacts.


Like I said, the test was subjective, only one device was tested (not
even a valid sample group), and I'm sure every tech that uses UHF-type
connectors has a impedance network analyzer just collecting dust on
the shelf waiting for such a situation to arise. My test may not have
been much better in terms of sample groups, but it did measure the
results at the load which is where it counts. My test is also much
easier to replicate, and any tech or engineer with access to a UHF
signal source, a few coax cables, a dummy load and an RF voltmeter can
do it in about 10 mintues. It took me longer because I started with my
watt meter which (I found out) didn't have the sensitivity to measure
the difference, but if you have one that can then the test should go
even more quickly. Are you suggesting that you, a senior engineer at a
big-time company, don't have access to such common equipment?


Forth, your test is completely useless since there isn't sufficient
information to even duplicate the setup you used. I don't know what kind of
cable you used, it's length, where the power meter was located in relation
to the tested connector "system", what kind of power meter was used, and
finally what EXACTLY was the configuration of the connector system you
tested. Was it a simple plug socket combo, a barrel connector and two plugs,
how long was the barrel connector was, or something else completely and what
dielectric was used in each component etc. And all of that does matter as
was pointed out in the link below.

http://iwce-mrt.com/ar/radio_swr_name/


Did I not write in :

Regardless, I suggested that you -measure- this apparent loss, not
calculate it (.....gee, seems I've said that before.....). Since you
don't care to measure things, I did. The Adler I mentioned earlier is
a 100-watt translator tuned for TV channel 77. I measured the output
to my wattmeter through one 12' length of RG-11 and again through two
6' lengths of RG-11, the difference being that the latter adds a male
and female UHF-type connector to the line. The wattmeter showed no
visible difference. So I did the same test directly to the dummy load
and measured with an RF voltmeter at the dummy load. The difference
was a loss of 0.4 volts, which is slightly less than 1 watt, or about
0.05 dB. Yes, I use teflon connectors and I keep them clean. And no,
the coax wasn't overheated during soldering (it's all about the
technique!).

It looks like I described my test fairly well. Not only did I describe
it on the newsgroup, I also sent you the following in an email:

ASCII-CAD works fine for this application (use fixed-width font):

First test......

12' RG-11
RF source -------------------------------- dummy load
^
measure here

Second test......

6' RG-11 6' RG-11
RF source ----------------------------- dummy load
^ ^
| measure here
PL-259/SO-239

RF voltage from the first test - RF voltage from the second test = RF
voltage of power reflected by PL-259/SO-239 connection. Pretty simple,
huh?

You now say I didn't provide "sufficient information" to replicate the
test; specifically, cable type, cable length, location of meter, type
of meter, and configuration of connector system under test. I provided
ALL your requested information....TWICE. So either you didn't read
it....TWICE....or you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Considering
that you didn't read any of my FOUR answers to your previous question
(about why everybody isn't using UHF-type connectors on UHF), I think
you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.


The link below used exactly the same connector configuration I made my
calculations for in the Mathcad worksheet I sent you as a HTML copy, which
pretty much reflected the same conclusions reached by the gentlemen using
the vector network analyzer. And I'll even bet if you asked nicely he would
provide more details of the tests he did.

http://www.qsl.net/vk3jeg/pl259tst.html


Like I said before, ask him yourself. Or do the test yourself. Even
better, do -both- tests yourself! But it's now obvious that you aren't
going to do -any- tests. On the contrary, it appears you are going to
start taking cheap shots and suck up to Twisty. Well, that's your
choice I guess, but it sure doesn't seem like a credible response from
a person that claims to be a successful engineer.


BTW, I'm still looking for someone in Spokane to verify some antenna
comparison tests. If anyone has a Penetrator and a few free hours on a
weekend, drop me an email.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 01:59:47 -0400, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :

snip

And here's a pic of the Adler taken last year right after I got it
into the shop:

http://www.aimcomm.net/sparky/adler.jpg

It's about to be scrapped, so if anyone want's any parts just let me
know.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

I've only put on 7900 miles since I took delivery at the dealer last
December. Only took about 4 weeks to get it built after placing the
order and came in at a sticker price of $38,400. Leather interior,
factory 180 watt sound system with 6-way Pioneer speakers, built in Nav
system with DVD player and LCD map display/voice promtps for turn by
turn directions, 10 disk CD changer, dual zone climate control etc.
--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO
_
Over 38G? (sound of whistle here)!! If you bought a mini van, it must
have been a Chrysler Town and Country at that price. As far as vans go,
I'm a Dodge fan, then comes Chevy, then Ford...where trucks are
concerned, I'm a Ford freak until they build something that rides like a
Ford and where the engine runs like a Ford, but lasts as long as a
Chevy. When it comes to off road, gimme Jeep. Anyhoooo, are you going to
be running a radidio in this new van? Are you making a swivel ball mount
or what? I hate making these decisions regarding new vehicles.