Article: 219874 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "SH" Subject: Notch filter Message-ID: <4398216d@news.wineasy.se> Date: 8 Dec 2005 13:05:01 +0200 Hi I am going to make a notch filter with two notches on the same frequency in the UHF TV band but I cant remember whether they should be spaced 1/4 or 1/2 wave or if it doesnt matter. Thanks SH Article: 219875 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Andy Cowley Subject: Re: Antennas And Lightning Induced Voltage Transients Message-ID: References: Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:41:49 GMT Robert11 wrote: > Hello: > > We get a lot of lightning strikes around here, and was wondering about this: > > Presently have a receive-only random length wire running around the inside > of my attic. > > Guess I'm not really too worried about "direct" lightning strikes; if there > is one I imagine I have a lot more to worry about than the radio. > > But, does the roof provide any protection from nearby lightning strikes > inducing a high transient voltage > into the indoor attic antenna wire, as compared to if I had the wire antenna > strung outside the house ? > Again, from an induced voltage standpoint concern. > > Or, is the fact that it is indoors really meaningless ? > Meaningless. A neon to ground is traditional for receiving antennas. Makes a good EMP indicator. vy 73 Andy Article: 219876 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Andy Cowley Subject: Re: dipole and balun question Message-ID: References: <%e0lf.43999$i7.18434@bignews2.bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:47:58 GMT RB wrote: > Fell prey to the old "don't engage mouth prior to engaging brain" syndrome. > > Sorry about the confusion I caused. My bad. > > Was just wondering if coax feed with balun at centerpoint would be better > than ladderline feed with balun at tuner output (and no, my tuner doesn't > have an internal balun). > > Tuner-balun-ladder-antenna is better. Lower losses if the tuner is doing anything, i.e. antenna is not 50+j0 ohms. vy 73 Andy Article: 219877 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Ed Laughery" Subject: test Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:28:33 -0600 test Article: 219878 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Ed Laughery" Subject: Dual Band vertical (2m/70 cm) problem / details Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:50 -0600 Hi The antenna that I am working with is built as follows: The base to coil section is approx 7 " - depending on where I am measuring, this would pretty much coincide with a 1/4 wave 440 segment - next is about 12 turns (.5 "" dia.) followed by a 17 " segment. I cannot reconcile the length for two meters. With an analyzer, I cannot sweep thru freq. and find any close resonant point at 2 meters. This is a thru glass antenna but regardless of direct coupling or putting between glass, I can only get a VSWR of 1.9 - 2.1 on 440 and 6.+ on two meters. I certainly don't mind trimming the top section, if I have a chance at making it work as the dual bander it is supposed to be. Any bit of wisdom would be greatly appreciated. AD5JV Ed Article: 219879 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Dual Band vertical (2m/70 cm) problem / details References: Message-ID: Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:14:59 GMT Ed Laughery wrote: > This is a thru glass antenna ... A lot of thru-glass antennas are end-fed electrical half wavelength antennas. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219880 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "SH" References: <4398216d@news.wineasy.se> <%pXlf.8360$Jg5.8212@trnddc07> Subject: Re: Notch filter Message-ID: <43985090$1@news.wineasy.se> Date: 8 Dec 2005 16:26:08 +0200 Thanks for the quick response i have however a few more questions. This is for notching disturbing tv channels on my tv areal and there are several that I want to notch. Lets asume that I only want one Notch pr TV channel is it then possible to connect several notches on the same spot without the 1/4 wave??? If yes is there a limit. I have looked at some commercial filters and they use 2 notch at the same spot and then two more 1/4 wave apart but the are tuned to the same frequency as the first pair. "Dale Parfitt" wrote in message news:%pXlf.8360$Jg5.8212@trnddc07... > > "SH" wrote in message > news:4398216d@news.wineasy.se... >> Hi >> >> I am going to make a notch filter with two notches on the same frequency >> in the UHF TV band but I cant remember whether they should be spaced 1/4 >> or 1/2 wave or if it doesnt matter. >> >> Thanks >> >> SH >>You can couple the notches directly with an L or C and achieve an >>asymmetrical response - this can be handy if yiu have a weak CH close by >>on one side and need the faster recovery. > If a symmetrical response is OK, separate the 2 notches by a 1/4 > electrical wavelength. > Typical 3dB BW on our small UHF symmetrical notches is +/- 1.2% > > 73, > > Dale W4OP > Article: 219881 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: What is a duplexer, diplexer and combiner? Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:11:47 -0600 Message-ID: <2303-43985B43-44@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net> References: Anon wrote: "What are the functions of each of these?" My dictionary says: "Diplexer - "A coupling unit which allows more than one transmitter to operate together on one antenna." The first AM broadcast plant I worked in did this with stations on 950 KHz and 1320 KHz. It was faultless. Duplexer - "A radar device which, by using the transmitted pulse, automatically switches the antenna from receive to transmit at the proper timwee" I`ve seen gas tubes used for this in radar sets in the navy and company owned boats I worked on. Again, it worked like a charm. Combiner - "A circuit for mixing video, trigger, and scan data from the synchronizer for the modulation of the link." Obviously definitions depend on applications. For example, I`m familiar with combiners used to select the best signal from multiples in diversity reception. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 219882 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:56:35 GMT JimK2TL@gmail.com wrote: > Can someone advise me of dimensions for a 40 meter version? The 80m version is 1/2 the size of the 160m version. The 40m version would be 1/2 the size of the 80m version. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219883 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Am Antenna Help Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:26:10 -0600 Message-ID: <5903-43987AC2-247@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net> References: Jeff Dieterlle wrote: "I ran RG 6-U coax to the roof of the factory (approx. 100 ft) and considered buying a loop antenna but at this group`s suggestion connected the coax to the long wire. The stations I`m interested in are Indianapolis 1070 kc and Chicago 670 kc & 1000 kc. I installed 200 ft of #12 ga insulated wire that is oriented in line with these 2 cities and....." Jeff didn`t say how far he is from the stations. All 3 stations run 50 KW but have daytime directional patterns which may affect the signal strength he receives. 50 KW nondirectional can produce 1860 millivolts per meter at one mile or 9.3 millivolts at 200 miles. I said may because it depends on ground conductiviyty and other factors. I listen to to a 50 KW station 200 miles away 24 hours. RG-6 has a capacitnance of 20.5pF/ft. So, 100 ft. totals 2050 pF. At 1000 KHz, its reactance is about 78 ohms. This is shunting the impedance of 61 meters of 12 gauge wire (0.0033 WL), a fairly figh capacitive reactance at 1000 KHz. This is a voltage divider. Most of the energy captured by the wire is dropped scross the wire and reradiated never reaching the receiver. That was why a loop which matched the coax was suggested.. Jeff pribably gets enough signal in his antenna. He might get more of it to his receiver using a broadband transformer between his antenna and coax which stepped doown the impedance to match the coax approximately. He may need to step it back up at the receiver end. I recall using this arrangement in 1938 with a General Electric all-band doublet kit and it worked well. Pointing the wire at the station is fine for a Beverage antenna but about 2 wavelengths is needed for a Beverage.. That wold be 1968 feet at 1000 KHz. The Beverage is vertically polarized, as needed to receive a ground wave. Otherwise, shorter antennas may do better at a more broadside attitude towards the signal wavefront. A random wire generally uses its vertical component to receive groundwaves. Best regards, Richard Harriison, KB5WZI Article: 219884 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: My vertical blew down!!! Message-ID: <0j0hp1hdkcu7t6t9phjc88to10igm1gs7c@4ax.com> References: <1133576906.890685.201870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <84rkf.28413$Gd6.6054@pd7tw3no> <1133659754.412000.285590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1133771837.159058.96930@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1133818511.007393.138960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:59:56 GMT On 5 Dec 2005 13:35:11 -0800, eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: >I have one problem... I can only get stuff from Home Depot, about 50 >miles away. > >The Eternal Squire Texas Towers, for aluminum tubing, and The Wireman, for any kind of antenna paraphernalia, both have web sites, and phone numbers. Jeez... bob k5qwg Article: 219885 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) Subject: Re: help: antenna inside a box Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:37:05 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1133681998.929717.153920@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <43931CF9.43731F8B@shaw.ca> In article <43931CF9.43731F8B@shaw.ca>, Irv Finkleman wrote: > If you were to make the antenna a ground plane or vertical and use a piece of > copper clad circuit board as the plane, it might provide a good degree of > isolation from the other components below that plane. Irv & Jin- Also consider making a "patch" antenna using the circuit board ground plane. Of course the size will depend on operating frequency, and it will probably not be as good as a ground plane antenna. I don't have any references, but a web search should find information on patch antennas used on UHF and higher frequencies. 73, Fred, K4DII Article: 219886 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <1134052172.756563.94800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: LINDA WEST http://www.e-thepeople.org/poll/29878/view?s_a=res puts peoples names on moving contracts without THEIR Knowledge. (925) 876-7441 Lwest@chipmancorp.com 925-825-5000 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:58:48 -0500 Message-ID: <286fc$43989e8f$97d56a33$26379@ALLTEL.NET> She knew you were a left wing idiot and easy pickings. You deserved everything you got an then some. I am setting her laughing my butt off at your pain! wrote in message news:1134052172.756563.94800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > LINDA WEST http://www.e-thepeople.org/poll/29878/view?s_a=res puts > peoples names on moving contracts without THEIR Knowledge. (925) > 876-7441 Lwest@chipmancorp.com 925-825-5000 > of CHIPMAN UNITED VAN LINES Caton Mayflower she likes to put peoples > names on moving > contracts with out there Knowledge or she likes to do Fraud & Forgery > Concord,ca or Caton Mayflower Moving & Storage Movers & Relocation > Service Dublin,ca (925) 876-7441, 925-887-5515, > 925-825-5000, 800-825-3866,800-447-9771, 925-609-1800, > 800-447-1771, 925-935-4073, 925-828-3985 > walnut creek,ca alamo,ca danville,ca san ramon,ca dublin,ca > pleasanton,ca > Article: 219887 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:02:53 -0500 Message-ID: <429f6$43989f87$97d56a33$26803@ALLTEL.NET> As stated in the text, 73 feet. wrote in message news:1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hi > Can someone advise me of dimensions for a 40 meter version? > > Here is original article: > http://www.hamuniverse.com/cobraantenna.html > Thanks > Jim K2TL > Article: 219888 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:07:46 -0500 Message-ID: The website states 73 feet for the 40 meter version that can also be used on 80. One would then assume that a 20 meter version 36.5 feet would also work on 40. "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > JimK2TL@gmail.com wrote: > > Can someone advise me of dimensions for a 40 meter version? > > The 80m version is 1/2 the size of the 160m version. > The 40m version would be 1/2 the size of the 80m version. > -- > 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219889 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Back to fundamentals Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:44:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: I have been informed my GRNDWAV3 program is in error - it calculates the power input to a matched receiver to be 6dB greater than it ought to be, or exactly 4 times the correct power input. Most of my programs calculate results based on what I consider to be fundamental reasoning. But GRNDWAV3 is one of the few where I have adapted formulae from the text books or 'bibles'. My informant is an Icelandic amateur who appears to know what he is talking about and is mathematically very convincing. For various resons, for the time being I propose to leave him out of this discussion. That is, of course, if a discussion should evolve. The problem fundamentally revolves around the gain of short vertical antennas, both transmitting and receiving, above a perfect ground, relative to isotropic. But for present purposes what an isotrope actually is can be forgotten about. It exists only in one's imagination. Numbers cannot be avoided. So let's keep them as simple as possible by starting with the MF standard of 1 Kilowatt, radiated from a short vertical antenna above a perfect ground. Actual antenna height and frequency don't matter. According to the text books, the field strength from 1 Kw at 1 kilometre = 300 millivolts, which (according to the text books) is correctly calculated by my program. To calculate matched reciever input power from field strength it is necessary to state vertical antenna height, frequency and radiation resistance. Again choosing simple values - Antenna height = 1 metre. Frequency = 20 MHz. Calculated radiation resistance = 1.758 ohms. Matched receiver input resistance is also 1.758 ohms. According to requirements antenna height is short compared with a wavelength. I am confident that radiation resistance is correct at 20 MHz for a 1 metre vertical. Antenna reactance is tuned out and disappears from the argument. So we have a simple circuit consisting of a generator with a resistive load of the same value, both equal to 1.758 ohms. According to the text books (as confirmed by Roy) the generator voltage is 300 millivolts. (A 1 metre high antenna with a field strength of 300 mV per metre.) The power available to the receiver is therefore - Pr = Square( 0.3/2 ) divided by 1.758 = 12.8 milliwatts. Which is the value calculated by my program although it does it in a different way by not involving field strength. It calculates it more directly from the 1 kW transmitter power and the antenna gains of a pair of vertical Tx and Rx antennas relative to isotropic. Nevertheless, I think my informant may be correct. That indeed my program states receiver power input to be 4 times greater than what it actually is. IMPORTANTLY, he says an NEC numerical program confirms his own calculations. NEC programs are not dependent on what a program user's ideas may be about antenna gains relative to isotropic. They calculate directly >from fundamental metre-amps and volts. I am presently out of touch with my informant. I do not know which NEC program confirms his calculations. I have recently asked Roy what is the voltage measured between the bottom end of a 1 metre long vertical antenna and ground when the field strength is 1 volt per metre. He says it is 1 volt and no doubt the Bibles agree. It is intriging, if the value should be only 0.5 volts then my program would give the (suspected) correct answer to the simple question - "What is the power input to a matched receiver using a 1 metre vertical antenna, at 20 MHz, at a distance of 1 Km from a 1Kw transmitter also using a short vertical antenna?" Short is less than 1/4-wavelength. Is it 12.8 milliwatts, or is it 3.2 milliwatts? Is there an NEC numerical program which will do the job? If there is perhaps somebody could use it. Most important, do I have to correct the program bug for the sake of 6 dB when the calculating uncertainty at long distances is plus or minus 10 or 15 dB ? ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 219890 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 16:17:32 -0600 Message-ID: <14250-4398B0FC-186@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> References: Reg, G4FGQ wrote: "He says it is 1 volt and no doubt the bibles agree." OK. You have an antenna with some radiation resistance and a lossless conjugate match to a load. 1/2 the antenna voltage which equals the volts per meter field strength in your 1-meter wire, is dropped across the radiation resistance and the other 0.5 volt appears across the receiver load. The radiation resistance of the antenna becomes the Thevenin equivalent source resistance of the generator feeding the receiver load.. The power lost to reradiation is 0.5 volt times the current in the radiation resistance. The power delivered to the matched receiver load is exactly the same. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 219891 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1134065153.406046.257800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Don't know what a Cobra is. But a 124-feet (38 metres) dipole, at a height of 40 feet (12 metres) in conjunction with 60 feet (18 metres) of 450-ohm ladder line and an L-match tuner has the following characteristics - Freq MHZ Loss relative to ideal 1.9 8 dB 3.8 0.5 dB 7.1 0.9 dB 10.1 0.8 dB 14.1 0.6 dB 21.1 0.6 dB 29.0 0.6 dB Loss includes, antenna, line, tuner and ground. Data obtained using program DIPOLE3 from website below. ---- ........................................................... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp ........................................................... Article: 219892 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: can rotator power be used to power amplifier? Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:44:58 -0000 Message-ID: <11phdrad6nl6835@corp.supernews.com> References: <1134080933.495574.36350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> In article <1134080933.495574.36350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, wrote: >Hi, > >I posted here a few years back about my TV antenna: >http://tinyurl.com/a93e9 > >I'm now thinking of adding a pre-amp as someone suggested. > >The antenna rotator receives some power through the walls and roof. Is >it possible to use this power to provide power to a pre-amp? If so, >does this apply to any particular model(s) of pre-amp? > >I'm not using the rotator and would be glad to disconnect it from its >power supply if that would simplify matters. The rotator looks like one of the standard sort, which is powered by a low-voltage AC signal when it's rotating, and is unpowered when it's not. It might be possible to "piggyback" DC onto that arrangement to run the preamp, but I think it'd be bothersome to try. A more common approach is to use a mast-mounted preamp which is designed to have its power fed up the coaxial feedline. You install a small "DC injector" between the TV set and the feedline, and plug a wall-wart DC adapter into the injector. >I get good reception on NBC/ABC/CBS (all VHF) in general, but my >Dish-811 HDTV receiver only locks onto a sufficient HDTV signal from >PBS (UHF), FOX (VHF) and some of the other OTA channels about 75% of >the time, and I'd like to do better. Preamps are not without their disadvantages. They can do a pretty good job of helping boost the signal to overcome losses in the coax feedline and any downstream signal splitters. They don't help at all with signal-quality problems due to external noise sources, or multipath reflections due to trees or buildings, both of which will be amplified just as much as the desired signal. And, if cheaply designed (and many are!) they can be prone to strong-signal overload >from nearby transmitters. The antenna you are using looks like a low-to-medium-gain variety, without all that much directionality... it might not have enough multipath rejection to keep your signals ghost-free. If it's old, it may be suffering from enough corrosion on the elements and the log-periodic line to be costing you some signal strength even before the signal gets into the feedline. Have you checked your coax feedline for quality and health? It's quite possible that the original homeowner installed a relatively inexpensive (and thus relatively high-loss) 75-ohm coax such as RG-59. If the cable's been up for some years, it's possible that its termination fittings (often simple crimp-on F connectors) have worked loose, corroded, or allowed water to seep into the cable dielectric. You might find it beneficial to replace your whole run of coax feedline with a more modern type - a low-loss RG-6, rated for use with satellite dishes, would be a good choice. Install new F connectors of the appropriate sort, replace the 75-to-300-ohm balun on the antenna, and waterproof all of the connections with Coax Seal or self- amalgamating rubber tape or brush-on "liquid electrical tape" or the like. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 219893 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1134065153.406046.257800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:06:10 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > Don't know what a Cobra is. It's a linear loaded folding shaped like this for 1/2 of the antenna: 62 feet per side ---------------------------------------+ | +--------------------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------FP---> other side > Freq MHZ Loss relative to ideal > 1.9 8 dB The above antenna doesn't have nearly that amount of loss on 160m. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219894 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: BillJ Subject: Re: Universal Aluminum Tower Question References: Message-ID: <453mf.414$Dh6.1905@eagle.america.net> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 18:11:55 -0500 Bob wrote: > Bill, I know they're swaged, but you mean the legs are not the same diameter > tubing all the way up? If not, could you tell me for your 22 and 18 please? > Thanks for your trouble, Bob. > "BillJ" wrote in message > news:YaKlf.360$Dh6.1842@eagle.america.net... > >>Bob wrote: >> >>>Could anyone who owns one of these towers please measure the diameter the >>>of tubing leg for me? I am considering a purchase but need to know if it >>>is compatible with some presently owned hardware. >>>Thanks for your help, >>>Bob >> >>It depends on which section you use. The sections are numbered by the >>number of inches one each leg of the triangle. My base is 22 inches and a >>50 ft. tower. Let me know and I will measure. Excellent tower. > > > I measured 1.5 inches OD on the 22 inch base. Other sections are too high to get to to measure and too much snow around to climb. I am not positive but it sure seemed the legs are narrower on the smaller sections. You could call Universal to find out for sure. Article: 219895 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: "Tim Wescott" wrote in message news:cvGdnfhGXopjKAXenZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@web-ster.com... > Reg Edwards wrote: > > I have been informed my GRNDWAV3 program is in error - it calculates > > the power input to a matched receiver to be 6dB greater than it ought > > to be, or exactly 4 times the correct power input. > > > > Most of my programs calculate results based on what I consider to be > > fundamental reasoning. But GRNDWAV3 is one of the few where I have > > adapted formulae from the text books or 'bibles'. > > > > My informant is an Icelandic amateur who appears to know what he is > > talking about and is mathematically very convincing. For various > > resons, for the time being I propose to leave him out of this > > discussion. That is, of course, if a discussion should evolve. > > > > The problem fundamentally revolves around the gain of short vertical > > antennas, both transmitting and receiving, above a perfect ground, > > relative to isotropic. But for present purposes what an isotrope > > actually is can be forgotten about. It exists only in one's > > imagination. > > > > Numbers cannot be avoided. So let's keep them as simple as possible by > > starting with the MF standard of 1 Kilowatt, radiated from a short > > vertical antenna above a perfect ground. Actual antenna height and > > frequency don't matter. > > > > According to the text books, the field strength from 1 Kw at 1 > > kilometre = 300 millivolts, which (according to the text books) is > > correctly calculated by my program. > > > > To calculate matched reciever input power from field strength it is > > necessary to state vertical antenna height, frequency and radiation > > resistance. Again choosing simple values - > > > > Antenna height = 1 metre. > > Frequency = 20 MHz. > > Calculated radiation resistance = 1.758 ohms. > > Matched receiver input resistance is also 1.758 ohms. > > > > According to requirements antenna height is short compared with a > > wavelength. I am confident that radiation resistance is correct at 20 > > MHz for a 1 metre vertical. > > > > Antenna reactance is tuned out and disappears from the argument. > > > > So we have a simple circuit consisting of a generator with a resistive > > load of the same value, both equal to 1.758 ohms. > > > > According to the text books (as confirmed by Roy) the generator > > voltage is 300 millivolts. (A 1 metre high antenna with a field > > strength of 300 mV per metre.) > > > > The power available to the receiver is therefore - > > > > Pr = Square( 0.3/2 ) divided by 1.758 = 12.8 milliwatts. > > > > Which is the value calculated by my program although it does it in a > > different way by not involving field strength. It calculates it more > > directly from the 1 kW transmitter power and the antenna gains of a > > pair of vertical Tx and Rx antennas relative to isotropic. > > > > Nevertheless, I think my informant may be correct. That indeed my > > program states receiver power input to be 4 times greater than what it > > actually is. IMPORTANTLY, he says an NEC numerical program confirms > > his own calculations. > > > > NEC programs are not dependent on what a program user's ideas may be > > about antenna gains relative to isotropic. They calculate directly > > from fundamental metre-amps and volts. > > > > I am presently out of touch with my informant. I do not know which > > NEC program confirms his calculations. > > > > I have recently asked Roy what is the voltage measured between the > > bottom end of a 1 metre long vertical antenna and ground when the > > field strength is 1 volt per metre. He says it is 1 volt and no doubt > > the Bibles agree. > > > > It is intriging, if the value should be only 0.5 volts then my program > > would give the (suspected) correct answer to the simple uestion - > > > > "What is the power input to a matched receiver using a 1 metre > > vertical antenna, at 20 MHz, at a distance of 1 Km from a 1Kw > > transmitter also using a short vertical antenna?" Short is less than > > 1/4-wavelength. > > > > Is it 12.8 milliwatts, or is it 3.2 milliwatts? > > > > Is there an NEC numerical program which will do the job? If there is > > perhaps somebody could use it. > > > > Most important, do I have to correct the program bug for the sake of 6 > > dB when the calculating uncertainty at long distances is plus or minus > > 10 or 15 dB ? > > ---- > > Reg, G4FGQ > > > > > How was your Icelandic amateur doing his NEC calculations? If he > calculated the voltage that would generate 1kW into a load, then excited > his transmit antenna with a matched generator of that source impedance > -- which would drop the power by a factor of four. If he did that and > you did your calculations with 1kW going _to_ the transmit antenna that > would be your source of error. > ===================================== Tim, I think the error, if there is one, is most likely at the receiving end. The RADIATED power is 1000 watts. It doesn't matter how it got into the ether from the transmitter. But you have made me think again about what should be done with transmitting antenna gain. ---- Reg. Article: 219896 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:04:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Hi Richard, You must have got out of bed the wrong side this morning. ;o) ---- Yours, Punchinello Article: 219897 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Sorry, I forgot "per metre". I should have said - "According to the text books, the field strength from 1 Kw at 1 kilometre = 300 millivolts per metre." ---- Reg. Article: 219898 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:19:48 -0800 Message-ID: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> References: The answer is 3 mW. Any version of EZNEC can be used to do this calculation. The demo program will yield slightly less accurate results because of the limited number of segments(*). I modeled two vertical wires, 1 meter high and 1 mm diameter, spaced 1 km apart, at 20 MHz, over perfect ground. The reported feedpoint impedance varies with segmentation, from 1.988 - j952.3 ohms at 10 segments/wire to 1.72 - j882 ohms at 100 segments/wire. Accuracy is likely to degrade with a larger number of segments, since even 100 results in segment length/diameter ratio less than NEC recommendations. I used 100 segments/wire for the test. One of the choices in EZNEC of far field strength reporting is in V/m at 1 kW input and 1 km distance. For this antenna, EZNEC reports 300.8 V/m (RMS) at ground level. EZNEC also permits setting a fixed power input, so this was set to 1 kW. The resulting source voltage and current are 21270 V. and 24.12 A. respectively. A load of 1.72 + j882 ohms was placed at the base of the second vertical. EZNEC reports a power of 3.234 mW being dissipated in this load. Care has to be used when analyzing the current induced in one antenna by another which is distant using numerical calculations. Errors can occur due to truncation and other causes when the ratio of distances between the two antennas is great relative to the segment lengths or to segment distances within one of the antennas. However, EZNEC gets virtually identical results when using mixed and double precision NEC-2 calculating engines, which indicates that the limit hasn't been reached and that numerical problems aren't occurring. (Another check which can be done is to reduce the distance between antennas by a factor of two. The power in the load resistance should increase by a factor of four.) Another critical matter is the setting of the load reactance. The reactance is many times larger than the resistance, so a slight error in setting its value will result in a large difference in load current and therefore load dissipation. For example, if the segmentation is changed >from 100 to 50 segments/wire and no other change is made to the model, the reported load power becomes 0.3917 watts. The reason is that the reported source impedance is now 1.756 - j891.4 ohms, while the load is still 1.72 + j882 ohms. Changing the load to the proper conjugately matched value of 1.756 + 891.4 ohms returns the load power to the correct value of 3.24 mW. All given, I'd trust the reported load power to be easily within 10% of the theoretically correct value. (*) Results for 10 segments/wire are 1.988 - j952.3 ohms for the source impedance, 300.71 V/m field strength at 1 km for 1 kW, and 3.24 mW in a conjugately matched load impedance in the distant vertical. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219899 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "DOUGLAS SNOWDEN" References: <453mf.414$Dh6.1905@eagle.america.net> Subject: Re: Universal Aluminum Tower Question Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:33:05 GMT The legs are a bigger diameter depending on the section. My base is a 26 inch leg to leg, and I have 80ft of it. Not in the air yet. Doug N4IJ "BillJ" wrote in message news:453mf.414$Dh6.1905@eagle.america.net... > Bob wrote: > >> Bill, I know they're swaged, but you mean the legs are not the same >> diameter tubing all the way up? If not, could you tell me for your 22 and >> 18 please? >> Thanks for your trouble, Bob. >> "BillJ" wrote in message >> news:YaKlf.360$Dh6.1842@eagle.america.net... >> >>>Bob wrote: >>> >>>>Could anyone who owns one of these towers please measure the diameter >>>>the of tubing leg for me? I am considering a purchase but need to know >>>>if it is compatible with some presently owned hardware. >>>>Thanks for your help, >>>>Bob >>> >>>It depends on which section you use. The sections are numbered by the >>>number of inches one each leg of the triangle. My base is 22 inches and a >>>50 ft. tower. Let me know and I will measure. Excellent tower. >> >> >> > I measured 1.5 inches OD on the 22 inch base. Other sections are too high > to get to to measure and too much snow around to climb. I am not positive > but it sure seemed the legs are narrower on the smaller sections. You > could call Universal to find out for sure. Article: 219900 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:58:34 -0800 Message-ID: <11php6dks5ta464@corp.supernews.com> References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> Roy Lewallen wrote: > . . . > Another critical matter is the setting of the load reactance. The > reactance is many times larger than the resistance, so a slight error in > setting its value will result in a large difference in load current and > therefore load dissipation. For example, if the segmentation is changed > from 100 to 50 segments/wire and no other change is made to the model, > the reported load power becomes 0.3917 watts. . . . Correction: That should be 0.3917 mW. The error doesn't alter the conclusion. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219901 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dr.Ace" References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:24:17 -0500 Message-ID: "Steveo" wrote in message news:1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > http://niggermania.com/ > Very Funny Article: 219902 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 03:43:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> Roy, My program requires antenna gains relative to isotropic to be entered. To help discover where I was going wrong a numerical type program was needed. Numerical programs do not need the intervention of fallible human ideas about isotropes, mirror images and ground reflections. I did not realise that EZNEC has the ability to calculate voltages and currents induced in elements miles away from the radiating element. But having the correct answer, I still have a problem. Praps you can help me to solve it. Staying with the same example of - Frequency = 20 MHz. Tx power = 1000 watts. Distance = 1 kilometre. Rx antenna height = 1 metre. Rx antenna Rin = 1.944 ohms, including wire resistance. Rx antenna -jXin is not needed. Field strength = 300 millivolts per metre. According to You, Terman and other Bibles, Volts induced in the 1 metre high antenna = 300 millivolts. So we have a generator with open-circuit volts of 300 mV, with an internal resistance of 1.944 ohms, with an Rx load resistance also of 1.944 ohms (which is in excellent agreement with EZNEC). >From which, power generated in the receiver = 11.6 milliwatts BUT THIS IS SIX DB GREATER THAN THAT CALCULATED BY EZNEC. >From other considerations, and taking EZNEC's small errors into account, it is EXACTLY 6.02 dB too large. THE CALCULATION WOULD BE CORRECT IF THE VOLTAGE INDUCED IN THE RECEIVING ANTENNA WAS EXACTLY HALF OF THE FIELD STRENGTH. OR THE FIELD STRENGTH FROM THE 1KW TRANSMITTER WAS EXACTLY HALF OF THE BIBLICAL VALUE OF 300 mV. Where or how is the above calculation going wrong? A factor of 2 is involved somewhere. Thanks for your time and patience. ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 219903 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:49:59 GMT "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com... > The answer is 3 mW. > > Any version of EZNEC can be used to do this calculation. The demo program > will yield slightly less accurate results because of the limited number of > segments(*). > > I modeled two vertical wires, 1 meter high and 1 mm diameter, spaced 1 km > apart, at 20 MHz, over perfect ground. The reported feedpoint impedance > varies with segmentation, from 1.988 - j952.3 ohms at 10 segments/wire to > 1.72 - j882 ohms at 100 segments/wire. Accuracy is likely to degrade with > a larger number of segments, since even 100 results in segment > length/diameter ratio less than NEC recommendations. I used 100 > segments/wire for the test. > > One of the choices in EZNEC of far field strength reporting is in V/m at 1 > kW input and 1 km distance. For this antenna, EZNEC reports 300.8 V/m > (RMS) at ground level. > > EZNEC also permits setting a fixed power input, so this was set to 1 kW. > The resulting source voltage and current are 21270 V. and 24.12 A. > respectively. > > A load of 1.72 + j882 ohms was placed at the base of the second vertical. > EZNEC reports a power of 3.234 mW being dissipated in this load. > > Care has to be used when analyzing the current induced in one antenna by > another which is distant using numerical calculations. Errors can occur > due to truncation and other causes when the ratio of distances between the > two antennas is great relative to the segment lengths or to segment > distances within one of the antennas. However, EZNEC gets virtually > identical results when using mixed and double precision NEC-2 calculating > engines, which indicates that the limit hasn't been reached and that > numerical problems aren't occurring. (Another check which can be done is > to reduce the distance between antennas by a factor of two. The power in > the load resistance should increase by a factor of four.) > > Another critical matter is the setting of the load reactance. The > reactance is many times larger than the resistance, so a slight error in > setting its value will result in a large difference in load current and > therefore load dissipation. For example, if the segmentation is changed > from 100 to 50 segments/wire and no other change is made to the model, the > reported load power becomes 0.3917 watts. The reason is that the reported > source impedance is now 1.756 - j891.4 ohms, while the load is still 1.72 > + j882 ohms. Changing the load to the proper conjugately matched value of > 1.756 + 891.4 ohms returns the load power to the correct value of 3.24 mW. > > All given, I'd trust the reported load power to be easily within 10% of > the theoretically correct value. > > (*) Results for 10 segments/wire are 1.988 - j952.3 ohms for the source > impedance, 300.71 V/m field strength at 1 km for 1 kW, and 3.24 mW in a > conjugately matched load impedance in the distant vertical. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL I agree with the E field computation at 1km. NEC2 calculates the normalized peak E field as 425.452 V/m, which gives 300 mV/m at 1 km. The input impedance, with 50 segments (#14 AWG, perfect conductor) is 1.747 - j823.798 ohms. The NEC output files shows the TRP at 1 kW. For some reason I seem to get a different received power. If I model a 1 meter monopole, above a perfectly conducting ground, loaded at the base segment with the complex conjugate of 1.747 + j823.798, and an incident peak E field of of 1V/m. NEC computes the peak base current as 0.28636 A. Dividing by 3.3333, for the equivalent RMS current from 300 mV/m RMS gives: 0.08591 A RMS. power in the load then equals 12.9 mW, which seems to agree with Reg's figure. Frank Article: 219904 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Message-ID: <8j7mf.235900$ir4.125748@edtnps90> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:00:04 GMT > I agree with the E field computation at 1km. NEC2 calculates the > normalized peak E field as 425.452 V/m, which gives 300 mV/m at 1 km. The > input impedance, with 50 segments (#14 AWG, perfect conductor) is 1.747 - > j823.798 ohms. The NEC output files shows the TRP at 1 kW. > > For some reason I seem to get a different received power. If I model a 1 > meter monopole, above a perfectly conducting ground, loaded at the base > segment with the complex conjugate of 1.747 + j823.798, and an incident > peak E field of of 1V/m. NEC computes the peak base current as 0.28636 A. > Dividing by 3.3333, for the equivalent RMS current from 300 mV/m RMS > gives: 0.08591 A RMS. power in the load then equals 12.9 mW, which seems > to agree with Reg's figure. > > Frank PS -- NEC computes the gain of a 1 meter, ideal conductor, monopole above a perfectly conducting ground, as 4.8 dB (Ground wave). Also note the current in the base, from an incident peak E-field of 1V/m is 0.28636A, which through 1.747 ohms, is 0.5 V peak. This appears to agree exactly with Reg's rational. Frank Article: 219905 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:43:47 -0600 Message-ID: <14250-43990B83-224@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> References: Reg, G4FGQ wrote: "According to textbooks, the field strength from 1 KW at 1 kilometre = 300 millivolts per metre." Terman agrees with Reg`s signal strength produced by 1 KW radiated at a distance of 1 kilometer of: 300 millivolts per meter. There are some conditions. The transmitting antenna is vertical and short compared with a 1/4-wavelength. It is nondirectional in a horizontal plane. The height of both antennas is low enough so that the space wave does not dominate propagation between them. Terman`s field strength derives from the equation first given by Sommerfeld and includes a factor aounting for ground losses. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 219906 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:15:16 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1134065153.406046.257800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:C%2mf.30707$q%.22345@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > Reg Edwards wrote: > > Don't know what a Cobra is. > > It's a linear loaded folding shaped like this for 1/2 of the antenna: > > 62 feet per side > ---------------------------------------+ > | > +--------------------------------------+ > | > +----------------------------------------FP---> other side > > > Freq MHZ Loss relative to ideal > > 1.9 8 dB > > The above antenna doesn't have nearly that amount of loss on 160m. ====================================== Folding is quite beneficial then at 1.9 MHz. How did you find what the loss actually is? Did you model it? How far apart are the 3 wires? ---- Reg. Article: 219907 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <14250-43990B83-224@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> "Richard Harrison" wrote in message news:14250-43990B83-224@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net... > Reg, G4FGQ wrote: > "According to textbooks, the field strength from 1 KW at 1 kilometre = > 300 millivolts per metre." > > Terman agrees with Reg`s signal strength produced by 1 KW radiated at a > distance of 1 kilometer of: 300 millivolts per meter. > > There are some conditions. The transmitting antenna is vertical and > short compared with a 1/4-wavelength. It is nondirectional in a > horizontal plane. The height of both antennas is low enough so that the > space wave does not dominate propagation between them. Terman`s field > strength derives from the equation first given by Sommerfeld and > includes a factor aounting for ground losses. > > Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI ======================================== Richard, thanks for the confirmation. All you have to do now is calculate from the field strength the power available to a matched receiver at 20 MHz with a vertical receiving antenna 1 metre high. If I tell you the antenna's radiation resistance is 1.758 ohms then you can forget about the frequency. ---- Reg. Article: 219908 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Message-ID: <5qfip1t8m0ji8g1l4s5hgh57aa8ftai07n@4ax.com> References: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:29:39 GMT On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:16:31 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: >Sorry, I forgot "per metre". > >I should have said - > >"According to the text books, the field strength from 1 Kw at 1 >kilometre = 300 millivolts per metre." For an isotropic radiator, is it correct to calculate the power flux density at 1Km at 1000/(4*pi*1000**2), and to find the field strength >from FS in V.m = (power flux density * 120*pi)**0.5? That gives 173mV/m. It would be 245mV/m if the power were radiated uniformly in hemisphere. 300mV/m is conditional on the power radiated in a hemisphere and from an antenna with directivity (field proportion to the cosine of the angle of elevation). Does that make sense? Owen -- Article: 219909 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:45:42 -0800 Message-ID: <11pih1plv99ff37@corp.supernews.com> References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> Reg Edwards wrote: > Roy, > > My program requires antenna gains relative to isotropic to be entered. > To help discover where I was going wrong a numerical type program was > needed. Numerical programs do not need the intervention of fallible > human ideas about isotropes, mirror images and ground reflections. > > I did not realise that EZNEC has the ability to calculate voltages and > currents induced in elements miles away from the radiating element. There's a limit because of numerical precision, which I cautioned about in my last posting. But this problem is within its capabilities. > But having the correct answer, I still have a problem. Praps you can > help me to solve it. > . . . Yes, I'm very interested by the apparent contradiction. But I'm also seemingly getting some contradictory answers -- I'll have something to offer after I get it sorted out. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219910 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Message-ID: References: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:56:37 GMT On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:44:07 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: >I have been informed my GRNDWAV3 program is in error - it calculates >the power input to a matched receiver to be 6dB greater than it ought >to be, or exactly 4 times the correct power input. > >Most of my programs calculate results based on what I consider to be >fundamental reasoning. But GRNDWAV3 is one of the few where I have >adapted formulae from the text books or 'bibles'. > >My informant is an Icelandic amateur who appears to know what he is >talking about and is mathematically very convincing. For various >resons, for the time being I propose to leave him out of this >discussion. That is, of course, if a discussion should evolve. > >The problem fundamentally revolves around the gain of short vertical >antennas, both transmitting and receiving, above a perfect ground, >relative to isotropic. But for present purposes what an isotrope >actually is can be forgotten about. It exists only in one's >imagination. > >Numbers cannot be avoided. So let's keep them as simple as possible by >starting with the MF standard of 1 Kilowatt, radiated from a short >vertical antenna above a perfect ground. Actual antenna height and >frequency don't matter. > >According to the text books, the field strength from 1 Kw at 1 >kilometre = 300 millivolts, which (according to the text books) is >correctly calculated by my program. > >To calculate matched reciever input power from field strength it is >necessary to state vertical antenna height, frequency and radiation >resistance. Again choosing simple values - An alternative is to calculate the power collected by a lossless, matched receiver as Pr=S*A. In this case, S=0.3**2/(120*pi) Kraus derives A (the effective apperture) for a short dipole to be 3/8/pi*wavelength**2. This gives the power collected by the receiver as 6.4mW. If the antenna and receiver were disected by the ground plane, wouldn't there be 3.2mW developed in each half of the receiver load? Owen -- Article: 219911 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 03:30:04 -0800 Message-ID: <11piqm05skatd27@corp.supernews.com> References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> <11pih1plv99ff37@corp.supernews.com> The reason for the contradiction is that I got the first result of 1 volt for the base of a 1 meter vertical wire above perfect ground in a 1 V/m field by using NEC with a plane wave excitation source which produced a 1 V/m plane wave field. The 3 mW value I got later for Reg's model was obtained by generating a 1 V/m field by putting a conventional source at the base of a second short vertical. And what I've now determined after a considerable amount of experimentation is: The current reported by NEC-2 or NEC-4 to be induced in a wire (or the voltage in its center or between base and ground) by an impinging field created by another antenna is exactly half the value it is when the same field is created instead by an NEC plane wave excitation source, when a ground plane is present. This doesn't occur in free space models, which seem to produce correct results. Unless there's some problem with interpreting the meaning of the plane wave source's field value, it looks like this is a bug in NEC-2 and NEC-4. I've posted a query on a mailing list frequented by the real experts at using these programs, and I'll report back what I find out >from them. We really need a sound theoretical basis for deciding what the value of induced current or voltage should be, for a final determination of which answer is right and which is wrong. I'll try to take a good look at that tomorrow. But in the meantime, we do know that the field strength generated by a short vertical with a source at its base is being reported correctly by NEC. NEC programs have been used very widely for determining induced currents and field strengths, and my guess is that the plane wave excitation feature is relatively rarely used, and less so over ground. Consequently, I'll put my money on the result obtained by exciting a second antenna to generate the field rather than on the plane wave excitation source result. If this conjecture is correct, then I was wrong when I said in an earlier posting that the voltage at the base of a one meter wire over ground was one volt when exposed to a one V/m field -- it should be 0.5 volt. I got the 1 volt result by using an NEC plane wave excitation source -- ironically, after first verifying that I got the known theoretical result in free space. And my more recent posting giving the power in Reg's example antenna load as 3 mW rather than 12 is correct. I'll post more as I find out more. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219912 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1134065153.406046.257800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:08:16 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > Folding is quite beneficial then at 1.9 MHz. Not only beneficial for 160m but also acceptable for all of HF. It's a win/not-lose situation. > How did you find what the loss actually is? Did you model it? I modeled it using #14 copper wire and EZNEC and comparing the maximum gain to the maximum gain of a dipole. > How far apart are the 3 wires? EZNEC forced me to put them ~7 inches apart (minimum spacing on 160m). -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219913 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Cobra multiband dipole (linear loaded) help pse References: <1134059867.937797.145470@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7BZlf.37039$D13.18071@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1134065153.406046.257800@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1134126646.365300.257600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:17:54 GMT JimK2TL@gmail.com wrote: > You can clearly see > that they use a 3 conductor round cable for the antenna. Seems to me a wider spacing would increase the efficiency. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219914 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:06:17 GMT "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:dokip19d76e0uqaqcm1t3jt19ngg61d9r1@4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:44:07 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" > wrote: > >>I have been informed my GRNDWAV3 program is in error - it calculates >>the power input to a matched receiver to be 6dB greater than it >>ought........ >>..........resistance. Again choosing simple values - > > An alternative is to calculate the power collected by a lossless, > matched receiver as Pr=S*A. > > In this case, S=0.3**2/(120*pi) > > Kraus derives A (the effective apperture) for a short dipole to be > 3/8/pi*wavelength**2. > > This gives the power collected by the receiver as 6.4mW. If the > antenna and receiver were disected by the ground plane, wouldn't there > be 3.2mW developed in each half of the receiver load? > > Owen Then S = 2.387*10**(-4) W/m**2; and A = 0.119*(Lambda)**2, where Lambda = 20m. (p.44) Therefore A = 47.6 m**2; and Pr = 11.36 mW. Since we have done this modeling of incident E-fields before, should there not be some correlation with NEC2? Frank PS, your FORTRAN notation threw me for a second. Article: 219915 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 08:05:47 -0600 Message-ID: <20001-43998F3B-89@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net> References: "A factor of 2 is involved somewhere?" First place I would look is at the coltage actually applied to the receiver. If the antenna intercepts 1 volt per meter in a 1-meter antenna, only 0.5 volt is applied to the receiver. The other 0.5 volt is lost to reradiation in a matched antenna system. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 219916 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 08:52:53 -0600 Message-ID: <14250-43999A45-242@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> References: Reg wrote: "So we have a generator with open-circuit volts of 300 mV, with an internal resistance of 1.944 ohms, into an Rx load resistance of 1.944 ohms---." You lose 1/2 the open-circuit voltage in a matched antenna`s radiation resistance. 1/2 the voltage in the receiver`s input resistance causes 1/2 the current. Received carrier power is only 1/4, or in other words, 6 db less than twice the voltage would produce were it available across the receiver`s input resistance. 0.15 volts squared over 1.944 ohms = 0.01157 watts on my Chinese calculator Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 219917 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff Dieterle" Subject: Re: Am Antenna Help Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 10:40:05 -0500 Message-ID: <11pj9ah812sp9f9@corp.supernews.com> References: <5903-43987AC2-247@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net> thanks for all the help, I'll start researching an impedance matching transformer for my setup, I guess I'll probably need to wind a balun to match the antenna and coax "Richard Harrison" wrote in message news:5903-43987AC2-247@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net... > Jeff Dieterlle wrote: > "I ran RG 6-U coax to the roof of the factory (approx. 100 ft) and > considered buying a loop antenna but at this group`s suggestion > connected the coax to the long wire. The stations I`m interested in are > Indianapolis 1070 kc and Chicago 670 kc & 1000 kc. I installed 200 ft of > #12 ga insulated wire that is oriented in line with these 2 cities > and....." > > Jeff didn`t say how far he is from the stations. All 3 stations run 50 > KW but have daytime directional patterns which may affect the signal > strength he receives. > > 50 KW nondirectional can produce 1860 millivolts per meter at one mile > or 9.3 millivolts at 200 miles. I said may because it depends on ground > conductiviyty and other factors. I listen to to a 50 KW station 200 > miles away 24 hours. > > RG-6 has a capacitnance of 20.5pF/ft. So, 100 ft. totals 2050 pF. At > 1000 KHz, its reactance is about 78 ohms. This is shunting the impedance > of 61 meters of 12 gauge wire (0.0033 WL), a fairly figh capacitive > reactance at 1000 KHz. This is a voltage divider. Most of the energy > captured by the wire is dropped scross the wire and reradiated never > reaching the receiver. That was why a loop which matched the coax was > suggested.. Jeff pribably gets enough signal in his antenna. He might > get more of it to his receiver using a broadband transformer between his > antenna and coax which stepped doown the impedance to match the coax > approximately. He may need to step it back up at the receiver end. I > recall using this arrangement in 1938 with a General Electric all-band > doublet kit and it worked well. > > Pointing the wire at the station is fine for a Beverage antenna but > about 2 wavelengths is needed for a Beverage.. That wold be 1968 feet at > 1000 KHz. The Beverage is vertically polarized, as needed to receive a > ground wave. Otherwise, shorter antennas may do better at a more > broadside attitude towards the signal wavefront. A random wire generally > uses its vertical component to receive groundwaves. > > Best regards, Richard Harriison, KB5WZI > Article: 219918 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <14250-43999A45-242@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net> "Richard Harrison" wrote in message news:14250-43999A45-242@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net... > Reg wrote: > "So we have a generator with open-circuit volts of 300 mV, with an > internal resistance of 1.944 ohms, into an Rx load resistance of 1.944 > ohms---." > > You lose 1/2 the open-circuit voltage in a matched antenna`s radiation > resistance. 1/2 the voltage in the receiver`s input resistance causes > 1/2 the current. Received carrier power is only 1/4, or in other words, > 6 db less than twice the voltage would produce were it available across > the receiver`s input resistance. > > 0.15 volts squared over 1.944 ohms = 0.01157 watts on my Chinese > calculator > ===================================== Yes Richard, I fully agree. The trouble is that there are other ways of calculating receiver input power, seemingly equally valid. But they give an input power exactly 1/4 as big or 6 dB less. Which way is correct? Terman, Kraus, Balani, their Bibles and numerous computer programs are all at loggerheads with each other. The very foundations of radio engineering are being undermined. ;o) ---- Reg. Article: 219919 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:13:43 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:24:17 -0500, "Dr.Ace" wrote: > >"Steveo" wrote in message >news:1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> http://niggermania.com/ >> > >Very Funny > Nice hit counter! -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 219920 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John, N9JG" References: Subject: Re: G10 fiberglass rod needed Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:49:25 GMT Check out this place http://www.mgs4u.com/fiberglass-tube-rod.htm "Bob" wrote in message news:tMqdncCQzYTpqATeRVn-uw@giganews.com... >I need about three feet (can be three pieces) of G10 rod about 1 1/2 to 2 >inches in diameter. Any suggestions as to a reasonably priced source? > Thanks > Article: 219921 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: stevie shit Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:25:13 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1134099135.131260.197790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > > very rasist Yes those black people are aren't they. Ooh you mean the white people?? yea. shocking they should complain about TNB. The thing is, acting as they do, these black "niggers" (as the statements go and also how other black people class their lower brothers) alienate themselves and its no wonder that most "racist claims" are dismissed as TNB so the real genuine cases of racism tend to make us just think "here we go again" rather than take the claims seriously. Remember the cry wolf story. Some of the stories on that site put me off pick and mix or help yourself foods. Not simply because of the blacks behaving like animals but anyone with any disease could "play" with the food your about to pick up.... urgh..... mind you, seeing some of the staff in McDonalds and similar eateries puts me off their cuisine somewhat too. My god, if you knew some of the things that happens to your food before you get it you'd never eat again.... Regards, Graham (Ps. Apologies if you were eating then) Article: 219922 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Message-ID: <70kjp1p5ribr5aodg96k8iaopn3pos9kp5@4ax.com> References: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 18:48:24 GMT On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:06:17 GMT, "Frank" wrote: > >"Owen Duffy" wrote in message >news:dokip19d76e0uqaqcm1t3jt19ngg61d9r1@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:44:07 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" >> wrote: >> >>>I have been informed my GRNDWAV3 program is in error - it calculates >>>the power input to a matched receiver to be 6dB greater than it >>>ought........ >>>..........resistance. Again choosing simple values - >> >> An alternative is to calculate the power collected by a lossless, >> matched receiver as Pr=S*A. >> >> In this case, S=0.3**2/(120*pi) >> >> Kraus derives A (the effective apperture) for a short dipole to be >> 3/8/pi*wavelength**2. >> >> This gives the power collected by the receiver as 6.4mW. If the >> antenna and receiver were disected by the ground plane, wouldn't there >> be 3.2mW developed in each half of the receiver load? >> >> Owen > >Then S = 2.387*10**(-4) W/m**2; > >and A = 0.119*(Lambda)**2, where Lambda = 20m. (p.44) I thought Reg was talking about f=20E6, so Lambda~=15m isn't it? > >Therefore A = 47.6 m**2; > >and Pr = 11.36 mW. > >Since we have done this modeling of incident E-fields before, should there >not be some correlation with NEC2? > >Frank > >PS, your FORTRAN notation threw me for a second. Several languages use ** as the exponentiation operator, FORTRAN was probably the first. C, the C-like languages and IIRC most of the Algol languages use **. The ^ operator used in VBA is a logical operator in most languages. Owen -- Article: 219923 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals References: <70kjp1p5ribr5aodg96k8iaopn3pos9kp5@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:04:21 GMT Owen Duffy wrote: > Several languages use ** as the exponentiation operator, FORTRAN was > probably the first. C, the C-like languages and IIRC most of the Algol > languages use **. The ^ operator used in VBA is a logical operator in > most languages. How about 10-4? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219924 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:45:32 -0800 Message-ID: <11pjnn0lfh0ui42@corp.supernews.com> References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> <11pih1plv99ff37@corp.supernews.com> <11piqm05skatd27@corp.supernews.com> I've received an authoritative answer about NEC plane wave excitation. When a 1 V/m incident plane wave is specified via a plane wave source and a ground plane is present, the field strength at all points is 2 V/m, not 1 V/m as I had assumed. The rationale is that the "incident wave" is reflected by the ground plane, doubling its strength. The conclusions from this are that: 1. NEC reports that the voltage from the base of a 1 meter electrically short vertical wire to perfect ground in the presence of a 1 V/m field is 0.5 volt, not 1 volt as I said in my earlier posting in response to a question by Reg. I apologize for the error. 2. The power intercepted by the matched dipole in the problem recently posed by Reg is approximately 3 mW, not 12. The EZNEC calculation I described, which does not use a plane wave source, is correct. The same result can be obtained with NEC by using two antennas as in EZNEC, or with a 212 V/m (peak, equal to 150 V/m RMS) plane wave source which produces a 300 V/m RMS field at the loaded antenna. This is a good place to give an additional caution to people using NEC for calculations. NEC uses peak, not RMS values for all voltages and currents. Power results will be off by a factor of two or four if a user mistakenly assumes RMS values. EZNEC uses RMS values throughout. When Reg posed the dilemma about the factor of four disparity in reported powers, my first thought was that this was the cause. As it turned out, it wasn't, but caution is needed. Results should always be given a reality check, as Reg has done. Any model -- and this doesn't exclude the mathematical models we often consider "theory" -- can be subject to many errors, including but not limited to misapplication, misinterpretation, and limitations of an approximation or numerical calculation. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219925 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Message-ID: References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> <11pih1plv99ff37@corp.supernews.com> <11piqm05skatd27@corp.supernews.com> <11pjnn0lfh0ui42@corp.supernews.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 20:16:13 GMT On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 11:45:32 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: >2. The power intercepted by the matched dipole in the problem recently >posed by Reg is approximately 3 mW, not 12. The EZNEC calculation I >described, which does not use a plane wave source, is correct. The same >result can be obtained with NEC by using two antennas as in EZNEC, or >with a 212 V/m (peak, equal to 150 V/m RMS) plane wave source which >produces a 300 V/m RMS field at the loaded antenna. To a certain extent, this comes back to a decision about whether ground reflection contributes to the received power, and you are saying that NEC assumes it does under plane wave excitation in presence of a ground plane. In "running the numbers", I note that the radiation resistance indicated by NEC for a short dipole in free space is quite different to that predicted by Kraus for a dipole with uniform current, (Rr=80*pi()**2(L/Lambda)**2)! Owen -- Article: 219926 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "void * clvrmnky()" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:16:32 -0500 On 09/12/2005 2:54 PM, Walt Davidson wrote: > On 9 Dec 2005 18:52:46 GMT, Lloyd wrote: > >> that web sight is hosted on a earthlink server and is in violation of >> their hate speech TOS. I have writen to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net to >> complain about it and get the sight pulled. good pple must be >> vigilant against hate just like k1man always says. > > I am very surprised to hear it. I thought such things were perfectly > legal in the USA, under the terms of the First Amendment. > > In countries like the UK, where free speech is not a right, it would > indeed be illegal. > > 73 de G3NYY Depends. What does "free" mean, in the real world? It is not only freedom to, but also freedom from. Many countries have reasonable limits on things that are defined, in a strict legal way, as "hate speech" because their citizens demanded it. There are reasonable limitations on what you can say publicly as a citizen in front of other citizens just like there are reasonable limits on how you build buildings, drive cars and many other things that affect other citizens who have the same rights and privileges as you. That is, there is a notion that I can invoke my rights as a citizen to *not* hear hate-filled diatribes that otherwise have no redeeming value. It is a balance between "freedom to" and "freedom from". Citizens are all free to argue what these "reasonable limits" constitute, and whether a specific instance of disagreement on the matter falls under the law or not. You can have your day in court, if you like, but it is unreasonably to say that everyone has the "right" to say anything they want, anywhere they want. Doing so actually diminishes other people's rights. In fact, the First Amendment is not an absolute. There is, and will continue to be, many specific instances where your First Amendment rights are suspended because the law of land demands it. Anyway, if Earthlink is the hosting company, then it is their private space that they let their clients use. There is nothing in the First Amendment that guarantees any sort of free speech rights in this context. Another context: if I invite someone into my house and they say or do something I disagree with violently such that I feel it doesn't deserve rebuttal or discussion, I am free to ask them to shut the hell up and leave. First Amendment rights do not automatically extend into private spaces in the US. Similarly, if I have a web forum hosted in the US, and somebody posts things that I don't like, or do not wish other members of the forum to see, I am perfectly within my rights to erase the material and delete their account. They have no First Amendment rights on any such site, and bitching about free-speech is absolutely meaningless and without merit. There is *no* such guarantee of free-speech on such sites. Well, except possibly under very specific circumstances, such as if I was taking public money to run a public service. A newspaper is under no obligation to print any letters to the editor, for example. If the information we are discussing was hosted on a truly public forum, then First Amendment rights could be invoked. Countries where there are hate-speech laws usually side-step this issue by having the hosting companies act only as "carriers" with no editorial control over their subscribers. The onus for whether or not you are publishing hate-speech then falls to the government acting on behalf of "the people". The providers usually enforce only those terms and conditions that would impact other people sharing the service (i.e., technical issues like bandwidth use, hacking, and so forth). Maybe we should be asking ourselves why we are in such a hurry to give up our private spaces, physical and virtual, to corporate interests. Article: 219927 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: The factor of 2 Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:58:03 -0800 Message-ID: <11pjvff4amseu8c@corp.supernews.com> References: <11phjd7ek98820e@corp.supernews.com> <11pih1plv99ff37@corp.supernews.com> <11piqm05skatd27@corp.supernews.com> <11pjnn0lfh0ui42@corp.supernews.com> Owen Duffy wrote: > . . . > In "running the numbers", I note that the radiation resistance > indicated by NEC for a short dipole in free space is quite different > to that predicted by Kraus for a dipole with uniform current, > (Rr=80*pi()**2(L/Lambda)**2)! The only way to achieve uniform current on a short dipole is with large capacity hats at the ends of the dipole. Otherwise, the current tapers nearly linearly from a maximum at the center to zero at the ends. If you'll look closely at Kraus' figure of the short dipole he analyzes, you'll see that it has capacity hats. Nearly all other authors analyze just a straight wire which doesn't have those hats, and consequently linear rather than uniform current distribution. And of course get quite a different result. I'll bet you didn't include large capacity hats in your model. I haven't tried it, but you should get results much closer to Kraus' if you do. NEC analysis gives radiation resistance very close to theoretical when analyzing a plain straight wire dipole, but this isn't what Kraus does in his book. It is interesting, though, to see how much effect the wire diameter has on the impedance, and that the wire has to be very thin indeed to approach the theoretical impedance for an infinitesimally thin dipole. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219928 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:01:56 -0800 Message-ID: <11pjvmoh3ot5234@corp.supernews.com> References: Owen Duffy wrote: > > An alternative is to calculate the power collected by a lossless, > matched receiver as Pr=S*A. > > In this case, S=0.3**2/(120*pi) > > Kraus derives A (the effective apperture) for a short dipole to be > 3/8/pi*wavelength**2. > > This gives the power collected by the receiver as 6.4mW. If the > antenna and receiver were disected by the ground plane, wouldn't there > be 3.2mW developed in each half of the receiver load? I believe that's correct. Note that Kraus uses a plain wire dipole for his aperture correction, but a dipole with end hats (and therefore uniform current) for input impedance calculations. See my other recent posting for further comments. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219929 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Message-ID: References: <70kjp1p5ribr5aodg96k8iaopn3pos9kp5@4ax.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:01:57 GMT On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:49:31 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote: >It's been a while since you've done mathematical stuff in C, hasn't it? > >C does _not_ use a '**' operator. If you want to raise y to the x power >you use "pow(y, x)". It has, I tend to do most my ad-hoc stuff in Perl these days, and it uses the ** operator. Perl is c-like, but as you say Tim, it did not inherit the ** op from C. Languages that lack an exponentiation operator are a right pain in the butt, but there are lots of them. Owen -- Article: 219930 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:41:28 -0600 Message-ID: <11pk5hhs462kc11@news.supernews.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <870173.2458F9@tarrnews.net> Well at least with this we all know who the NIGGER is..... -- Charlie "Walt Davidson" wrote in message news:g13kp1d3c3ieojgg128lthrhsp6psru1v1@4ax.com... > On 9 Dec 2005 21:50:05 GMT, Lloyd wrote: > >>this isnt a matter of crimenal law. it is a matter of the provider's >>TOS which is a contract between the web sight and earthlink. I am >>very surprised that you dont know about TOS and how a provider can >>kick you off if you violate his TOS. sheeze. > > I think the probability of this web site being pulled by the ISP is > marginally lower than the probability of having snow in Miami, FL in > July. > > 73 de G3NYY > > -- > Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com Article: 219931 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "W. Watson" Subject: Re: C. Crane's Twin Ferrite Antenna References: <0n3dp1hsslgagsu0tv1devo3jl6g8tobn6@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:06:44 GMT Mike Coslo wrote: > Richard Clark wrote: > >> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:05:51 GMT, "W. Watson" >> wrote: >> >> >>> Maybe it had some affect. Dunno. I guess I could always try the >>> original one. Tomorrow. >> >> >> >> Hi OM, >> >> It could (and that would be a good check), but my guess is a change of >> weather will make more difference. If so, we go into the third chorus >> of Classic indication of a bad ground, or a ground loop. >> >> A bad ground will stay with you for a very long time. A ground loop >> can come or go with the same appearance of: >> love, >> superstition, >> the deal of a poker hand, >> or a political forecast. > > > Quite possibly there is some sort of grounding issue. I only bring > up the monitor possibility because I have seen the way some monitors, > and the circuitry that runs them, can really sing when a change is made. > What adds spice to the problem is how Windoze will sometimes change > resolutions on ya. Happens a lot more in DOS, but if a person is a gamer > - or a Ham who still uses DOS - it can come into play more often than we > might think. > > My interest is piqued! Mr Watson - don't you dare solve this problem > and not let us know what the cause was!!!! 8^) > > - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Hi, I plan to let everyone know. It has garnered a lot of interest. The problem went away about 5 days or more ago. I reported on it. As several have predicted when I posted that, it's back!!! Interesting timing. I sent the C. Crane device back about the same time it returned. I haven't been able to switch the old monitor back in, but in view of the return of the noise, I guess that's unnecessary. My shoulder is real cranky, so I haven't been able to make the swap. Someone is sending me a corcom filter, but I haven't received it yet. I tried getting a tripplite outlet. I should have bought one while I was at HSC in Sacramento last week. They had several multi-outlet filters. Jameco and Digi-Key struck out. It's too far from here to jog down there. The story continues. Stay tuned. Wayne T. Watson (Watson Adventures, Prop., Nevada City, CA) (121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N) GMT-8 hr std. time) Obz Site: 39° 15' 7" N, 121° 2' 32" W, 2700 feet "He who laughs, lasts." -- Mary Pettibone Poole -- Web Page: Article: 219932 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:33:36 GMT Walt Davidson wrote: > I am very surprised to hear it. I thought such things were perfectly > legal in the USA, under the terms of the First Amendment. It's not illegal - no law has been broken. It is simply against Earthlink's published guidelines. Mass market ISP's simply cannot afford the free market fallout from such politically incorrect hostings. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219933 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Dana Subject: Re: hi im crisco kathy Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 21:57:34 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1133548250.70ba59deb172bfa745d5dd0a96cdfbe1@fe5.teranews.com> Well, I just looked you up in the callbook, and you are a ham for sure. I had to check, cause you posted to rec.radio.cb. On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Kathy Lee wrote: > I AM CRISCO KATHY,TAX SEASON IS ALMOST UPON US. I > CAN GET YOU THE BEST > RETURN. IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT ILLEGAL.BUT WHAT > THE HECK,THE > GOVERMENT TAKES TO MUCH OF OUR MONEY. BE SURE AND > BRING A BIG CAN OF > CRISCO WITH YOU. I WORK BEST ON MY KNEES WHILE > SOMEONE SLATHERS MY FAT > ASS WITH CRISCO. BRING A BIG CAN, I HAVE A VERY > LARGE ASS. > > > > Article: 219934 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: bub@hotmail.com Subject: test 2 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:41:01 GMT Message-ID: <439a4e3a.6758688@aioe.cjb.net> Please ignore this test..... Article: 219935 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 10 Dec 2005 04:06:29 GMT Message-ID: <20051209230629.396$yo@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <870173.2458F9@tarrnews.net> <1134165990.330555.233870@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <87017833.2458F9@tarrnews.net> > why is it that gay pple like you and Todd are so full of hate? > Cuz of niggermania. Article: 219936 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Mike Subject: Re: Antenna ID References: <1133964872.439314.98450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:09:58 GMT Definitely not a Channel Master, looks more like an Antennas Direct DB4….. Bill wrote: > Channel Master 4221.....your neighbor is trying for HDTV from his local air > TV stations!!! > > -Bill > > > > "Jimmy" wrote in message > news:1133964872.439314.98450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>Please excuse a curious newbie. This photo is from a neighbor's roof >>top. What kind of antenna is this? >>http://www.keepmyfile.com/image/399e1e252372 >> >>Thanks. >> > > > Article: 219937 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 10 Dec 2005 05:31:35 GMT Message-ID: <20051210003135.670$oB@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <870173.2458F9@tarrnews.net> Walt Davidson wrote: > On 9 Dec 2005 21:50:05 GMT, Lloyd wrote: > > >this isnt a matter of crimenal law. it is a matter of the provider's > >TOS which is a contract between the web sight and earthlink. I am > >very surprised that you dont know about TOS and how a provider can > >kick you off if you violate his TOS. sheeze. > > I think the probability of this web site being pulled by the ISP is > marginally lower than the probability of having snow in Miami, FL in > July. > > 73 de G3NYY > ...or getting hit by lightning twice. Article: 219938 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Ross Biggar" Subject: Coax recomendations Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:40:43 +1300 I am putting up a second tower , but it will be about 200feet from the shack and about 70feet high. What coax is recommended to reduce loss to a minimum,and to feed a multiband beam with a 2kw amplifier. Hard line excepted due to cost. Regards Ross ZL1WN Article: 219939 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <439a7dfd$0$29018$626a14ce@news.free.fr> From: F8BOE Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:04:30 +0100 References: for which band? Article: 219940 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Bob Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:55:25 -0600 Hi Ross 300ft of RG213 maybe? Thats about 3.5dB loss at 30MHz assuming a 1.5:1 VSWR. At 14MHz its about 2.4dB loss. LMR400 at about the same diameter as RG213 is just under half the loss. Its also cheaper than RG213 but a bit harder to terminate into connectors. RG6 may also be usable and much cheaper (being TV/CATV coax) as it has only slightly more loss than RG213. Its 75 ohms though if thats an issue. (http://www.ocarc.ca/coax.htm) There will be a much lower loss if you use open wire feeder... You could no doubt use broadband baluns at each end to change back to coax. You could also make your own feeder probably much cheaper than using coax. I seriously dont think the line loss figures in the coax mentioned above are important for HF work. You are of course losing half your power at higher freqs. Cheers Bob W5/VK2YQA Ross Biggar wrote: > I am putting up a second tower , but it will be about 200feet from the shack > and about 70feet high. > What coax is recommended to reduce loss to a minimum,and to feed a multiband > beam with a 2kw amplifier. > Hard line excepted due to cost. > Regards > Ross > ZL1WN > > Article: 219941 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:56:58 -0600 Message-ID: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> References: I would recommend you take a look at Davis RF "BuryFlex" 9914. It is very nearly the exact same loss per 100ft (within a couple tenths of a db) as LMR400 and/or 9913. It can be directly buried in the soil with no other provisions needed. It has an abrasion resistant non-contaminating jacket that has a warranted 20 year service life. It is also quite affordable at about $.60/ft. It is very flexible and indeed is fine even as rotator loops. I use it on all bands I run from HF thru 6M and 2M. It uses standard UHF or N connectors as well. Loss per 100ft at 400MHZ is 2.9db Check it out here.... 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex -- Charlie "Ross Biggar" wrote in message news:rTtmf.7128$vH5.363932@news.xtra.co.nz... >I am putting up a second tower , but it will be about 200feet from the >shack and about 70feet high. > What coax is recommended to reduce loss to a minimum,and to feed a > multiband beam with a 2kw amplifier. > Hard line excepted due to cost. > Regards > Ross > ZL1WN > Article: 219942 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Ross Biggar" References: <439a7dfd$0$29018$626a14ce@news.free.fr> Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:03 +1300 Yes that is a good question, I forgot to mention. primary use will be on 20m, Thanks Ross "F8BOE" wrote in message news:439a7dfd$0$29018$626a14ce@news.free.fr... > for which band? Article: 219943 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "W. Watson" Subject: Re: C. Crane's Twin Ferrite Antenna References: <0n3dp1hsslgagsu0tv1devo3jl6g8tobn6@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:51:11 GMT ... > Hi, I plan to let everyone know. It has garnered a lot of interest. > > The problem went away about 5 days or more ago. I reported on it. As > several have predicted when I posted that, it's back!!! Interesting > timing. I sent the C. Crane device back about the same time it returned. > > I haven't been able to switch the old monitor back in, but in view of > the return of the noise, I guess that's unnecessary. My shoulder is real > cranky, so I haven't been able to make the swap. > > Someone is sending me a corcom filter, but I haven't received it yet. I > tried getting a tripplite outlet. I should have bought one while I was > at HSC in Sacramento last week. They had several multi-outlet filters. > Jameco and Digi-Key struck out. It's too far from here to jog down there. > > The story continues. Stay tuned. And now it has stopped. What strangeness. Article: 219944 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:08:39 -0800 Message-ID: <11pldprad26mca3@corp.supernews.com> References: Owen Duffy wrote: > > An alternative is to calculate the power collected by a lossless, > matched receiver as Pr=S*A. > > In this case, S=0.3**2/(120*pi) > > Kraus derives A (the effective apperture) for a short dipole to be > 3/8/pi*wavelength**2. > > This gives the power collected by the receiver as 6.4mW. If the > antenna and receiver were disected by the ground plane, wouldn't there > be 3.2mW developed in each half of the receiver load? I found another source (Ramo et al) which directly gives the ratio of power in the load of a matched receiving antenna to the power applied to a transmitting antenna, in terms of the effective apertures of the antennas. This doesn't require the intermediate step of calculating field strength. The equation is: Wr/Wt = (Aer * Aet) / (lambda^2 * r^2) where: Wr, Wt are received and transmitted power respectively Aer, Aet are the receiving and transmitting antenna effective apertures lambda = wavelength r = distance between the antennas Note that effective aperture, like other measures of an antenna pattern, is a function of the direction from the antenna. So this equation is correct regardless of antenna orientation as long as Aer and Aet are correctly calculated. Letting K = 3/(8 * pi) ~ 0.1194 we can write the equation cited by Owen for effective aperture of a short dipole in its most favored direction (broadside) in free space as Ae = K * lambda^2 (This is the effective aperture of an infinitesimally short dipole. However, it changes very little with length when the dipole is electrically short. The effective aperture broadside to a half wave dipole is only 10% greater.) Then we get that Wr = Wt * (K^2 * lambda^4) / (lambda^2 * r^2) = Wt * K^2 * lambda^2 / r^2 For Reg's example, lambda = 15 meters and r = 1 km. Since this is a free space analysis involving dipoles so far, I'll apply 2 kW (Wt) to the transmitting dipole, resulting in Wr = 6.412 mW. Now we can split the model exactly in half with a ground plane. On the top of the ground plane, the transmitting antenna has exactly half the applied power, or 1 kW, which is what we had in Reg's example. Half the load power is in the upper plane also, so we have 3.206 mW for the load power in Reg's example setup. This is very close to the 3.234 mW result >from the EZNEC model. The antenna's effective height (that is, the ratio of induced voltage to field strength) has been at issue. As Reg pointed out, ~ 3 mW at the load requires an effective height of 0.5 meter for the 1 meter high antenna. (I incorrectly gave it as 1 m in an earlier posting.) I did find an explicit equation for effective height for a vertical over perfect ground, in King, Mimno, and Wing (Dover edition, p. 165). This also confirms that the correct effective height is 0.5 m for the 1 m electrically short vertical antenna over ground. I'm satisfied that we have the answer to Reg's question. It's been an educational process for me -- thanks for posing it. One final note, regarding the NEC applied plane wave. My earlier statement that the resulting field is twice the plane wave source magnitude when a ground plane is present is true only when the plane wave is applied over perfect ground at exactly grazing incidence (zenith angle = 90 deg.). If applied from other angles the resulting field strength will be different. If you apply a vertically polarized wave over a ground plane, I believe the resulting field strength will look like the pattern from a vertical radiator over a perfect ground plane -- strongest when applied at the horizon, decreasing when applied at higher angles, and dropping to zero if applied from directly overhead. I haven't confirmed this, but believe it's necessary in order to get a receiving pattern that's the same as the transmitting pattern. So use it with caution when a ground plane is present, and don't casually make assumptions about the resulting field. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219945 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 03:18:27 -0800 Message-ID: <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> Charlie wrote: > I would recommend you take a look at Davis RF "BuryFlex" 9914. It is very > nearly the exact same loss per 100ft (within a couple tenths of a db) as > LMR400 and/or 9913. It can be directly buried in the soil with no other > provisions needed. It has an abrasion resistant non-contaminating jacket > that has a warranted 20 year service life. It is also quite affordable at > about $.60/ft. It is very flexible and indeed is fine even as rotator > loops. I use it on all bands I run from HF thru 6M and 2M. It uses standard > UHF or N connectors as well. Loss per 100ft at 400MHZ is 2.9db > > Check it out here.... > > 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex I've got some of that which I purchased new, and did some extensive tests on it with a network analyzer. The loss varies all over the map depending on how you coil, bend, or flex the cable, and I never saw loss anywhere near as low as the spec says. A typical value at 400 MHz was more like 5 - 5.5 dB/100 ft. Glad you're happy with it. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219946 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600 Message-ID: <11plideiarm8cab@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> Sounds like a flawed test setup. Davis bury flex gets rave reviews (except for yours) all over the net and on-the -air. I have over 450ft of the stuff and it's super. I see no effects from coiling or bending.... Sorry you're having a difficult time... -- Charlie "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com... > Charlie wrote: >> I would recommend you take a look at Davis RF "BuryFlex" 9914. It is >> very nearly the exact same loss per 100ft (within a couple tenths of a >> db) as LMR400 and/or 9913. It can be directly buried in the soil with no >> other provisions needed. It has an abrasion resistant non-contaminating >> jacket that has a warranted 20 year service life. It is also quite >> affordable at about $.60/ft. It is very flexible and indeed is fine even >> as rotator loops. I use it on all bands I run from HF thru 6M and 2M. It >> uses standard UHF or N connectors as well. Loss per 100ft at 400MHZ is >> 2.9db >> >> Check it out here.... >> >> 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex > > I've got some of that which I purchased new, and did some extensive tests > on it with a network analyzer. The loss varies all over the map depending > on how you coil, bend, or flex the cable, and I never saw loss anywhere > near as low as the spec says. A typical value at 400 MHz was more like 5 - > 5.5 dB/100 ft. Glad you're happy with it. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219947 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "GS" References: Subject: Re: G10 fiberglass rod needed Message-ID: <4aAmf.4116$PX2.429369@news20.bellglobal.com> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 07:50:06 -0500 Hi Bob, I can ge tubing in the size made of PUL500 which is an industrial grade of Fiberglass, but 20ft must be purchased. It is expensive. However if you are looking for 1" dia solid that could arranged as I ourchase it on a regular basis. 73's Guenther Schweigl General Manager Degen Designs www.degendesigns.com info@degendesigns.com "Bob" wrote in message news:tMqdncCQzYTpqATeRVn-uw@giganews.com... >I need about three feet (can be three pieces) of G10 rod about 1 1/2 to 2 >inches in diameter. Any suggestions as to a reasonably priced source? > Thanks > Article: 219948 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: stevie shit Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1134099135.131260.197790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> > >[snip] ..... but anyone > >with any disease could "play" with the food your about to pick up.... > >urgh..... mind you, seeing some of the staff in McDonalds and similar > >eateries puts me off their cuisine somewhat too. My god, if you knew some of > >the things that happens to your food before you get it you'd never eat > >again.... > > Why else do you think there are so many diseases caught by patients in > British hospitals? Perhaps the filthy habits of some of the > "employees" have a lot to do with it. Well, most of our hospitals are full of Asian doctors and Philippine nurses so im afraid I have to agree with you Walt. Merry Christmas, Graham -- _._. _... ._. ._ _.. .. _ _ _ Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 219949 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:50:50 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> "Lloyd" wrote in message news:7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:24:17 -0500, Dr.Ace wrote: > > > > "Steveo" wrote in message > > news:1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > http://niggermania.com/ > > > > > > > Very Funny > > that web sight is hosted on a earthlink server and is in violation of > their hate speech TOS. I have writen to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net to > complain about it and get the sight pulled. good pple must be > vigilant against hate just like k1man always says. Well, thank you Mary Whitehouse. Lets hope you also complain about the ethnic sites disrespecting white people. The thing is with niggermania.com although some of the language used is of a racist nature, most of the stories ring true to many of us who have lived in black areas which always seem to turn into ghetto's wherever they are. Racist view or general observation? Ill let the readers decide. Regards, Graham Ps. The site has nothing to do with me nor do I endorse it in any way. -- _._. _... ._. ._ _.. .. _ _ _ Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 219950 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:59:11 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <870173.2458F9@tarrnews.net> "Lloyd" wrote in message news:870173.2458F9@tarrnews.net... > On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 19:54:54 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: > > On 9 Dec 2005 18:52:46 GMT, Lloyd wrote: > > > > >that web sight is hosted on a earthlink server and is in violation of > > >their hate speech TOS. I have writen to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net to > > >complain about it and get the sight pulled. good pple must be > > >vigilant against hate just like k1man always says. > > > > I am very surprised to hear it. I thought such things were perfectly > > legal in the USA, under the terms of the First Amendment. > > > > In countries like the UK, where free speech is not a right, it would > > indeed be illegal. > > > > this isnt a matter of crimenal law. it is a matter of the provider's > TOS which is a contract between the web sight and earthlink. I am > very surprised that you dont know about TOS and how a provider can > kick you off if you violate his TOS. sheeze. I knew of a spoof site that a girlfriend I once had made and the only defamatory thing on it was a single link to the BNP party which is a legitimate and legal party in the UK and the host deleted her website immediately for this. No warning or anything it was simply removed. That was a Yahoo Geocities site. I personally find that a disgusting attitude for them to take as it took her many weeks of hard work to make her site and they never even warned her first. Free speech seems to only apply for the ethnic minorities. Regards, Graham -- _._. _... ._. ._ _.. .. _ _ _ Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 219951 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 10 Dec 2005 14:33:28 GMT Message-ID: <20051210093328.760$Ot@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> Lloyd wrote: > On 10 Dec 2005 05:03:03 GMT, Steveo wrote: > > Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ > > From: Steveo > > Date: 10 Dec 2005 05:03:03 GMT > > Organization: http://newsreader.com/ > > Path: nntp.giganews.com!feed4.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newsh.newsreader.com!ellis.newsreader.com!not-for-mail > > Message-ID: <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> > > https://newsreader.com/news/newaccount says this about you > Tell em Steveo says fuck them, or anyone that looks like them. > and now you have been warned steve robenson. > Get off my leg, fatboi. Article: 219952 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 10 Dec 2005 14:34:55 GMT Message-ID: <20051210093455.424$0d@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> Walt Davidson wrote: > On 10 Dec 2005 11:45:23 GMT, Lloyd wrote: > > > ... and we will > >charge a $10 per message clean-up fee to your credit card. > > LOL! How can they enforce that payment if he hasn't authorized it > with the credit card company? > > 73 de G3NYY > Tell em Steveo says fuck them, or anyone that looks like them. Article: 219953 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:43:35 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:31:59 -0500, "Dee Flint" wrote: > >"Walt Davidson" wrote in message >news:1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:19:18 -0500, "Dee Flint" >> wrote: >> >>>An ISP is a private entity and does not have to allow it even if it is >>>legal. When you sign up with an ISP, you are entering into a contract and >>>agreeing to its terms and conditions. If the ISP says no hate speech, >>>then >>>they can legally pull the page or sight and even cancel the user's service >>>due to violating the contract. >> >> I think you may find it cannot, if by so doing it breaches the First >> Amendment. >> >> In the UK, a contract is not legally binding if it contains something >> that is illegal. (In the USA, YMMD.) >> >> 73 de G3NYY >> >> P.S. It's a "site", not a "sight". >> >> -- >> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com > > >Don't get caught up in the "spelling" wars. I noticed that my fingers had >typed the wrong one just after I hit the send button. > >Free speech has never meant that a person can say whatever they want, >wherever they want, whenever they want. There are many laws defining what >you can and cannot do. For example, I can stand on a public sidewalk (i.e. >publicly owned properties) handing out flyers all I want to so long as I am >not doing anything illegal. On the other hand, if I want to hand them out >in the shopping center (i.e. privately owned, not paid for by tax dollars), >I must have the permission of the shopping center owner/management. The >subject of the flyers is irrelevant. Our tax dollars do not pay for the ISP >and so as a private entity they can limit usage of their service. > >A business can legally prevent its employees from handing out political >material (campaign buttons, flyers, etc) on its premises. If they have such >a policy (and this has been clearly published to its employees), they can >fire an employee for doing so and it does not violate the employee's right >to freedom of speech. Correct! The First Amendment does not cover *anything* a private person or a private company does. It applies *only* to actions by the government. That obviously eliminates any restrictions an ISP might put into their usage agreements from "breaching the First Amendment. I'm always amazed at the number of people who don't understand the Bill of Rights. Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his teacher talked about the Constitution. >To really understand the First Amendment and what freedom of speech really >means, one needs to study it in the context of history. It had been a >common practice for governments and rulers to throw people in jail simply >for criticizing the government or even simply disagreeing with its policies. >The First Amendment was crafted to protect people from being jailed for such >and to enable and even encourage open discussion and debate on issues. It >was not intended to protect libel, slander, fraud, speech encouraging >violence, etc. Nor was it intended to force people to listen to someone >else's free speech. If someone comes on my lawn and starts making a speech, >I can call the police and have him escorted off. Freedom of speech does not >allow him to force me to listen or to use my property. > >The extent to which freedom of speech applies is endlessly debated and the >amendment endlessly interpreted. All that people can really agree on is >that it was not intended to allow an "anything goes" type of approach. They >cannot agree on what it does cover however. > >Dee D. Flint, N8UZE > -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 219954 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 10 Dec 2005 14:46:14 GMT Message-ID: <20051210094614.715$fI@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> Lloyd wrote: > On 10 Dec 2005 05:03:03 GMT, Steveo wrote: > > Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ > > From: Steveo > > Date: 10 Dec 2005 05:03:03 GMT > > Organization: http://newsreader.com/ > > Path: nntp.giganews.com!feed4.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newsh.newsreader.com!ellis.newsreader.com!not-for-mail > > Message-ID: <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> > > https://newsreader.com/news/newaccount says this about you > > 7. We reserve the right to disable your ability to create (post or > mail) Usenet or e-mail messages with this service. We will do this if > we believe your messages are considered to be abusive by the current > standards of the Usenet and Internet community, or disruptive to the > functioning of Usenet, the Internet, or this service. DO NOT post any > form of SPAM or ADVERTISING - we will not allow this. If you post any > articles which are seen by the usenet community as SPAM or unwanted > ADVERTISING, we will disable your posting ability and and we will > charge a $10 per message clean-up fee to your credit card. > > 8. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone if we feel their > use of the service is (or will be) disruptive to the functioning of > Usenet, the Internet, or this service. > > and now you have been warned steve robenson. > Hey fucknut, does Chris Caputo approve of your altering your header to read http://www.TarrNews.net - FREE NNTP Access instead of altopia? Doesn't altopia's service blow goats? Eat a salad today, lardass. Article: 219955 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Free speech References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:55:30 GMT Dee Flint wrote: > "Walt Davidson" wrote in message >>P.S. It's a "site", not a "sight". > > Don't get caught up in the "spelling" wars. I dunno, that web site looks like a sight to me. :-) From Webster's: "sight - beyond all expectations or reason" -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219956 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Free speech References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT nevermore wrote: > Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his > teacher talked about the Constitution. Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219957 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 10 Dec 2005 15:23:44 GMT Message-ID: <20051210102344.404$8M@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> <20051210094614.715$fI@newsreader.com> Lloyd wrote: > On 10 Dec 2005 14:46:14 GMT, Steveo wrote: > > > > Hey fucknut, does Chris Caputo approve of your altering your header to > > read > > http://www.TarrNews.net - FREE NNTP Access > > why dont you read his TOS and find out steve robenson? > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=akula <--- his? lol > k1man would > never have to ask a dumb question like that because k1man is a great > man. > Wipe the man gravy off your chin, lardass. Article: 219958 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:26:38 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >nevermore wrote: >> Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >> teacher talked about the Constitution. > >Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, >written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? *Anyone* talks about US Constitutional free speech without knowing that the First Amendment is *only* a guarantee against abridgement by the government itself, is a moron. -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 219959 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:28:59 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:b7Cmf.39266$6e1.32322@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > nevermore wrote: > > Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his > > teacher talked about the Constitution. > > Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, > written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Its always good to broaden your horizons and have a basic understanding of history. Wish id have paid more attention now ;o) Regards, Graham -- _._. _... ._. ._ _.. .. _ _ _ Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 219960 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:26:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:12:25 -0500, "Dee Flint" wrote: > >"nevermore" wrote in message >news:r6qlp1l9asos3l9kov8nl76t3i3stpmh2s@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:31:59 -0500, "Dee Flint" >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Walt Davidson" wrote in message >>>news:1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:19:18 -0500, "Dee Flint" >>>> wrote: >>>> > >[snip] > >> That obviously eliminates any restrictions an ISP might put into their >> usage agreements from "breaching the First Amendment. I'm always >> amazed at the number of people who don't understand the Bill of >> Rights. Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >> teacher talked about the Constitution. >> > >Walt's in the UK. I seriously doubt if they teach the US Constitution >there. They may do a brief outline just as we get a brief summary of >Britain's form of government but it's unlikely they would go into any depth >on it. Then the moron should try to keep his mouth shut about things that he doesn't understand. >Dee D. Flint, N8UZE > -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 219961 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals References: <11pldprad26mca3@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:35:09 GMT Hi Roy, A couple of comments on your excellent input into this discussion. Roy Lewallen wrote: > > I found another source (Ramo et al) which directly gives the ratio of > power in the load of a matched receiving antenna to the power applied to > a transmitting antenna, in terms of the effective apertures of the > antennas. This doesn't require the intermediate step of calculating > field strength. The equation is: > > Wr/Wt = (Aer * Aet) / (lambda^2 * r^2) > > where: > Wr, Wt are received and transmitted power respectively > Aer, Aet are the receiving and transmitting antenna effective apertures > lambda = wavelength > r = distance between the antennas Kraus "Antennas" also describes this equation. He refers to it as the "Friis transmission formula" on pages 48 and 49 of the second edition. > > One final note, regarding the NEC applied plane wave. My earlier > statement that the resulting field is twice the plane wave source > magnitude when a ground plane is present is true only when the plane > wave is applied over perfect ground at exactly grazing incidence (zenith > angle = 90 deg.). If applied from other angles the resulting field > strength will be different. If you apply a vertically polarized wave > over a ground plane, I believe the resulting field strength will look > like the pattern from a vertical radiator over a perfect ground plane -- > strongest when applied at the horizon, decreasing when applied at higher > angles, and dropping to zero if applied from directly overhead. I > haven't confirmed this, but believe it's necessary in order to get a > receiving pattern that's the same as the transmitting pattern. So use it > with caution when a ground plane is present, and don't casually make > assumptions about the resulting field. I believe a better way to describe this situation is that the plane wave field strength does not go to zero, but rather the effective aperture of the antenna goes to zero as the plane wave is applied from overhead. This does not change your conclusion with respect to antenna patterns. The oblique-incidence plane wave equations are slightly messy, but they are well described in treatments of waveguides. 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 219962 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:48:43 +0100 From: Martin Holterman Subject: Re: Free speech References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> Message-ID: <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> nevermore wrote: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: > > >>nevermore wrote: >> >>>Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >>>teacher talked about the Constitution. >> >>Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, >>written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? > > > > *Anyone* talks about US Constitutional free speech without knowing > that the First Amendment is *only* a guarantee against abridgement by > the government itself, is a moron. Horizontal effect of constitutionally guaranteed rights is an element of many countries' legal systems. When I studied a bit of law in Ireland, I learned about constitutional torts. The idea is that, take free speach, if torts law does not protect my right to free speach when it should, than this is a shortcoming on the part of the state, i.e. the court and the legislature. To rectify this, the plaintiff, when suing another private person in tort, can base his case on his constitutional right. In tort, there are about a dozen or so precedents where this reasoning was upheld. In my own country, the Netherlands, the constitutionally protected rights do not have horizontal effect directly, but they are used for the interpretation of open norms in civil law, such as the public order exception to free contracting and the due care requirement in tort law. I hope you learned something, Martin Holterman Article: 219963 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: References: <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:48:43 +0100, Martin Holterman wrote: >nevermore wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >> >> >>>nevermore wrote: >>> >>>>Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >>>>teacher talked about the Constitution. >>> >>>Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, >>>written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? >> >> >> >> *Anyone* talks about US Constitutional free speech without knowing >> that the First Amendment is *only* a guarantee against abridgement by >> the government itself, is a moron. > >Horizontal effect of constitutionally guaranteed rights is an element of >many countries' legal systems. When I studied a bit of law in Ireland, I >learned about constitutional torts. The idea is that, take free speach, >if torts law does not protect my right to free speach when it should, >than this is a shortcoming on the part of the state, i.e. the court and >the legislature. To rectify this, the plaintiff, when suing another >private person in tort, can base his case on his constitutional right. >In tort, there are about a dozen or so precedents where this reasoning >was upheld. >In my own country, the Netherlands, the constitutionally protected >rights do not have horizontal effect directly, but they are used for the >interpretation of open norms in civil law, such as the public order >exception to free contracting and the due care requirement in tort law. > >I hope you learned something, I don't give a shit how it works in the Netherlands.. It sure doesn't work that way in the USA. >Martin Holterman -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 219964 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:50:51 -0500 Message-ID: <4q1mp1do77ktaou8clusqgfd3lj2ldmgcd@4ax.com> References: <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:35:52 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >nevermore wrote: >> I don't give a shit how it works in the Netherlands.. It sure doesn't >> work that way in the USA. > >Lots of things don't work anymore in the USA. :-) Yeah, unfortunately we still have lots of welfare leeches, but fortunately, OTOH, there's more than enough "stuff" working good in the USA to make the losers of the world hate and fear us.... -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 219965 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:54:22 +0100 From: Martin Holterman Subject: Re: Free speech References: <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> Message-ID: <439b083e$0$2338$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> nevermore wrote: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:48:43 +0100, Martin Holterman > wrote: > > >>nevermore wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>nevermore wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >>>>>teacher talked about the Constitution. >>>> >>>>Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, >>>>written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? >>> >>> >>> >>>*Anyone* talks about US Constitutional free speech without knowing >>>that the First Amendment is *only* a guarantee against abridgement by >>>the government itself, is a moron. >> >>Horizontal effect of constitutionally guaranteed rights is an element of >>many countries' legal systems. When I studied a bit of law in Ireland, I >>learned about constitutional torts. The idea is that, take free speach, >>if torts law does not protect my right to free speach when it should, >>than this is a shortcoming on the part of the state, i.e. the court and >>the legislature. To rectify this, the plaintiff, when suing another >>private person in tort, can base his case on his constitutional right. >>In tort, there are about a dozen or so precedents where this reasoning >>was upheld. >>In my own country, the Netherlands, the constitutionally protected >>rights do not have horizontal effect directly, but they are used for the >>interpretation of open norms in civil law, such as the public order >>exception to free contracting and the due care requirement in tort law. >> >>I hope you learned something, > > > I don't give a shit how it works in the Netherlands.. It sure doesn't > work that way in the USA. > > I know, but I have to say that attitude is not very helpful. It's gotten Americans in trouble before. Martin Holterman Article: 219966 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mexicana_Aeron=E1utica_y_Spacia_Administraci?= Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:26:11 GMT Lloyd wrote... > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:24:17 -0500, Dr.Ace wrote: > >>"Steveo" wrote in message >>news:1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>>http://niggermania.com/ >>> >> >>Very Funny > > > that web sight is hosted on a earthlink server and is in violation of > their hate speech TOS. I have writen to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net to > complain about it and get the sight pulled. good pple must be > vigilant against hate just like k1man always says. Hmm, I like it so I think I'll download everything before it goes offline and repost it on some server in Russia. Article: 219967 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Free speech References: <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> <4q1mp1do77ktaou8clusqgfd3lj2ldmgcd@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:32:10 GMT nevermore wrote: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:35:52 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: > > >>nevermore wrote: >> >>>I don't give a shit how it works in the Netherlands.. It sure doesn't >>>work that way in the USA. >> >>Lots of things don't work anymore in the USA. :-) > > > > Yeah, unfortunately we still have lots of welfare leeches, but > fortunately, OTOH, there's more than enough "stuff" working good in > the USA to make the losers of the world hate and fear us.... > -- > > If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll > be in jail soon enough. > --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& > > Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because > line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is > clearly where you report your capital gains. > > http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf > Some of those "losers" are doing pretty well for themselves. China's economy should surpass that of the U.S. in the near future, for example. As for hating us, why would anyone hate a cash cow? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 219968 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:59:27 -0600 Message-ID: <11pm5s6ns25it86@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <11plideiarm8cab@news.supernews.com> <2uolp197i17k90u4a231konu6n6kk5j5tg@4ax.com> I don't know what you two have going but his "analysis" flies in the face of every other review and/or comment I have ever read about Davis 9914. As well as my own experience of low loss and great performance. I have several bends in my runs of 9914 and no adverse swr. Have you looked at all the positive user's reviews at eHam about it? Not a single negative remark.. 1. http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/4515 One might also want to check this link for another endorsement of Davis BuryFlex 9914 2. http://lists.contesting.com/archives//html/Towertalk/1999-08/msg00010.html The again one could just read what is posted at this link at the eHam Elmer's Forum - all very positive 3. http://www.eham.net/forums/Elmers/38717 I'm not saying Roy is misstating what he saw. I'm saying what he saw misstates the real quality of this coax. 1. Maybe he got a bad piece 2. Maybe he had a loose connector 3. Maybe he didn't calibrate the network analyzer 4. etc etc etc....NO ONE else I can find dislikes this 9914!!! -- Charlie "Wes Stewart" wrote in message news:2uolp197i17k90u4a231konu6n6kk5j5tg@4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600, "Charlie" > wrote: > >>Sounds like a flawed test setup. > > Hah hah. Very funny. > > If Roy says it's bad--it's bad. Article: 219969 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Phil Wheeler Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <11plideiarm8cab@news.supernews.com> <2uolp197i17k90u4a231konu6n6kk5j5tg@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:10:40 GMT Wes Stewart wrote: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600, "Charlie" > wrote: > > >>Sounds like a flawed test setup. > > > Hah hah. Very funny. > > If Roy says it's bad--it's bad. Agreed! Article: 219970 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mexicana_Aeron=E1utica_y_Spacia_Administraci?= Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:25:11 GMT Walt Davidson wrote... > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Mexicana Aeronáutica y Spacia > Administración wrote: > > >>Hmm, I like it so I think I'll download everything before it goes offline >>and repost it on some server in Russia. > > > I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal in the UK to even LOOK at > the site! It's against the law here to possess racially inflammatory > material. If it's in the browser cache on your PC, you possess it ... > right? Except that I'm in the USA so I have nothing to worry about. The UK is pathetic. Though I'm descended from Brits, I realize why my country declared independence. America may have its problems, but I expect that British culture will be extinct within a century, having first been turned into an joyless Orwellian police state before finally collapsing into anarchy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself - anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: 'facecrime,' it was called." -- 1984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article: 219971 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:57:01 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> > Except that I'm in the USA so I have nothing to worry about. Id say you had quite a lot to worry about. Maybe not in respect of the content of your website (if it is yours of course) unless some of these black people get ahold of you of course, but everything else, gun crime, immigration, corruption... its all there in much larger amounts than in the UK. > The UK is pathetic. Though I'm descended from Brits, I realize why my > country declared independence. Your Country is becoming a cess-pit of multi culteral misfit lowlifes. Declairing independance from the UK can only benefit the UK so I wouldnt get too excited about that. The website shows that only too well. America may have its problems, but I > expect that British culture will be extinct within a century, having > first been turned into an joyless Orwellian police state before finally > collapsing into anarchy. Anarchy you say? Like the NO saga and the ghettos in nearly every City in your Country you seem to forget about. The UK is a reasonably tolerant Country as far as Immigration and integration goes but the USA.... I honestly believe the UK is in a much stronger position in holding onto its identity than the US. That said my sympaties go out to the genuine American people having to put up with this. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for > as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not > been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your > thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a > telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an > unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself - anything > that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something > to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to > look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a > punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: > 'facecrime,' it was called." > -- 1984 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A George Orwell fan.... that explains the previous barmy statement. So many people seem to be convinced they are being filmed and watched by some organisation to bring them down or fit them up with some crime. As if anyone in reality gives two hoots about them or anything they do.... too full of their own importance which is realistically rated at 0 to such organisations if, infact, they actually exist. George Orwell.. hah... Regards, Graham -- _._. _... ._. ._ _.. .. _ _ _ Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 219972 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:34:46 GMT Walt Davidson wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal in the UK to even LOOK at > the site! > > 73 de Wlat It's probably also illegal there to sign your posting with an alias. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219973 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:54:51 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:q5Gmf.30173$dO2.16371@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Walt Davidson wrote: > > I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal in the UK to even LOOK at > > the site! > > > > 73 de Wlat > > It's probably also illegal there to sign your posting with an alias. :-) > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp It depends whether you are attempting to gain by deception I would say on that account. Pop stars always use alias's, like Harry Webb. Come to think of it, Shirley Crabtree too as his known name was Big Daddy. So many people in different walks of life go by different names these days. Its definitely a crime to spell Walt as Wlat though ;o) Regards, Graham -- _._. _... ._. ._ _.. .. _ _ _ Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 219974 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> USA citizens understand themselves very well. The trouble is they don't understand anybody else. ---- Article: 219975 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:07:30 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > USA citizens understand themselves very well. I don't understand Howard Dean, DNC chairman. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219976 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Hal Rosser" References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <11plideiarm8cab@news.supernews.com> <2uolp197i17k90u4a231konu6n6kk5j5tg@4ax.com> <11pm5s6ns25it86@news.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:37:55 -0500 The biggest problem needs to be solved - the fact that the shack is too far >from the antenna. Move the darn shack and be done with it! Article: 219977 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: References: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:50:15 GMT On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:40:43 +1300, "Ross Biggar" wrote: >I am putting up a second tower , but it will be about 200feet from the shack >and about 70feet high. >What coax is recommended to reduce loss to a minimum,and to feed a multiband >beam with a 2kw amplifier. >Hard line excepted due to cost. Ross, Interesting to see use of such a long line. We have been reliably informed that nobody uses more than 75' or so! Starting with the question "what is wrong with commonly available RG213", you would expect a loss around 2.4dB in a 100m run (200' + 70' + 30' tails) with an average VSWR of 1.5. Given that the lowest ambient noise level on 20m is around 20dB above typical receiver noise floor, the impact of 2.4dB of loss on receive is insignificant. On transmit, you will lose about 45% of your power in the line, so with your 2KW (output?) amplifier, you will still have 1100W arriving at the antenna. Will that do the job OK? Is ladder line the panacea? Wireman 554 directly connected to a 50 ohm load would have a loss of ~1.7dB and a little extra for baluns brings you close to 2dB, so it is not a whole lot better than RG213. However, if you used a 9:1 balun at each end, you would expect line loss of ~0.6dB and a little extra for baluns brings you close to 0.8dB. Now that seems respectable. Problem is that you live in the land of the long white cloud, and ladder line performance is degraded significantly when wet, so it might not be acceptable in your situation when wet. Lets look at home made open wire line using 2mm copper spaced 150mm for a 600 ohms line. If you used the same 9:1 balun at each end, you would expect line loss of ~0.2dB and a little extra for baluns brings you close to 0.4dB. Now that seems quite good. Anecdotally, such an air spaced line is not affected significantly by weather / water, but that will depend on the quality of the insulators and your rigging methods. Remember that the open wire solutions above need to be tuned feeders or you will need an ATU. I suggest that you will need the ATU for multi band operation, so you should allow another tenth of a dB or so for ATU loss. Someone will probably suggest that LDF6-50 (32mm (1.25") hardline) could achieve 0.3dB loss, but could you afford it, would it be good value? Owen -- Article: 219978 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <1134052172.756563.94800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1134143656.595951.180390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: LINDA WEST http://www.e-thepeople.org/poll/29878/view?s_a=res puts peoples names on moving contracts without THEIR Knowledge. (925) 876-7441 Lwest@chipmancorp.com 925-825-5000 Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:21:19 -0500 Message-ID: <39ac8$439b54e0$97d56a33$3105@ALLTEL.NET> When one feels they are wronged, the courts are the solution. We in the newsgroups neither give a flip nor are of any help to you.. I personally find it humorous she took your liberal, George Bush, Dick Chaney hating ass to the cleaners. The world does not revolve around you or your problems. Get over it! wrote in message news:1134143656.595951.180390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > jermainsanchezrangel@hotmail.com wrote: > > LINDA WEST http://www.e-thepeople.org/poll/29878/view?s_a=res puts > > peoples names on moving contracts without THEIR Knowledge. (925) > > 876-7441 Lwest@chipmancorp.com 925-825-5000 > > of CHIPMAN UNITED VAN LINES Caton Mayflower she likes to put peoples > > names on moving > > contracts with out there Knowledge or she likes to do Fraud & Forgery > > Concord,ca or Caton Mayflower Moving & Storage Movers & Relocation > > Service Dublin,ca (925) 876-7441, 925-887-5515, > > 925-825-5000, 800-825-3866,800-447-9771, 925-609-1800, > > 800-447-1771, 925-935-4073, 925-828-3985 > > walnut creek,ca alamo,ca danville,ca san ramon,ca dublin,ca > > pleasanton,ca > > this has been mailed in a xmas card to all on linda's street. > > ROY & ROBERTA > MICHAEL & NANALEE > LARRY & WENDY > JOSEPH & MARGARET > BONNIE > CLINTON & SHARON > KEVIN & CANDIS > BRIAN & PAOLA > KENNETH & JOAN > Article: 219979 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Mike Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:28:44 GMT I had a bad experience with Belden 9913 and if Davis 9914 has the same mechanical properties, be careful. I taped some 9913 to a mast and sometime later discovered it had been squished flat from the tight wrap of electrical tape. I have also seen people ty-rap 9913 and destroy its shape. If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral thing like 9913, I would not be surprised with varying performance when bending it. Here is some coax that looks like better performance than 9913 or Davis 9914 (2.7dB/450MHz/100ft) has the same Polyethylene outer jacket as Davis and is cheaper. Check http://yanta.pair.com/jefatech/specsheets/LL400Specs.pdf Mike Charlie wrote: > I would recommend you take a look at Davis RF "BuryFlex" 9914. It is very > nearly the exact same loss per 100ft (within a couple tenths of a db) as > LMR400 and/or 9913. It can be directly buried in the soil with no other > provisions needed. It has an abrasion resistant non-contaminating jacket > that has a warranted 20 year service life. It is also quite affordable at > about $.60/ft. It is very flexible and indeed is fine even as rotator > loops. I use it on all bands I run from HF thru 6M and 2M. It uses standard > UHF or N connectors as well. Loss per 100ft at 400MHZ is 2.9db > > Check it out here.... > > 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex > Article: 219980 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:29:03 -0500 Message-ID: <880fb$439b56b0$97d56a33$3403@ALLTEL.NET> Your typical leftwing bullcrap, free speach only applies to what they have to say and those that agree with them. They have yet to learn free speech is not something decided by a group of politically correct idiots. Thes same folks have apoplexy if some one says nigger or faggot, while protesting with sentances laced with the F word and other four letter invectives we find reprehensable. What is their response? "Free "void * clvrmnky()" wrote in message news:Qummf.4780$43.2672@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca... > On 09/12/2005 2:54 PM, Walt Davidson wrote: > > On 9 Dec 2005 18:52:46 GMT, Lloyd wrote: > > > >> that web sight is hosted on a earthlink server and is in violation of > >> their hate speech TOS. I have writen to abuse@abuse.earthlink.net to > >> complain about it and get the sight pulled. good pple must be > >> vigilant against hate just like k1man always says. > > > > I am very surprised to hear it. I thought such things were perfectly > > legal in the USA, under the terms of the First Amendment. > > > > In countries like the UK, where free speech is not a right, it would > > indeed be illegal. > > > > 73 de G3NYY > > Depends. What does "free" mean, in the real world? Article: 219981 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: DecaturTxCowboy Subject: Re: LINDA WEST http://www.e-thepeople.org/poll/29878/view?s_a=res References: <1134052172.756563.94800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1134143656.595951.180390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:39:43 GMT verynicemaria@hotmail.com wrote: > jermainsanchezrangel@hotmail.com wrote: > >>LINDA WEST http://www.e-thepeople.org/poll/29878/view?s_a=res puts >>peoples names on moving contracts without THEIR Knowledge. > this has been mailed in a xmas card to all on linda's street. > > ROY & ROBERTA > MICHAEL & NANALEE > LARRY & WENDY > JOSEPH & MARGARET > BONNIE > CLINTON & SHARON > KEVIN & CANDIS > BRIAN & PAOLA > KENNETH & JOAN Sniffs the air like a lone wolf on the prarie and smells lible lawsuit. Article: 219982 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:55:17 GMT Owen Duffy wrote: > Interesting to see use of such a long line. We have been reliably > informed that nobody uses more than 75' or so! Actually, the assertion was that 75' is about average. And even this special case problem doesn't rise to the level of your 100 meter example. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219983 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> Message-ID: <_3Jmf.30214$dO2.8129@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:58:02 GMT Mike wrote: > I had a bad experience with Belden 9913 ... Me too. I just can't seem to keep water out of it. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219984 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:22:27 -0600 Message-ID: <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> >If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral thing like 9913, Davis BuryFlex 9914 does not have the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral. 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex It amazes me that no one else (that I can find) has found Davis BuryFlex to be "bad coax". It has been in production well over 10 years. Moreover I am amazed how many of you are non-thinking lambs following along head-to-tail after your shepherd. And also Davis emphasizes in it's data that this coax is flexible enough for rotator loops and yet one guy says it is "bad coax" and so everyone falls to their knees and worships accordingly? And as far as data goes...is this guys data more accurate then the Davis RF company that has been in the wire and cable business with engineering professionals on the payroll since 1980? Sheesh......take off the blinders people.....thousands of miles of Davis 9914 have been installed by government,commercial and amateur stations and just now we find out it's "bad coax" after more than 10 years? Somebody is asleep at the switch....... -- Charlie "Mike" wrote in message news:wEImf.30207$dO2.18090@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >I had a bad experience with Belden 9913 and if Davis 9914 has the same >mechanical properties, be careful. I taped some 9913 to a mast and sometime >later discovered it had been squished flat from the tight wrap of >electrical tape. I have also seen people ty-rap 9913 and destroy its shape. >If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral thing >like 9913, I would not be surprised with varying performance when bending >it. Here is some coax that looks like better performance than 9913 or Davis >9914 (2.7dB/450MHz/100ft) has the same Polyethylene outer jacket as Davis >and is cheaper. Check >http://yanta.pair.com/jefatech/specsheets/LL400Specs.pdf > Mike > > Charlie wrote: >> I would recommend you take a look at Davis RF "BuryFlex" 9914. It is >> very nearly the exact same loss per 100ft (within a couple tenths of a >> db) as LMR400 and/or 9913. It can be directly buried in the soil with no >> other provisions needed. It has an abrasion resistant non-contaminating >> jacket that has a warranted 20 year service life. It is also quite >> affordable at about $.60/ft. It is very flexible and indeed is fine even >> as rotator loops. I use it on all bands I run from HF thru 6M and 2M. It >> uses standard UHF or N connectors as well. Loss per 100ft at 400MHZ is >> 2.9db >> >> Check it out here.... >> >> 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex >> Article: 219985 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:34:30 GMT Charlie wrote: > Somebody is asleep at the switch....... The great majority of humans who have ever lived found it easier to follow than to think. (Just an observation - I don't know anything about 9914.) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219986 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:46:30 -0800 Message-ID: <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> I'd be glad to compare results and methodologies with anyone else who has measured this coax. It would be particularly interesting and educational if someone else's results are significantly different from mine. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Charlie wrote: >>If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral > > thing like 9913, > > Davis BuryFlex 9914 does not have the center conductor suspended by a thin > spiral. > 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex > > It amazes me that no one else (that I can find) has found Davis BuryFlex to > be "bad coax". It has been in production well over 10 years. > Moreover I am amazed how many of you are non-thinking lambs following along > head-to-tail after your shepherd. > And also Davis emphasizes in it's data that this coax is flexible enough for > rotator loops and yet one guy says it is "bad coax" and so everyone falls to > their knees and worships accordingly? > > And as far as data goes...is this guys data more accurate then the Davis RF > company that has been in the wire and cable business > with engineering professionals on the payroll since 1980? Sheesh......take > off the blinders people.....thousands of miles of Davis 9914 have been > installed by government,commercial and amateur stations and just now we find > out it's "bad coax" after more than 10 years? > > Somebody is asleep at the switch....... > Article: 219987 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Free speech Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:55:14 GMT On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:31:59 -0500, "Dee Flint" wrote: > >"Walt Davidson" wrote in message >news:1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:19:18 -0500, "Dee Flint" >> wrote: >> >>>An ISP is a private entity and does not have to allow it even if it is >>>legal. When you sign up with an ISP, you are entering into a contract and >>>agreeing to its terms and conditions. If the ISP says no hate speech, >>>then >>>they can legally pull the page or sight and even cancel the user's service >>>due to violating the contract. >> >> I think you may find it cannot, if by so doing it breaches the First >> Amendment. >> >> In the UK, a contract is not legally binding if it contains something >> that is illegal. (In the USA, YMMD.) >> >> 73 de G3NYY >> >> P.S. It's a "site", not a "sight". >> >> -- >> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com > > >Don't get caught up in the "spelling" wars. I noticed that my fingers had >typed the wrong one just after I hit the send button. > >Free speech has never meant that a person can say whatever they want, >wherever they want, whenever they want. There are many laws defining what >you can and cannot do. For example, I can stand on a public sidewalk (i.e. >publicly owned properties) handing out flyers all I want to so long as I am >not doing anything illegal. On the other hand, if I want to hand them out >in the shopping center (i.e. privately owned, not paid for by tax dollars), >I must have the permission of the shopping center owner/management. The >subject of the flyers is irrelevant. Our tax dollars do not pay for the ISP >and so as a private entity they can limit usage of their service. > >A business can legally prevent its employees from handing out political >material (campaign buttons, flyers, etc) on its premises. If they have such >a policy (and this has been clearly published to its employees), they can >fire an employee for doing so and it does not violate the employee's right >to freedom of speech. > >To really understand the First Amendment and what freedom of speech really >means, one needs to study it in the context of history. It had been a >common practice for governments and rulers to throw people in jail simply >for criticizing the government or even simply disagreeing with its policies. >The First Amendment was crafted to protect people from being jailed for such >and to enable and even encourage open discussion and debate on issues. It >was not intended to protect libel, slander, fraud, speech encouraging >violence, etc. Nor was it intended to force people to listen to someone >else's free speech. If someone comes on my lawn and starts making a speech, >I can call the police and have him escorted off. Freedom of speech does not >allow him to force me to listen or to use my property. > >The extent to which freedom of speech applies is endlessly debated and the >amendment endlessly interpreted. All that people can really agree on is >that it was not intended to allow an "anything goes" type of approach. They >cannot agree on what it does cover however. > >Dee D. Flint, N8UZE > The only thing the constitution says about free speech is that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... Beyond that, our citizenry does a pretty good job of abridging each others' speech, as you pointed out in your post :-) bob k5qwg Article: 219988 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:59:33 -0800 Message-ID: <11pmufpro1cm9e6@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <11plideiarm8cab@news.supernews.com> <2uolp197i17k90u4a231konu6n6kk5j5tg@4ax.com> Phil Wheeler wrote: > Wes Stewart wrote: > >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:27:18 -0600, "Charlie" >> wrote: >> >> >>> Sounds like a flawed test setup. >> >> >> >> Hah hah. Very funny. >> >> If Roy says it's bad--it's bad. > > > Agreed! Please, folks, I didn't say that Davis BuryFlex is bad. I said that careful measurements of the one 100 foot piece I have show it to have much more loss than the specification indicates, and that the loss is variable with flexing and bending. It's possible that the piece I have is somehow defective. Everyone can interpret and act on this or not as they choose. But I certainly won't be installing this brand and type of cable in a critical application without carefully testing it first. Huge numbers of ravingly positive testimonials can be found for CFA antennas, cryogenically treated oxygen-free speaker cable, astrological forcasts, and homeopathic remedies. I'm not interested in testimonials for those or for coax cable either, all for the same reason. But I'd love to see the results of anyone else's measurements. The 100 foot piece I have was purchased several years ago from The Wireman, so I know it's the genuine article. (It's also marked as Davis BuryFlex.) It's been inside and unused since. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219989 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:00:12 -0600 Message-ID: <11pmuh5dloijsf6@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> TY Cecil...sadly that is the essence of this thread..... -- Charlie "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:aCJmf.30216$dO2.9255@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > Charlie wrote: >> Somebody is asleep at the switch....... > > The great majority of humans who have ever lived > found it easier to follow than to think. (Just an > observation - I don't know anything about 9914.) > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 219990 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:01:36 -0600 Message-ID: <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> I have emailed Davis RF and asked them to send me their test results. Yes it will be interesting. Roy..doesn't seem a bit odd that NO ONE ELSE in over 10 years of BuryFlex production has cited these same alarming "test results". -- Charlie "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com... > I'd be glad to compare results and methodologies with anyone else who has > measured this coax. It would be particularly interesting and educational > if someone else's results are significantly different from mine. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL > > Charlie wrote: >>>If Davis 9914 has the center conductor suspended by a thin spiral >> >> thing like 9913, >> >> Davis BuryFlex 9914 does not have the center conductor suspended by a >> thin spiral. >> 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm#buryflex >> >> It amazes me that no one else (that I can find) has found Davis BuryFlex >> to be "bad coax". It has been in production well over 10 years. >> Moreover I am amazed how many of you are non-thinking lambs following >> along head-to-tail after your shepherd. >> And also Davis emphasizes in it's data that this coax is flexible enough >> for rotator loops and yet one guy says it is "bad coax" and so everyone >> falls to their knees and worships accordingly? >> >> And as far as data goes...is this guys data more accurate then the Davis >> RF company that has been in the wire and cable business >> with engineering professionals on the payroll since 1980? >> Sheesh......take off the blinders people.....thousands of miles of Davis >> 9914 have been installed by government,commercial and amateur stations >> and just now we find out it's "bad coax" after more than 10 years? >> >> Somebody is asleep at the switch....... >> Article: 219991 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:15:44 -0800 Message-ID: <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> Charlie wrote: > I have emailed Davis RF and asked them to send me their test results. Yes > it will be interesting. > > Roy..doesn't seem a bit odd that NO ONE ELSE in over 10 years of BuryFlex > production has cited these same alarming "test results". No. My experience is that the vast majority of amateurs don't have the ability and/or confidence and/or interest and/or equipment to make good measurements. And lacking the ability to measure it, very few would be able to discern the difference in loss. If my measurements are typical, commercial and government users (if there indeed are any for this particular cable type) would quietly reject the stuff on incoming inspection and order something else. I do have a high degree of confidence that my measurements are accurate. I took a lot of care in characterizing the cable before using it for making remote antenna impedance measurements in the course of a consulting job. But it's entirely possible that the particular piece of cable I have is defective. That would just point to a quality control problem rather than overzealous specsmanship. In your query of Davis, I hope you asked them if they routinely test production batches for loss, and if so how often and when the last test was run. It's possible that something in their process changed relatively recently. If no other reader of this newsgroup has some of this cable and the ability to test it, I'll see if I can arrange for someone else to make measurements and post results. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 219992 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:33:59 -0600 Message-ID: <11pn0gglob7l891@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> Roy the kind of test results you cited would be extremely evident whether someone has a network analyzer or just an swr meter. That defense is sorely transparent in my opinion. To suggest that most amateurs would not even have any interest if their bent or coiled 9914 suddenly jumped off the scale for loss and mismatch is ludicrous to say the least. Let me be clear ...I am not disputing what you claim you got as test results. My conclusion is either the 100ft length you had was bad or something skewed your calibrated setup. My career was in microwave r&d and I know that it takes repeatable test results to form a valid, verifiable and publishable data. This is not personal Roy....but it is somewhat stimulating. -- Charlie "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com... > Charlie wrote: >> I have emailed Davis RF and asked them to send me their test results. >> Yes it will be interesting. >> >> Roy..doesn't seem a bit odd that NO ONE ELSE in over 10 years of BuryFlex >> production has cited these same alarming "test results". > > No. My experience is that the vast majority of amateurs don't have the > ability and/or confidence and/or interest and/or equipment to make good > measurements. And lacking the ability to measure it, very few would be > able to discern the difference in loss. If my measurements are typical, > commercial and government users (if there indeed are any for this > particular cable type) would quietly reject the stuff on incoming > inspection and order something else. > > I do have a high degree of confidence that my measurements are accurate. I > took a lot of care in characterizing the cable before using it for making > remote antenna impedance measurements in the course of a consulting job. > But it's entirely possible that the particular piece of cable I have is > defective. That would just point to a quality control problem rather than > overzealous specsmanship. > > In your query of Davis, I hope you asked them if they routinely test > production batches for loss, and if so how often and when the last test > was run. It's possible that something in their process changed relatively > recently. > > If no other reader of this newsgroup has some of this cable and the > ability to test it, I'll see if I can arrange for someone else to make > measurements and post results. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL > Article: 219993 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: <740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:38:38 GMT On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:15:44 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: >If no other reader of this newsgroup has some of this cable and the >ability to test it, I'll see if I can arrange for someone else to make >measurements and post results. Roy, this seems a case of brand loyalty vs objective measurement and evaluation (albeit on a single sample). You will change your mind based on more measurement data, either strengthening your existing opionion or changing it. Those with brand loyalty already know all they need to know, life is comfortable. You are talking different languages, and the only way there will be agreement is if you capitulate (which would be unprincipled in the absence of evidence). Owen I remember the fierce debates over 9913, there were nearly as many words written about how fabulous it was, as there were words written on how to keep water out of it. -- Article: 219994 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:41:06 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> <20051210094614.715$fI@newsreader.com> On 10 Dec 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Lloyd wrote: >On 10 Dec 2005 14:46:14 GMT, Steveo wrote: >> >> Hey fucknut, does Chris Caputo approve of your altering your header to >> read >> http://www.TarrNews.net - FREE NNTP Access > >why dont you read his TOS and find out steve robenson? k1man would >never have to ask a dumb question like that because k1man is a great >man. Oh, you're the anti-free speech waster who complained to the ISP about this 'politically-incorrect' site. Well it's still up and running despite your mendacious attempts to gag it, which shows just how much clout *you* carry in this medium! Waster! Hehe! -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 219995 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:58:51 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:26:11 GMT, Mexicana Aeronáutica y Spacia >Administración wrote: > >>Hmm, I like it so I think I'll download everything before it goes offline >>and repost it on some server in Russia. > >I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal in the UK to even LOOK at >the site! It's against the law here to possess racially inflammatory >material. If it's in the browser cache on your PC, you possess it ... >right? Aw, c'mon, Walt. We all know there are a lot of black people that genuinely *don't* deserve to be denigrated in any way. But then again, there are a lot that - simply by the way they act - do and this site does a screamingly funny job of it - only to that particular sub-group whom we've all encountered, mind, whether we choose to admit it or not.. -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 219996 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:46:15 -0600 Message-ID: <11pn17e4butp40b@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com> Owen it is NOT brand loyalty. It is the publicly published data by RF Davis (for the past 10+ years) vs. Roy's one-shot test setup some years ago. I'm not out to discredit Roy...I even shook his hand once at a Hamfest. -- Charlie "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:15:44 -0800, Roy Lewallen > wrote: > >>If no other reader of this newsgroup has some of this cable and the >>ability to test it, I'll see if I can arrange for someone else to make >>measurements and post results. > > Roy, this seems a case of brand loyalty vs objective measurement and > evaluation (albeit on a single sample). > > You will change your mind based on more measurement data, either > strengthening your existing opionion or changing it. > > Those with brand loyalty already know all they need to know, life is > comfortable. > > You are talking different languages, and the only way there will be > agreement is if you capitulate (which would be unprincipled in the > absence of evidence). > > Owen > > I remember the fierce debates over 9913, there were nearly as many > words written about how fabulous it was, as there were words written > on how to keep water out of it. > -- Article: 219997 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:51:22 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:25:11 GMT, Mexicana Aeronáutica y Spacia Administración wrote: >Except that I'm in the USA so I have nothing to worry about. !!!!!!!!!!! > >The UK is pathetic. Though I'm descended from Brits, I realize why my >country declared independence. America may have its problems, but I >expect that British culture will be extinct within a century, having >first been turned into an joyless Orwellian police state before finally >collapsing into anarchy. We're just a few leagues ahead of you in the sewer pipe of political censorship; that's all. In ten years' time, your first amendment won't be worth Jack any more (it's continually being eroded even as we speak). -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 219998 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:01:47 +0100 Message-ID: <3iump1dvaiabae3b9cfscugm5vghlvg6fv@4ax.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29:27 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: > >>nevermore wrote: >>> Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >>> teacher talked about the Constitution. >> >>Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, >>written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? > >Exactly! I don't think it's so much that; it's more that American history is just too short to be worth teaching (certainly by European standards). -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 219999 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com> <11pn17e4butp40b@news.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:09:30 GMT On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:46:15 -0600, "Charlie" wrote: >Owen it is NOT brand loyalty. It is the publicly published data by RF Davis >(for the past 10+ years) vs. Roy's one-shot test setup some years ago. I'm >not out to discredit Roy...I even shook his hand once at a Hamfest. We should be a little suspicious of manufacturers claims. Davis' can be expected to support their product. Roy's single poor experience is concerning, indicating either a quality control issue, or more general non-compliance with spec (both are issues for Davis). An independent test of stock cable and possibly Roy's sample would be most interesting. I know I have made measurements and adjustments at times and in searching for possible explanations, the cable quality is on the radar. In one of those cases, a mobile installation could not be trimmed properly, and the Taiwanese RG58 centre conductor was so far off centre, it was nearly touching the braid. We have all cut cables up and found inconsistent braid weave, open braid weave, voids in the dielectric, faulty stranding of inner conductor, off centre centre conductors. It is those kind of issues that downgrade a suppliers reputation, not their ability to select a good cable sample for laboratory measurement. Perhaps if you're a whiz, you should perform some measurements so you can report first hand your experience. We don't see the Davis stuff on this side of the world. The concept seems a good one, PE sheath, braid+foil outer, foam dielectric, stranded inner, but you have to ask yourself why they haven't displaced Heliax and its copies. I suspect the reasons include IM and noise issues associated with the braid+foil, mechanical issues with the foam, and resistance to water. Experience with noise and IM problems with braid+foil coax in fixed installations makes me wonder how it stands up in a rigorous test of flexing for a rotator loop, not anecdotal evidence, but a structured test. Owen -- Article: 220000 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: References: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:12:10 GMT On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:42:18 -0500, "Tam/WB2TT" wrote: > >"Ross Biggar" wrote in message >news:rTtmf.7128$vH5.363932@news.xtra.co.nz... >>I am putting up a second tower , but it will be about 200feet from the >>shack and about 70feet high. >> What coax is recommended to reduce loss to a minimum,and to feed a >> multiband beam with a 2kw amplifier. >> Hard line excepted due to cost. >> Regards >> Ross >> ZL1WN >> >I needed conventional low loss coax on the job a few years ago. Boss was >paying for it, so I was not pinching pennies. Best I could find was the >Times LMR400. As I recall, the center conductor is #9; so, it may not fit >some brands of N connectors. Unlike the 9913, this will not soak up water. >The loss at 50 MHz is 0.9 db, vs 1.6 db for 213 (100 feet). I know you want >20 meters, but 50 MHz is the lowest frequency I have any numbers for. > LMR400: 300' at 14.2MHz with VSWR=1.5, loss~=1.5dB >Tam/WB2TT > -- Article: 220001 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:22:51 -0800 Message-ID: <11pn3bvjgt34j22@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <11pn0gglob7l891@news.supernews.com> Charlie wrote: > Roy the kind of test results you cited would be extremely evident whether > someone has a network analyzer or just an swr meter. > That defense is sorely transparent in my opinion. To suggest that most > amateurs would not even have any interest if their bent or coiled 9914 > suddenly jumped off the scale for loss and mismatch is ludicrous to say the > least. Would you really notice if your cable loss was about 3 dB higher than specified at 400 MHz and if it varied by a dB or two when the cable is flexed and bent? What measurement equipment do you use which would cause this amount of extra loss to "jump off the scale"? And what causes you to think that increased loss would cause mismatch to "jump off the scale"? Increased loss will improve, not degrade, the impedance match. > Let me be clear ...I am not disputing what you claim you got as test > results. My conclusion is either the 100ft length you had was bad or > something skewed your calibrated setup. What you have as evidence is Davis' spec on the one hand, and my measurement report on the other. You've chosen to believe that Davis' cable all meets its published specifications. I have exactly the same evidence, but know my capabilities and that of my equipment, so I believe my measurements -- but always keeping in mind that it's a single sample. Additional measurements made by someone else on another piece of the cable would increase the knowledge base, although I'm sure there are people who would choose to ignore the evidence no matter how much is presented. > My career was in microwave r&d and > I know that it takes repeatable test results to form a valid, verifiable and > publishable data. That's great! Then you have the background to be able to make decent measurements, and you said you're using some of the cable. Why not just measure the loss in a length of it and report your results? > This is not personal Roy....but it is somewhat stimulating. I hope it's caused a few people to think a bit about how they evaluate evidence to determine the truth of a matter. It's something which too many people are woefully unable or unwilling to do. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 220002 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:09 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> <4q1mp1do77ktaou8clusqgfd3lj2ldmgcd@4ax.com> <717mp15nhkdtp7u1hcmgd2p6msvoqqmsib@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29:27 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:50:51 -0500, nevermore > wrote: > >> OTOH, there's more than enough "stuff" working good in >>the USA to make the losers of the world hate and fear us.... > >Well, you got the "hate" part right. > >:-) > >73 de G3NYY Good, good, if the leftist morons in America, Europe, and Russia, and the terrorists in the Middle East didn't hate the USA, I'd wonder what we were doing wrong. -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 220003 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:08 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> <4q1mp1do77ktaou8clusqgfd3lj2ldmgcd@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:32:10 GMT, "Tom Donaly" wrote: >nevermore wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:35:52 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >> >> >>>nevermore wrote: >>> >>>>I don't give a shit how it works in the Netherlands.. It sure doesn't >>>>work that way in the USA. >>> >>>Lots of things don't work anymore in the USA. :-) >> >> >> >> Yeah, unfortunately we still have lots of welfare leeches, but >> fortunately, OTOH, there's more than enough "stuff" working good in >> the USA to make the losers of the world hate and fear us.... >> -- >> >> If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll >> be in jail soon enough. >> --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 >> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& >> >> Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because >> line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is >> clearly where you report your capital gains. >> >> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf >> > >Some of those "losers" are doing pretty well for themselves. >China's economy should surpass that of the U.S. in the near >future, for example. As for hating us, why would anyone hate >a cash cow? >73, >Tom Donaly, KA6RUH It takes a substantial larger number of people for China to approach the USA's economy... and, of course, most of the EU is still suffering from head_up_ass syndrome. -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 220004 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29:27 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:26:39 -0500, nevermore > wrote: > >>Then the moron should try to keep his mouth shut about things that he >>doesn't understand. >> >>>Dee D. Flint, N8UZE > >Thank you for confirming and vindicating the opinion that most people >in the civilized countries of the world hold about Americans these >days. > >73 de G3NYY Opinions of you morons and losers are of little interest to me, other than the entertainment you provide. -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 220005 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:10 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:29:27 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: > >>nevermore wrote: >>> Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >>> teacher talked about the Constitution. >> >>Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, >>written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? > >Exactly! > >73 de G3NYY Well, then, like I suggested, don't open your mouth and talk about things which you know nothing about.... Ignorance like yours is obvious enough without you broadcasting it. -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 220006 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:07 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> <439b083e$0$2338$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:54:22 +0100, Martin Holterman wrote: >nevermore wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:48:43 +0100, Martin Holterman >> wrote: >> >> >>>nevermore wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 15:03:35 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>nevermore wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >>>>>>teacher talked about the Constitution. >>>>> >>>>>Why would g3nyy's teacher have talked about The Constitution, >>>>>written by a bunch of previous rebel Enemies of the Crown? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>*Anyone* talks about US Constitutional free speech without knowing >>>>that the First Amendment is *only* a guarantee against abridgement by >>>>the government itself, is a moron. >>> >>>Horizontal effect of constitutionally guaranteed rights is an element of >>>many countries' legal systems. When I studied a bit of law in Ireland, I >>>learned about constitutional torts. The idea is that, take free speach, >>>if torts law does not protect my right to free speach when it should, >>>than this is a shortcoming on the part of the state, i.e. the court and >>>the legislature. To rectify this, the plaintiff, when suing another >>>private person in tort, can base his case on his constitutional right. >>>In tort, there are about a dozen or so precedents where this reasoning >>>was upheld. >>>In my own country, the Netherlands, the constitutionally protected >>>rights do not have horizontal effect directly, but they are used for the >>>interpretation of open norms in civil law, such as the public order >>>exception to free contracting and the due care requirement in tort law. >>> >>>I hope you learned something, >> >> >> I don't give a shit how it works in the Netherlands.. It sure doesn't >> work that way in the USA. >> >> > >I know, but I have to say that attitude is not very helpful. It's gotten >Americans in trouble before. > >Martin Holterman hey, thanks, but we can take care of ourselves... and given the state of the rest of the world, it's a good thing that we can. -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 220007 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Ralph Mowery" References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 02:42:34 GMT "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com... >> > I've got some of that which I purchased new, and did some extensive > tests on it with a network analyzer. The loss varies all over the map > depending on how you coil, bend, or flex the cable, and I never saw loss > anywhere near as low as the spec says. A typical value at 400 MHz was > more like 5 - 5.5 dB/100 ft. Glad you're happy with it. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL Roy what kind of coax do you recommend along the same type ? I soon plan on putting up several beams, tribander for the low bands, 6 meter, 2 meter and a 432 antenna. Should be running about 125 feet or so. While I know hardline would be best for the VHF , I don't want to (can't spend the money, easy to install for the rotator) so I want to stay with one of the 9913/lmr400 types. I have had a piece of 9913 up for about 10 years and it seems to be ok, no water I can tell, I still would like to go with a solid foam type instead of the hollow core . Just looking at the specks and advertising can sometimes be deceiving. de KU4PT Article: 220008 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mexicana_Aeron=E1utica_y_Spacia_Administraci?= Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:00:28 GMT Lloyd wrote... > On 10 Dec 2005 05:03:03 GMT, Steveo wrote: > >>Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ >>From: Steveo >>Date: 10 Dec 2005 05:03:03 GMT >>Organization: http://newsreader.com/ >>Path: nntp.giganews.com!feed4.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newsh.newsreader.com!ellis.newsreader.com!not-for-mail >>Message-ID: <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> > > > https://newsreader.com/news/newaccount says this about you > > 7. We reserve the right to disable your ability to create (post or > mail) Usenet or e-mail messages with this service. We will do this if > we believe your messages are considered to be abusive by the current > standards of the Usenet and Internet community, or disruptive to the > functioning of Usenet, the Internet, or this service. DO NOT post any > form of SPAM or ADVERTISING - we will not allow this. If you post any > articles which are seen by the usenet community as SPAM or unwanted > ADVERTISING, we will disable your posting ability and and we will > charge a $10 per message clean-up fee to your credit card. > > 8. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone if we feel their > use of the service is (or will be) disruptive to the functioning of > Usenet, the Internet, or this service. > > and now you have been warned steve robenson. I see a reference to current standards of Usenet and Internet community, and since anything goes on the Internet, it niggermania.com is not in violation of TOS. How exactly did this website "disrupt" this newsgroup? Article: 220009 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mexicana_Aeron=E1utica_y_Spacia_Administraci?= Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:25:43 GMT Lloyd wrote... > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:00:28 GMT, Mexicana Aeronáutica y Spacia Administración wrote: > >>I see a reference to current standards of Usenet and Internet community, >>and since anything goes on the Internet, it niggermania.com is not in >>violation of TOS. How exactly did this website "disrupt" this newsgroup? > > > you cant read real good. those things were about newsreader.com and > not niggermania.com which is a hole different subject. moparholic was > being told about his isp at newsreader.com and everyone but you > figured that out. > > Now take your fake mexican headers as a example. I bet progidy > wouldnt like them at all. But I don't care what they don't like, ISPs are a dime a dozen and I can easily find another one. Actually, I'm inclined to subscribe to Altopia, they fiercely protect their customer's identities and really have no TOS other than turning over customer records if subpoenaed by an American court. Threatening to kill people is a crime and would qualify, but offending people is perfectly legal under U.S. law. Article: 220010 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:57:10 -0600 Message-ID: <11pn8stqvvd6e51@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com> <11pn17e4butp40b@news.supernews.com> Owen with all due respect there is no "question" why 9914 has not replaced Heliax and that is due to loss factors. BTW 9914 is impervious to water in and of itself..so evidently you have not done much homework on this particular coaxial cable. Davis 9914 is recommended for rotator loops. Your supposed quandary about "9914 replacing Heliax" is contrived in my opinion to murk up the waters of this issue and maybe steer focus away from what obviously, at least to me, is an unfortunate one-time testing experience by Roy. Yes I suppose we should always be "suspicious" of manufacturer's claims but do you exercise that philosophy across the board? How about the tires on your car? How about the prescription medicines you may take and also over the counter meds? How about those fast food burgers? How about your drinking water? Are you as equally "suspicious" of these products or is this philosophy of yours only revealed to others when you want to discredit someone else's data. I think the later and not the former sir. Owen....I give you a salute for being an obvious "spin doctor" for Roy's one time, one sample, one conclusion, years ago test cycle. A job well done on the surface..however the underlying facts remain. Davis BuryFlex has been sold for well over 10 years in the "real world" and these same real people, government agencies, municipalities, and service agencies have used thousands of miles of it with no apparent issues. Cite similar tests to Roy's and I'll reconsider. As for me I'll go with the Davis data, once it arrives, and do a calibration standards trace on their test station. Was Roy's test bench's calibration traceable? It is preposterous you would continually cast aspersions towards a company that has been in the wire and cable business for over 25 years and promote and crusade for a one time shot-in-the-dark independent so-called "test". You do not fool me sir....best regards..... -ps How many times do you think Davis has tested their 9914 in the past 10+ years? More than the one single time Roy has perhaps? -- Charlie "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:tg1np1h10ka51cb754glird1he1q5odjd5@4ax.com... > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:46:15 -0600, "Charlie" > wrote: > >>Owen it is NOT brand loyalty. It is the publicly published data by RF >>Davis >>(for the past 10+ years) vs. Roy's one-shot test setup some years ago. >>I'm >>not out to discredit Roy...I even shook his hand once at a Hamfest. > > We should be a little suspicious of manufacturers claims. Davis' can > be expected to support their product. > > Roy's single poor experience is concerning, indicating either a > quality control issue, or more general non-compliance with spec (both > are issues for Davis). An independent test of stock cable and possibly > Roy's sample would be most interesting. > > I know I have made measurements and adjustments at times and in > searching for possible explanations, the cable quality is on the > radar. In one of those cases, a mobile installation could not be > trimmed properly, and the Taiwanese RG58 centre conductor was so far > off centre, it was nearly touching the braid. > > We have all cut cables up and found inconsistent braid weave, open > braid weave, voids in the dielectric, faulty stranding of inner > conductor, off centre centre conductors. It is those kind of issues > that downgrade a suppliers reputation, not their ability to select a > good cable sample for laboratory measurement. > > Perhaps if you're a whiz, you should perform some measurements so you > can report first hand your experience. > > We don't see the Davis stuff on this side of the world. The concept > seems a good one, PE sheath, braid+foil outer, foam dielectric, > stranded inner, but you have to ask yourself why they haven't > displaced Heliax and its copies. I suspect the reasons include IM and > noise issues associated with the braid+foil, mechanical issues with > the foam, and resistance to water. Experience with noise and IM > problems with braid+foil coax in fixed installations makes me wonder > how it stands up in a rigorous test of flexing for a rotator loop, not > anecdotal evidence, but a structured test. > > Owen > -- Article: 220011 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <11pn0gglob7l891@news.supernews.com> <11pn3bvjgt34j22@corp.supernews.com> To find ALL electrical characteristics and performance of solid-polyethylene transmission line, use program COAXPAIR, from audio frequencies to UHF. Accuracy is of the same order as physical dimensions can be measured. Use a micrometer to measure inner conductor diameter and diameter over insulant. Or just guess at it. No need to unwind the cable off the drum! In a few seconds, download COAXPAIR from website below and run immediately. ---- ........................................................... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp ........................................................... Article: 220012 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:06:08 GMT On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:39:27 +0000, Wes Stewart <*n7ws*@ yahoo.com> wrote: >I wasn't going to go that far, and I realize it's probably not common >in ZL but I've bought lengths of LDF5-50 at ham flea markets. The >last purchase, claimed to be about 10 meters worth, but by my >estimation at least twice that long, and new and unused, cost me $10 >U.S. > >Most of this stuff is leftover or removed from commercial two-way or >cell phone use and shows up all of the time. LDF4-50 is even more >common. I often buy short pieces that have been cut down, just for >the connectors that are still on one end. > >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these events >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. I agree with Ian's comments, the larger sizes are often available here as they are less attractive to hams. But if you buy 3 or 4 lengths of LDF5 or LDF6 and use connectors to join them, you will run into big $ unless the connectors come very cheap. Andrews has some braid+foil / foam coax, and they perform roughly similarly to LMR400, BuryFlex and 9913. To my mind LDF4-50 would be acceptable in this configuration, and the great advantage is that if water gets in somewhere, it doesn't wick right down the cable. I haven't handled BuryFlex, and I saw the claim it is waterproof, but I suspect it is not as waterproof as Heliax type cable where the closed cell foam dielectric is bonded to the inner and outer conductor with an adhesive, and there is no braid to form a natural wick. I am in the throes of replacing feedline on a HF dipole to repair damage by birds. The birds don't seem to eat PE irrigation tube, so I have fitted RG6 with a W2DU style balun inside 13mm PE tube to defeat the birds. The birds have attacked the LDF4-50 on the VHF/UHF antennas, but even if they make a hole in the copper, it doesn't seem to affect cable performance measurably, probably because the water can't travel up and down the cable from the hole. Still, parts of ZL have Keas, and they will eat anything, especially rubber or plastic! So I feel for our ZL friends running coax over 60m of ground. BTW, I added BuryFlex to my online line loss calculator, 9913 and C2FP were already there. I still like the open line option, but it will be real important to use effective baluns to adequately ensure balance. It used to be common commercial practice when HF Radio was used more widely for international telephony / telegraphy. Owen -- Article: 220013 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Asimov" Subject: Re: Free speech Message-ID: References: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:01:11 GMT "nevermore" bravely wrote to "All" (10 Dec 05 10:26:38) --- on the heady topic of "Re: Free speech" ne> From: nevermore ne> Xref: core-easynews alt.politics.liberalism:1256540 ne> *Anyone* talks about US Constitutional free speech without knowing ne> that the First Amendment is *only* a guarantee against abridgement by ne> the government itself, is a moron. I don't care about free speech as much as about freedom of assembly and freedom to circulate. For instance in China another big bunch of folk have recently been killed by the army in a public gathering. This is doubly worrisome when Air Marshals here start to get trigger happy and kill innocent people for no apparent *good* reason other then some perceived abnormal behaviour. Many people tend to behave *abnormally* in my opinion. This is a recipe for disaster and people should start reconsidering the marshals' abnormal behaviour real soon! A*s*i*m*o*v ... Believe nothing until you question everything... Article: 220014 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Paul P" Subject: OT - Schematic wanted for a Tripp Lite PR-25 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:33:29 GMT Looking for Tripp Lite PR-25 dc supply schematic. I am repairing one for the club's repeater. I encountered a few crispy critters and want to verify the values. Thanks Paul. paul at p pinyot dot com Article: 220015 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: Back to fundamentals Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <11pldprad26mca3@corp.supernews.com> As expected, the discussion appears to have fizzled out. Having for the first time allowed myself to be led astray by the academic professors and authors and their Bibles on the subject, I still have the problem of correcting a bug in my computer program. The program itself, GRNDWAV3, is too interesting, useful and educational to simply withdraw it. Lets not be confused by fallible human ideas and notions on - Reflections from the ground. Mirror images in the ground. Antenna gains relative to isotropic. Antenna gains relative to isotropic with a ground plane. Antenna gains relative to isotropic of dipoles. Half hemispheres. What on Earth is an isotropic antenna anyway? And now we are being introduced to waveguides. Thanks to Roy's investigations and clarification, the solution to my problem is perfectly simple - "The effective height of a short vertical antenna is half of its actual height and the voltage induced in it is half of the field strength in volts per metre." Which gives the correct answers from my program. And which was proven and well known 100 years ago by the early radio engineers who were really the first amateurs in the game. Having got that off my chest, I can now finish the second half of a bottle of Australian, Bantock Station, Special Reserve, Cabernet Sauvignon Shiraz which I can thoroughly recommend. ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 220016 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mexicana_Aeron=E1utica_y_Spacia_Administraci?= Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:07:07 GMT Walt Davidson wrote... > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 01:47:06 +0100, Paul Burridge > wrote: > > >>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:58:51 +0000, Walt Davidson >> wrote: >> >> >>>I wouldn't be surprised if it was illegal in the UK to even LOOK at >>>the site! It's against the law here to possess racially inflammatory >>>material. If it's in the browser cache on your PC, you possess it ... >>>right? >> >>Aw, c'mon, Walt. We all know there are a lot of black people that >>genuinely *don't* deserve to be denigrated in any way. But then again, >>there are a lot that - simply by the way they act - do and this site >>does a screamingly funny job of it - only to that particular sub-group >>whom we've all encountered, mind, whether we choose to admit it or >>not.. > > > Don't misunderstand me, Paul. I'm not objecting to the web site ... > I'm simply commenting upon the oppressive, anti-free-speech laws in > our politically-correct country! Orwell has been proved right about > the "Thought Police". What I wonder is the legality of that 1894 book "Ten Little Niggers" on the site. If "hate speech" is ever criminalized in the USA, does that mean all historical literature must be destroyed to comply with the law? Keep in mind that schools have banned books by Mark Twain because he uses the word nigger, but in a historical perspective his use is not racist because that simply was the word used at the time. Take "negro," for instance. We still have "United Negro College Fund" and I think they recently opened a hall of fame for the "Negro League" of baseball that operated in the first half of the 20th century before sports were integrated. The word had no derogatory connotation then, but today it is considered a racial slur as vile as "nigger." Even the "Afro-American" they insisted replace negro is now taboo and we are told we must call them "African-Americans." In a few years that term will be forbidden, it will be considered racist to even mention their race and that they are simply "Americans." So when hate speech is outlawed, will all books written prior to the new era of enlightenment be burned? You mention Orwell, so I imagine history will be "rectified" to purge it of all things unorthodox. Here's a relevant quote. The working title for the movie "Brazil" was "1984 1/2" so I suppose the Manifesto could be "1984 3/4": ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms 'negro,' 'oriental,' 'handicapped' or 'chick' for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. 'Broad' and 'chick' were merely the feminine equivalents of 'guy,' 'dude' or 'fellow.' The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves." -- The Unabomber Manifesto; Paragraph 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article: 220017 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:03:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> > Even > the "Afro-American" they insisted replace negro is now taboo and we > are told we must call them "African-Americans." In a few years that > term will be forbidden, it will be considered racist to even mention > their race and that they are simply "Americans." ============================================== Americans have hijacked the name "Americans". Cubans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Chilians, Mexicans, Canadians are Americans. Americans, as they call themselves, are just "USA Citizens". And its time they realised just where they fit into the scheme of things. ---- Article: 220018 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:32:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> <20051210094614.715$fI@newsreader.com> On 11 Dec 2005 02:55:51 GMT, Lloyd wrote: >it is *so* gay to type "hehe" and you are gloating to soon. it takes >time for a complaint to a large isp to be read and checked and that >much time hasnt gone by yet. k1man would know all of that without me >having to tell him, but k1man is a great man who knows the difference >between political incorectness and hate speech. I still don't see how simply *satirizing* a limited segment of the black population can engender "hatred" as such. I think you're just projecting your own insecure, immature and baleful outlook onto the world at large. Everyone else has to suffer just because you (a self-appointed arbiter of good taste) have a screw loose. Netcops! Who needs 'em? -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 220019 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:52:20 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> <1nonp1d2gvk7sk4m0p661954croitbeeg9@4ax.com> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:39:34 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >Over the past 30 years, there has been an orchestrated "political >correctness" campaign by leftists in the UK, conducted mainly through >the media ... especially television broadcasting. It has been very >sinister and very successful, with indoctrination of children from a >very early age through left-orientated children's television series >under the guise of entertainment. Mixed marriages, promiscuity, >homosexuality, single-parent families and the "multi-racial society" >have all been portrayed as the norm. One major broadcasting >corporation, in particular, has been infiltrated by leftists who now >have full control of the organisation and its broadcasting and >recruitment policies. They operate a "positive discrimination" policy >when filling vacancies, in favour of non-white and/or homosexual >people. The whole situation is self-perpetuating, as there are now >two generations of people (up to the age of about 35) who have been >brought up to believe that this is the norm. Well you're obviously talking about the BBC and I thoroughly agree with your trenchant observations. However, it appears the attempted brainwashing has failed, as recent surveys have shown that today's children are actually *less* tolerant of other races than they were 20 years ago. Perhaps it's a backlash against the overtly obvious 'dysfunctionality is normal' propaganda spewed out by the Corporation (at public expense, of course). -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake From The Faerie Queen aka ZPK Mon Dec 12 00:35:00 EST 2005 Article: 220020 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Walter Raleigh Newsgroups: alt.politics.liberalism,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.cb,rec.radio.amateur.policy Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Organization: Raleigh Potato and Tobacco Farms Inc. Reply-To: The Faerie Queen aka ZPK Message-ID: <338op1lsdptd203pipvmfdbcu16i1in8he@4ax.com> References: <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> <1nonp1d2gvk7sk4m0p661954croitbeeg9@4ax.com> <5v4op1t9672ed489hk38dsebnqok6hij4t@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783 X-No-Archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 15 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:50:53 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.71.81.75 X-Complaints-To: abuse@eircom.net X-Trace: news.indigo.ie 1134305429 83.71.81.75 (Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:50:29 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:50:29 GMT Path: news1.isis.unc.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.esat.net!feeder.news.heanet.ie!news.indigo.ie!not-for-mail Xref: news1.isis.unc.edu alt.politics.liberalism:828937 rec.radio.amateur.antenna:220020 uk.radio.amateur:256367 rec.radio.cb:341010 rec.radio.amateur.policy:253648 On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:01:01 +0000, Walt Davidson blurted forth into cyberspace: >There will always, eventually, be a popular backlash against any form >of extremism. The days of excessive political correctness, positive >discrimination, Ministries of Stupidity, etc are definitely numbered >now. Bodies like the Commission for Racial Equality will ultimately >be the authors of their own downfall. These things, like fashion, go >in cycles and history has a habit of repeating itself. An optimistic viewpoint. I really hope that you're correct Walt. This PC (Pro-chav?) world is getting more ridiculous by the day... -- 73s de Walter R. Article: 220021 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 11 Dec 2005 13:06:13 GMT Message-ID: <20051211080613.845$3K@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> Lloyd wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:00:28 GMT, Mexicana Aeronáutica y Spacia > Administración wrote: > > > > I see a reference to current standards of Usenet and Internet > > community, and since anything goes on the Internet, it niggermania.com > > is not in violation of TOS. How exactly did this website "disrupt" > > this newsgroup? > > you cant read real good. those things were about newsreader.com and > not niggermania.com which is a hole different subject. moparholic was > being told about his isp at newsreader.com and everyone but you > figured that out. > Hey fucknut, newsreader.com is not my isp. Pull your head out of your lardass. Article: 220022 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "The Magnum" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:09:35 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> <1nonp1d2gvk7sk4m0p661954croitbeeg9@4ax.com> <5v4op1t9672ed489hk38dsebnqok6hij4t@4ax.com> "Walt Davidson" wrote in message news:5v4op1t9672ed489hk38dsebnqok6hij4t@4ax.com... > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:52:20 +0100, Paul Burridge > wrote: > > >However, it appears the attempted > >brainwashing has failed, as recent surveys have shown that today's > >children are actually *less* tolerant of other races than they were 20 > >years ago. > > Fortunately, young people always rebel against the beliefs and actions > of their elders. I would say its more the perception that these minority groups seem to get more help in many cases to their indiginous white counterparts and they have this "racial discrimination" cry at them whenever whites repremand or disagree or voice their own opinion. This rarely used to happen 20 years ago and we all just got on with it. Nowadays though youngsters and many adults are fed up with being branded Racist by liberal do gooders and are sick and tired of being put second place abouve these immigrants/non-indiginous groups. You can only take so much before you (white people) feel you are the second class citizen and have to bow to their beliefs and religions otherwise your branded racist or bigoted. Then theres the black gangs and the intimidation felt by many which was also hardly heard of 20 years ago. Also, as said by Enoch Powell many years ago, forcing different cultures to live with one another will eventually lead to rivers of blood frowing in the streets. Of course he was branded a screaming Racist but much of what he warned of is there. > >Perhaps it's a backlash against the overtly obvious > >'dysfunctionality is normal' propaganda spewed out by the Corporation > >(at public expense, of course). > > There will always, eventually, be a popular backlash against any form > of extremism. The days of excessive political correctness, positive > discrimination, Ministries of Stupidity, etc are definitely numbered > now. Lets hope so... Bodies like the Commission for Racial Equality will ultimately > be the authors of their own downfall. These things, like fashion, go > in cycles and history has a habit of repeating itself. As many black and asian people "Use" racism for their own goals, eventually the "cry wolf" scenario will be understood and maybe those who scream they have been racially abused will be found out that they were targeted by something that they did or said rather than the colour of their skin. They will *always* call the race card though. Its a shame it appears to be a one way street though, try complaining that youve been racially abused by a black or asian and nothing seems to happen. Other way round you get arrested and thrown in a cell whether its proved or not. Its also a well known fact that many of these racism cries like the one to ban Christmas and to call it winterval in Birmingham was laughed at by blacks and asians who had no problems with it at all but it was liberal busy bodies imposing what they thought would constitute bad feeling and upset Jews/muslims etc. Similarly with the St George Flag, these same liberal do gooders accuse it of being a racist flag and try to remove it wherever it is never mind its the Flag of England and banning it only fuells the hatred towards other races even though its not the blacks/asians who are bothered by these things, its the doo gooder busy bodies who look for racism everywhere and impose their beliefs on everyone causing it rather than subduing it. England is still a mainly white Christian Country.... why dont these idiots remember this and stop pandering to the Libral perceived wishes of the immigrants and those from different races who were born here. They try to make us feel that "English and England" are dirty words. > 73 de Wlat > > -- > Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com There will always be an England.... oh and a Wales ;o) Regards, Graham -- _._. _... ._. ._ _.. .. _ _ _ Radio is only a Hobby. Don't let it rule your life... 73's - Graham (www.open-channel.co.uk) Article: 220023 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 11 Dec 2005 13:13:05 GMT Message-ID: <20051211081305.366$eI@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> Mexicana_Aeronáutica_y_Spacia_Administraci ón wrote: > Lloyd wrote... > > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:00:28 GMT, Mexicana Aeronáutica y Spacia > > Administración wrote: > > > >>I see a reference to current standards of Usenet and Internet > >>community, and since anything goes on the Internet, it niggermania.com > >>is not in violation of TOS. How exactly did this website "disrupt" > >>this newsgroup? > > > > > > you cant read real good. those things were about newsreader.com and > > not niggermania.com which is a hole different subject. moparholic was > > being told about his isp at newsreader.com and everyone but you > > figured that out. > > > > Now take your fake mexican headers as a example. I bet progidy > > wouldnt like them at all. > > But I don't care what they don't like, ISPs are a dime a dozen and I can > easily find another one. Actually, I'm inclined to subscribe to Altopia, > they fiercely protect their customer's identities and really have no TOS > other than turning over customer records if subpoenaed by an American > court. Threatening to kill people is a crime and would qualify, but > offending people is perfectly legal under U.S. law. > Don't waste your money on altopia, Caputo has about three days retention on his servers. Quite possibly the worst nsp on the market. Article: 220024 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:16:05 +0100 Message-ID: References: <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> <1nonp1d2gvk7sk4m0p661954croitbeeg9@4ax.com> <5v4op1t9672ed489hk38dsebnqok6hij4t@4ax.com> <338op1lsdptd203pipvmfdbcu16i1in8he@4ax.com> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:50:53 +0000, Walter Raleigh wrote: >On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 12:01:01 +0000, Walt Davidson > blurted forth into cyberspace: > >>There will always, eventually, be a popular backlash against any form >>of extremism. The days of excessive political correctness, positive >>discrimination, Ministries of Stupidity, etc are definitely numbered >>now. Bodies like the Commission for Racial Equality will ultimately >>be the authors of their own downfall. These things, like fashion, go >>in cycles and history has a habit of repeating itself. > >An optimistic viewpoint. I really hope that you're correct Walt. This >PC (Pro-chav?) world is getting more ridiculous by the day... I believe Walt's right. History has shown it to be the case. The only sad thing is why we humans can't seem to maintain a healthy balance; a middle-of-the-road approach in all matters without this constant vacillating from one extreme to the other. We're like recovering alcoholics; we have to hit rock-bottom before we can hope to recover, it seems. :-| -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 220025 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Paul Burridge Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:24:07 +0100 Message-ID: <2q9op1pscnfevldfhmdvvfm0dk3bhb3nrp@4ax.com> References: <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> <1nonp1d2gvk7sk4m0p661954croitbeeg9@4ax.com> <5v4op1t9672ed489hk38dsebnqok6hij4t@4ax.com> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:09:35 -0000, "The Magnum" wrote: >England is still a mainly white Christian Country.... why dont these idiots >remember this and stop pandering to the Libral perceived wishes of the >immigrants and those from different races who were born here. They try to >make us feel that "English and England" are dirty words. Yeah, the Today programme on Radio 4 is a peach on St. George's Day. Those 'presenters' (read "sucklers at the teat of the BBC Milch Cow) never miss the opportunity to rubbish and ridicule the event. In recent years, they have (not surprisingly) tried to totally redefine it to their own twisted standards. One year they even invited listeners to come up with a new design for the English flag! Bastards. -- "What is now proved was once only imagin'd" - William Blake Article: 220026 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:28:35 -0500 Message-ID: <6s9op1h1v0irlchdndov8g9rd452vauvsm@4ax.com> References: <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> <4q1mp1do77ktaou8clusqgfd3lj2ldmgcd@4ax.com> <717mp15nhkdtp7u1hcmgd2p6msvoqqmsib@4ax.com> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:50:12 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:09 -0500, nevermore > wrote: > >>Good, good, if the leftist morons in America, Europe, and Russia, and >>the terrorists in the Middle East didn't hate the USA, I'd wonder what >>we were doing wrong. > >Yes, yes ... everyone's out of step except George Dubya's Yankee >Doodle Dandies. > >I suppose we should be thankful for "friendly fire"! > >73 de Walt Gosh, Walt, you seem to imagine that most of the people in the USA gave a rat's ass what you leftist loonies across the Atlantic think of us.... Most of us don't even care what the leftists loonies here think of us were it not for their entertainment value. Indeed, the leftist element in the USA is totally impotent and that is documented by the fact that an overwhelming percentage of the Democratic party is distancing themselves from loons like Howard white-flag Dean -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 220027 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nevermore Subject: Re: Free speech Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:28:35 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> <439af8dc$0$2336$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> <439b083e$0$2338$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:51:22 +0000, Walt Davidson wrote: >On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:26:07 -0500, nevermore > wrote: > >>hey, thanks, but we can take care of ourselves... and given the >>state of the rest of the world, it's a good thing that we can. > >"Pride comes before a fall." > >73 de Wlat I love it when you leftist morons make predictions like that.... -- If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll be in jail soon enough. --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en& Jamieson, obviously never had any cap gains to report, because line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown below, is clearly where you report your capital gains. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf Article: 220028 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> <785op1hamdv09vnnf86vii55k6s8a81upl@4ax.com> Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:06:10 -0500 Message-ID: <753dc$439c4064$97d56a33$14444@ALLTEL.NET> Tell you what, don't comment on George Bush and we will leave your bisexual,cheating ,scumbag prince alone. In fact we won't mention the whole low IQ royals that live on the dole... >"Walt Davidson" wrote in message news:785op1hamdv09vnnf86vii55k6s8a81upl@4ax.com... > On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:33:31 -0500, "Not Roger II" > wrote: > > >We are, for the most part, a moral and decent nation and the majority of our > >citizens are a decent and moral group. > > Agreed. Except, of course, for the minority who suceeded in voting > the George Dubya regime into power at the last "election". > > 73 de Wlat > > -- > Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com Article: 220029 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:12:51 -0500 Message-ID: <11pogdplq06eob0@corp.supernews.com> References: Hardline is hard to beat. (pun intended) Of course, cost and performance are to be compared. As another data point: a hardline run of about 400 feet was measured when installed some 30 years ago (flat on the ground). When making a second run of the same size hardline over the same path four years ago (Heliax - part number had changed) both cables were measured for return loss and for impedance bumps. The two cables were indistinguishable and the measurements were well within measurement uncertainties from the measurements of 30 years ago. The older run was connected to a rotatable 3.8 MHz/3.5 MHz dipole and the newer run was connected to a large LPDA that starts at 6 MHz on the basis that surely the older run "should" have more attenuation - though a difference was not measured. I echo the point made by Ian about hardline being hard to beat and the worth (for the runs involved) to find same. Do it right - do it once. I am shocked to discover that as often as I have used Bury-Flex to connect things, I have not measured a piece. That needs to go on my list of things to do! If Roy measured a piece, one can take to the bank what he measured. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message news:Y3eOgQEnOpmDFAmG@ifwtech.co.uk... > Ross Biggar wrote: > >I am putting up a second tower , but it will be about 200feet from the shack > >and about 70feet high. > >What coax is recommended to reduce loss to a minimum,and to feed a multiband > >beam with a 2kw amplifier. > >Hard line excepted due to cost. > > At HF and with low SWR, anything of RG213 size or larger should be OK as > regards cable heating... but in reality you are not aiming to reduce the > losses "to a minimum". You're actually making a three-way balance > between losses, availability and cost. > > (Re availability and cost: people in the USA should note that Ross is in > New Zealand. Coax is heavy, and international shipping costs are > horrendous, so Ross has a much narrower range of options than you do.) > > "Cost" will also include the cost of repairs and replacement - and this > can be a big consideration with a long run of cable because it's > extremely important to keep the jacket free from any damage where water > can get in. Capillary action can suck water into the braid over very > long distances from the initial location of the damage, and corrosion of > the braid can drastically increase the losses. So even minor physical > damage can have big electrical consequences, and can effectively destroy > a long section of line. > > I'm in a similar situation here, with a new tower and LF verticals. The > cables will have to run a long distance over rough land covered with > thorns and sharp stones... and it's usually wet too. For all those > reasons, I am not going to use braided coax, but will try *very very* > hard to locate some surplus hardline. > > The advantage of foam-filled hardline is that it's largely immune to > minor damage from the outside. If the plastic jacket is cut or even > removed completely, it doesn't matter at all because you still have > solid copper to keep the water out. And even if you take a slice off the > copper sheath with the mower (BTDT), water will not migrate along the > inside because the closed-cell foam is firmly bonded to the inside > surface of the sheath. > > You certainly don't have to buy hardline at new prices - though even > there you might be pleasantly surprised (for example there's an outlet > in VK-land whose prices are very reasonable). Your options will depend > on what's available in ZL, and to find out you may have to tap a few > contacts. > > For example, in the UK there's a lot of surplus hardline is coming out > of cellular, broadcast and other VHF/UHF/microwave sites as they are > being upgraded to the next generation. A lot fo this goes straight to > scrap copper, but some gets diverted into the surplus market. Short > lengths appear quite often at radio flea markets ("rallies"), and if you > ask, the guys generally have much longer lengths back home at much lower > prices. > > (In the USA they also have aluminium-jacketed cable TV hardline. It > doesn't exist in the UK, but if it's relevant in ZL there are people in > this newsgroup who know about it.) > > Crazy as it may sound, the larger sizes of hardline can be cheaper on > the surplus market than the more popular "half-inch" size. The larger > cables are more difficult to transport and less convenient to handle, so > there are fewer buyers and that drives the price down. Even so, 2-3 > people can handle the lengths you are considering, and in a fixed > installation you only have to lay it once... and then you really could > say you've reduced the losses "to a minimum". > > > > > -- > 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) > http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 220030 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ From: Steveo Date: 11 Dec 2005 15:32:13 GMT Message-ID: <20051211103213.451$vn@newsreader.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> <20051211080613.845$3K@newsreader.com> <8mpho7833.2458F8789@tarrnews.net> Lloyd wrote: > On 11 Dec 2005 13:06:13 GMT, Steveo wrote: > > > > Hey fucknut, newsreader.com is not my isp. Pull your head out of your > > lardass. > > pick at nits, dimwit. > You make a lousy net-nanny, lardass. > > newsreader.com is your usp and your headers prove > it. your usenet service provider is what was being talked on. better > now? > It has been my NSP for about nine years or so, when are you going to have my account nuked, fucktard netkkkop? Article: 220031 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:55:04 -0600 Message-ID: <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> Wes Stewart said: >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these events >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been removed from service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 does have a warranted - 20 year service life - Is there any other coax with such a warranty? --- Charlie Article: 220032 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Asimov" Subject: Re: Antenna reception theory Message-ID: References: <7977-439449DE-2039@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:11:06 GMT "Richard Harrison" bravely wrote to "All" (05 Dec 05 08:08:30) --- on the heady topic of "Re: Antenna reception theory" RH> From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) RH> Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:220833 [,,,] RH> There is an initial wavefront. It started as a spherical wavefront but RH> has traveled so far that for practical purposes it is now a plane RH> wave. In the wavefront there is an electric force which would attract RH> or repel electrons but it has the same strength everywhere over the RH> arriving wavefront. Therefore, wlectrons in a wire parallel to the RH> wavefront are not moved along its length by the electric force. This RH> force would only tend to move electrons from one side of the wire`s RH> diameter to the other side of the same diameter. Our interest is in RH> current along the length of the wire. [,,,] There is a time varying voltage gradient in the E field too. Turn the wire around 90" then to find the E gradient. If the wire length is such that one end is positive while the other end is negative then charges will flow inbetween both ends. Anti-static spray won't work on an antenna. A*s*i*m*o*v ... My wife and I always hold hands. If I let go, she shops. Article: 220033 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Landshark" References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Free speech Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:06:07 GMT "Dee Flint" wrote in message news:jN2dnUzzCfMEbQfenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "nevermore" wrote in message > news:r6qlp1l9asos3l9kov8nl76t3i3stpmh2s@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:31:59 -0500, "Dee Flint" >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Walt Davidson" wrote in message >>>news:1q3lp11g12rg70qfj7qr3jpffcrhdrdkil@4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:19:18 -0500, "Dee Flint" >>>> wrote: >>>> > > [snip] > >> That obviously eliminates any restrictions an ISP might put into their >> usage agreements from "breaching the First Amendment. I'm always >> amazed at the number of people who don't understand the Bill of >> Rights. Walt must have been asleep in the back of the room when his >> teacher talked about the Constitution. >> > > Walt's in the UK. I seriously doubt if they teach the US Constitution > there. They may do a brief outline just as we get a brief summary of > Britain's form of government but it's unlikely they would go into any > depth on it. > > Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Granted the fact in their schools, they may just brush over it in normal curriculums, that still doesn't eliminate him from learning it on his own or in college. Landshark -- Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. From The Faerie Queen aka ZPK Mon Dec 12 00:35:03 EST 2005 Article: 220034 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Walter Raleigh Newsgroups: alt.politics.liberalism,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,uk.radio.amateur,rec.radio.cb,rec.radio.amateur.policy Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Organization: Raleigh Potato and Tobacco Farms Inc. Reply-To: The Faerie Queen aka ZPK Message-ID: References: <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> <1nonp1d2gvk7sk4m0p661954croitbeeg9@4ax.com> <5v4op1t9672ed489hk38dsebnqok6hij4t@4ax.com> <338op1lsdptd203pipvmfdbcu16i1in8he@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783 X-No-Archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 17 Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:11:38 +0000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.71.81.75 X-Complaints-To: abuse@eircom.net X-Trace: news.indigo.ie 1134324672 83.71.81.75 (Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:11:12 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:11:12 GMT Path: news1.isis.unc.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.wind.surfnet.nl!surfnet.nl!surfnet.nl!feeder.news.heanet.ie!news.indigo.ie!not-for-mail Xref: news1.isis.unc.edu alt.politics.liberalism:829023 rec.radio.amateur.antenna:220034 uk.radio.amateur:256428 rec.radio.cb:341025 rec.radio.amateur.policy:253664 On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:16:05 +0100, Paul Burridge blurted forth into cyberspace: >I believe Walt's right. History has shown it to be the case. The only >sad thing is why we humans can't seem to maintain a healthy balance; a >middle-of-the-road approach in all matters without this constant >vacillating from one extreme to the other. We're like recovering >alcoholics; we have to hit rock-bottom before we can hope to recover, >it seems. :-| Again, a very astute obervation. While the pendulam will no doubt go on swinging, I await the backlash with glee, if indeed it ever comes. -- 73s de Walter R. Article: 220035 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: mcalhoun@ksu.edu Subject: Re: My vertical blew down!!! Date: 11 Dec 2005 12:19:57 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1133576906.890685.201870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...<1134024403.876033.218380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> >>I have no trees, streelamps, telephone poles, or anything higher than a >7 foot trailer. That was why I was considering a vertical. For >practical purposes anything higher than 40 feet is forbidden and 25 >>foot is as high as I practically dare do. >....[snip].... Be patriotic: erect a 33-foot metal-pipe flagpole WITH pulley and rope. Set the bottom of the pole on a strong/thick soda-pop or beer bottle which is restrained to/in the ground somehow (I've buried a concrete block -- with its holes vertical -- until its top is even with the ground surface, put the bottle in one of the holes, and filled the extra space with dirt), mount it firmly to (but insulated from) the top of your trailer, and feed it with coax (connect the coax shield to a ground rod driven through the other hole in the concrete block, the coax center wire to the base of the tower -- I mean flagpole -- and put a 50-100 Kohn resistor across the connection). It'll work quite well by itself on 40 and 15 meters, and if you use an "antenna tuner", you should get acceptable results on 20 and 10 meters (and higher). With an extra inductor at the base, it should give passable results on 80 and maybe even some results on 160. Let your neighbors see you driving in several additional ground rods and laying lots of radials (although I'm usually lazy and just use the wires to the ground rods) "to extend lightning protection". Don't forget to fly a flag occasionally! That's part of the disguise. -- --Myron A. Calhoun. Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge PhD EE (retired). "Barbershop" tenor. CDL(PTXS). W0PBV. (785) 539-4448 NRA Life Member and Certified Instructor (Home Firearm Safety, Rifle, Pistol) Article: 220037 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: mcalhoun@ksu.edu Subject: Re: dipole and balun question Date: 11 Dec 2005 12:47:31 -0600 Message-ID: >> Was just wondering if coax feed with balun at centerpoint would be better >> than ladderline feed with balun at tuner output (and no, my tuner doesn't >> have an internal balun). >Tuner-balun-ladder-antenna is better. Lower losses if >the tuner is doing anything, i.e. antenna is not 50+j0 ohms. Since you are considering using ladder-line, you must be thinking a little about efficiency; wouldn't ChokeBalun-BalancedTuner-ladder-antenna be at least as good and maybe even better? -- --Myron A. Calhoun. Five boxes preserve our freedoms: soap, ballot, witness, jury, and cartridge PhD EE (retired). "Barbershop" tenor. CDL(PTXS). W0PBV. (785) 539-4448 NRA Life Member and Certified Instructor (Home Firearm Safety, Rifle, Pistol) Article: 220038 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Rod Maupin" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:23:22 -0800 Message-ID: <11pov576urkto53@corp.supernews.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <6gtmp1dqk4qglmcigdvc42tj3ojndi2rcv@4ax.com> <81mnp15vlj99jaf5dv7lohfdr15m7l8dq3@4ax.com> I for one am sick and tired of having to worry all the time about who I'm going to offend by what I am saying. I think people need to grow up, lighten up, get a thicker skin, and just get over themselves. There are so many laws on the books now, that everything we do, in every moment of the day is probably breaking some law and offending some group. People are different in this world. That's just the way it is. I'm sorry if your particular race was screwed over 150 years ago, exterminated 60 years ago, or your land was taken away and you were forced to become members of a society you didn't want to be part of. There comes a time when you just have to let it go. If you don't like the way things are, just wait a couple hundred years. I'm sure it will all be different, and your particular group will at last be glorified and vindicated. History has shown that no society/group/country is around for that long anyway. Rod Article: 220039 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Landshark" References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> <20051211080613.845$3K@newsreader.com> <8mpho7833.2458F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051211103213.451$vn@newsreader.com> <701733.8F8789@tarrnews.net> Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:37:27 GMT "Lloyd" wrote in message news:701733.8F8789@tarrnews.net... > On 11 Dec 2005 15:32:13 GMT, Steveo wrote: >> Lloyd wrote: >> > On 11 Dec 2005 13:06:13 GMT, Steveo wrote: >> > > >> > > Hey fucknut, newsreader.com is not my isp. Pull your head out of your >> > > lardass. >> > >> > pick at nits, dimwit. >> > >> You make a lousy net-nanny, lardass. >> > >> > newsreader.com is your usp and your headers prove >> > it. your usenet service provider is what was being talked on. better >> > now? >> > >> It has been my NSP for about nine years or so, when are you going to have >> my account nuked, fucktard netkkkop? > > so far you arent doing anything illegal or dispeakable like N9OGLs > sight or the niggermainia sight is doing so there isnt any reason to. > but I am not the only one. you crossposted to the cb and uk groups > and everybody knows that they are full of netcops so you are not out > of the weeds yet. I have trimed the groups back for you so maybe > they wont notice you. you are welcome. Very astute on your part............... Except this whole thread started when N8WWM posting with Moparholic@Hotmxxl.com aka Steveo in Rec.Radio.CB screen nic, you have been duped, keep up the great work though LMAO!!!! Landshark -- Some of them are living an illusion Bounded by the darkness of their minds, In their eyes it's nation against nation, With racial pride, sad hearts they hide, Thinking only of themselves, They shun the light, They think they're right Living in the empty shells. Article: 220040 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: <0f0pp1p0vsi6uf4r8j1f9uo414do8nucma@4ax.com> References: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:45:59 GMT On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:56:13 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Owen Duffy wrote: >> LMR400: 300' at 14.2MHz with VSWR=1.5, loss~=1.5dB > >Open-wire line: 300' at 14.2MHz with VSWR=1.5, loss~=0.225dB >Costs about 16 cents/ft if one rolls one's own. ... or unrolls it as the case may be! -- Article: 220041 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: <3q1pp15fo35okss4kcfme655qr1rm386qr@4ax.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:15:57 GMT On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:22:16 GMT, "Greg Ordy" wrote: > Here are my personal experiences and observations with "BuryFlex". ... Very well done Greg. Hopefully, in the fullness of time, you will roll all this information into the web page. I have read articles on issues with control of the foaming of dielectric during manufacture, it seems more difficult to control than all of the aspects of conventional solid PE dielectric line, so it leaves one wondering if that may be the cause of the apparently low Zo (~43 ohms) that you observed. If so, is it a batch to batch variation, variable along the line (although your charts don't suggest that), aging, temperature, migration of the centre conductor on the roll, etc? Well done OM. Owen -- Article: 220042 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca> From: Dave Holford Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:37:42 -0500 Charlie wrote: > Wes Stewart said: > >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these events > >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the > >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. > > It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been removed from > service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 does > have a warranted - 20 year service life - > > Is there any other coax with such a warranty? > --- > > Charlie I don't seem to be able to find any mention of a warranty on their site - can you point it out for me? Dave Article: 220043 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:58:48 -0600 Message-ID: <11pp8917jqjsaff@news.supernews.com> References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> <439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca> At the bottom of this page the ** footnote 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm "note that Bury-Flex has a 20+ year abrasive resistant jacket of PE" -- Charlie "Dave Holford" wrote in message news:439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca... > > > Charlie wrote: > >> Wes Stewart said: >> >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these events >> >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the >> >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. >> >> It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been removed >> from >> service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 >> does >> have a warranted - 20 year service life - >> >> Is there any other coax with such a warranty? >> --- >> >> Charlie > > I don't seem to be able to find any mention of a warranty on their site - > can > you point it out for me? > > Dave > Article: 220044 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:03:56 GMT On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:15:44 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: >Charlie wrote: >> I have emailed Davis RF and asked them to send me their test results. Yes >> it will be interesting. >> >> Roy..doesn't seem a bit odd that NO ONE ELSE in over 10 years of BuryFlex >> production has cited these same alarming "test results". > >No. My experience is that the vast majority of amateurs don't have the >ability and/or confidence and/or interest and/or equipment to make good >measurements. And lacking the ability to measure it, very few would be >able to discern the difference in loss. If my measurements are typical, >commercial and government users (if there indeed are any for this >particular cable type) would quietly reject the stuff on incoming >inspection and order something else. I'd ten to agree and most take cable on faith as well. >I do have a high degree of confidence that my measurements are accurate. >I took a lot of care in characterizing the cable before using it for >making remote antenna impedance measurements in the course of a >consulting job. But it's entirely possible that the particular piece of >cable I have is defective. That would just point to a quality control >problem rather than overzealous specsmanship. There are a number of things that can or possibly happen. When you test coax connectors and termination effects are part of the system and need to be considered. I bought 250ft, then tested the 50ft sections I made up for the tower. All five tested the same at 440mhz and my confidence factor was good. The test setup was 0.100 Watt RF source, 3DB attenuator, RLB, cable section, termaline watmeter. All check on spec and I was doing to verify connectors installed as well. I only tried one section for bening effects near the end as I was interested in how it would behave for rotor loops. I saw now ill efects until I reduced the bend radius to under 4 inches where it developed a definitate bump that showed on a TDR. Like most foam cored cables you can overbend it with bad results. The damaged length was removed (only 4ft) and the cable placed in service. Expected 2.9db @ 400mhz. But that does not allow for connectors or measurment setup. Half that should be 1.45db (50ft). However my testing was at 440mhz. All loss testing I did was at 440 because small things look bigger there. To the limits of the attenuators and meter calibration I'd call the losses including the connectors right where I'd expect 50ft with PL259s on at least one end would be. I got at 440, greater than 1.6db but less than 1.8db. The loss was determined by removing cable and substituting a known attenuators of .2db steps as that was as fine as I had. Calculated was 1.66db based on measurements. Allowing for test error and connectors the there is some range of error. The RLB was used to verify there were no visible bumps over the 6m, 2m and 420-450mhz range of the source. The same setup for 50ft or both RG58A/U, RG8X and RG213 gave me 7db(pl259/ug174), 4.6-4.8(pl259/ug175), 2.4-2.6(pl259). The RG213 was a suprize as I'd expected losses to be lower. But the results were consistant. Where I give a range in loss it is because the lower and higher attenuateors used were either too low or too high meaning the exact result was somewhere in between. The loss substitution is likely more accurate than analog meters. Also I tried to minimize the error from adaptors and cable transitions where needed though te test method tends to zero them out by substiution. I did during installation notice one thing over RG213. The 2M antenna I'd tuned with a length of RG213 showed a higher VSWR when using the Buryflex. Further tests reveled the losses of the 213 made the SWR look better than it was. Antenna was readjusted and all was happy. Allison Kb1GMX Article: 220045 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: http://niggermania.com/ Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:33:17 -0600 Message-ID: <11ppa9crq5r8r25@corp.supernews.com> References: <1133938429.122733.52720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <7017833.8F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051210000303.410$Bv@newsreader.com> <701733.245F79@tarrnews.net> <20051211080613.845$3K@newsreader.com> <8mpho7833.2458F8789@tarrnews.net> <20051211103213.451$vn@newsreader.com> <701733.8F8789@tarrnews.net> "Lloyd" wrote in message news:701733.8F8789@tarrnews.net... > On 11 Dec 2005 15:32:13 GMT, Steveo wrote: >> Lloyd wrote: >> > On 11 Dec 2005 13:06:13 GMT, Steveo wrote: >> > > >> > > Hey fucknut, newsreader.com is not my isp. Pull your head out of your >> > > lardass. >> > >> > pick at nits, dimwit. >> > >> You make a lousy net-nanny, lardass. >> > >> > newsreader.com is your usp and your headers prove >> > it. your usenet service provider is what was being talked on. better >> > now? >> > >> It has been my NSP for about nine years or so, when are you going to have >> my account nuked, fucktard netkkkop? > > so far you arent doing anything illegal or dispeakable like N9OGLs > sight or the niggermainia sight is doing so there isnt any reason to. > but I am not the only one. you crossposted to the cb and uk groups > and everybody knows that they are full of netcops so you are not out > of the weeds yet. I have trimed the groups back for you so maybe > they wont notice you. you are welcome. Gee Steveo, sounds like your in deep doo doo.....NOT. ROFLMAO I had my ISP banned by an Undernet server. 10 years later I still have the same ISP. As far as cross-posting http://niggermania.com I would like to have Lloyd prove where it's illegal in the US. Google Nazi sometime and see how many hate groups use the internet. Article: 220046 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:08:53 -0800 Message-ID: <11ppccaiq3ou379@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> Ralph Mowery wrote: > > Roy what kind of coax do you recommend along the same type ? I soon plan on > putting up several beams, tribander for the low bands, 6 meter, 2 meter and > a 432 antenna. Should be running about 125 feet or so. While I know > hardline would be best for the VHF , I don't want to (can't spend the money, > easy to install for the rotator) so I want to stay with one of the > 9913/lmr400 types. I have had a piece of 9913 up for about 10 years and it > seems to be ok, no water I can tell, I still would like to go with a solid > foam type instead of the hollow core . > > Just looking at the specks and advertising can sometimes be deceiving. Sorry, I'm not the best person to ask. A lot of the other folks here have a lot more experience than I do with applications like yours. Ruggedness and other physical properties can easily be more important than the technical specifications of a cable under idealized conditions, so I'd listen to people who have used cable for an extended period of time in similar circumstances to yours. As far as loss goes, you're bump up against the laws of physics. Below a few GHz, dielectric loss in common coaxial cables is negligible. The shield has much larger surface area than the center conductor, so the loss ends up being dictated mainly by the diameter of the center conductor -- the larger it is for a given cable Z0, the lower the loss. Assuming a fixed Z0, the only ways you can make the center conductor larger are to increase the cable outer diameter, or reduce the effective dielectric constant of the insulation between center conductor and shield. The effective dielectric constant is reduced by using foamed dielectric coax, or even more by using mainly air dielectric, with a minimal amount of insulation for physical support. Consequently, for a given Z0 and outer diameter, and otherwise similar construction, foamed dielectric cable has less loss than solid dielectric cable, because its center conductor is larger. Mostly-air dielectric cable has less loss yet for the same reason. (In the microwave region, dielectric loss becomes significant, so there's a further loss reduction when the dielectric density is reduced.) A stranded center conductor or braided shield increase the loss somewhat. It's difficult to find definitive data on just how much, probably because of the number of variables involved, like shield weave tightness and frequency. But the amount of increased loss can be quite significant, judging by the actual loss of typical coax vs. the loss predicted by the assumption of a solid center conductor and perfect shield. Ian, G3SEK just posted a possible explanation of an additional loss mechanism for aluminum-foil shielded cable like BuryFlex -- tearing of the foil shield due to bending too sharply. But I think amateurs often get too hung up on small amounts of cable loss. It's admittedly sometimes very important, but not in most cases. Cost, convenience, ease of use, connector type, and physical ruggedness might well be much more important criteria. And again, there are a lot of folks here who have a lot more relevant experience than I do, so you should listen carefully to their advice. I do fully agree with your last statement. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 220047 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:10:14 GMT On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:29:20 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote: >Importing their data into Dan's (AC6LA) "bestfit.xls" spreadsheet >shows very poor correlation with theoretical k1, k2 coefficients. I'm >observing something similar on some RG-142 that I am measuring with my >N2PK VNA. The '142 has a silver-coated, copper-plated steel center >conductor and I believe that the skin depth encompasses the steel at >lower frequencies. I noted when I imported Davis' Bury Flex data to tllce that the regression model correlation coefficient was lower at 0.9918 than most other data which tends to come in better than 0.997 and mostly 0.998 or better. One of the reasons that some lines show a very good fit to the model (eg 5 nines) is that the measurement data was fitted to a model, and the published figures are from the model, not the original measurements, and the error in deriving a model from the published figures is principally caused by rounding of the published figures. A possible explanation of Greg's observation of low Zo is that the foam is more dense than intended, increasing C, lowering Zo, and increasing loss at higher frequencies. Owen -- Article: 220048 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:16:20 -0800 Message-ID: <11ppcq9dnup2s0a@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <3q1pp15fo35okss4kcfme655qr1rm386qr@4ax.com> Owen Duffy wrote: > > Very well done Greg. > > Hopefully, in the fullness of time, you will roll all this information > into the web page. > > I have read articles on issues with control of the foaming of > dielectric during manufacture, it seems more difficult to control than > all of the aspects of conventional solid PE dielectric line, so it > leaves one wondering if that may be the cause of the apparently low Zo > (~43 ohms) that you observed. If so, is it a batch to batch variation, > variable along the line (although your charts don't suggest that), > aging, temperature, migration of the centre conductor on the roll, > etc? > > Well done OM. > I've measured a lot of cable over the years, and have found considerable variation of velocity factor from batch to batch of otherwise identical cable from the same manufacturer, as Owen's articles imply. Assuming that the physical dimensions of the cable stay the same, Z0 will also vary with foam density. The piece of BuryFlex I have measures right at 80% velocity factor, and very close to 50 ohms. I believe I'm within a percent or two on VF, and an ohm for Z0. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 220049 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:25:56 -0800 Message-ID: <11ppdc94o5lc717@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> Wes Stewart wrote: > . . . > Importing their data into Dan's (AC6LA) "bestfit.xls" spreadsheet > shows very poor correlation with theoretical k1, k2 coefficients. I'm > observing something similar on some RG-142 that I am measuring with my > N2PK VNA. The '142 has a silver-coated, copper-plated steel center > conductor and I believe that the skin depth encompasses the steel at > lower frequencies. > . . . I've definitely seen this in RG-174 and some similar diameter 75 ohm cable, at 7 MHz. The problem with those cables is that the center conductor is made of very fine strands of Copperweld. While the fraction of copper relative to the wire diamter is large, the actual copper thickness is small due to the very small diameter wire, allowing current to penetrate into the steel at lower frequencies. I've also seen the effect in the time domain when using RG-174 type cable but with solid silver-plated Copperweld center conductor. The increased loss at low frequency actually improves the step response somewhat because of the disproportionately higher loss at lower frequency. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 220050 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Butch Magee Subject: Re: My vertical blew down!!! Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:26:21 -0600 Message-ID: <11ppdcvnf1tik2b@corp.supernews.com> References: <1133576906.890685.201870@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> eternalsquire@comcast.net wrote: > Hi, > > It seems that my location boasts 60 to 110 mph winds on a regular > basis. I had put up a 1/4 wavelength 20m vertical with 1/8 wavelength > radials elevated at 7 feet, with rope guys... and the wind blew it > apart like so much tin foil! > > Does anyone know of a decent commercial design for less than $1000 for > a free standing 30 to 40 foot support that can take this darn wind??? > > Thanks, > > The Eternal Squire > Please tell us where you live to have winds of that magnatude "on a regular basis". I know of a two places like that, not in CONUS of course, the site to the south is inhibited year round by US and Russia, Spain, UK and one or two more that I can't think of right now. Where is your location? KF5DE Article: 220051 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:38:14 -0800 Message-ID: <11ppe3boh3dl889@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> Good work, Greg. It's refreshing to see that some people, at least, are still willing and able to do this rather than unquestioningly accept manufacturer's data. Even if the data turn out to be accurate, the process is truly educational. The varying SWR while terminated with 50 ohms is consistent with the 45 ohm Z0 you observed. My piece of BuryFlex is right at 50 ohms, but I'm not too surprised at this amount of variation given the foamed dielectric. I measured 80% velocity factor, so if our respective measurements are good, the velocity factor of your piece should be around 72%. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 220052 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:50:28 -0600 Message-ID: <11ppeqcsv25q753@news.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <11ppe3boh3dl889@corp.supernews.com> Got your dig Roy.....kinda sad..... -- Charlie "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11ppe3boh3dl889@corp.supernews.com... > Good work, Greg. It's refreshing to see that some people, at least, are > still willing and able to do this rather than unquestioningly accept > manufacturer's data. Even if the data turn out to be accurate, the process > is truly educational. > > The varying SWR while terminated with 50 ohms is consistent with the 45 > ohm Z0 you observed. My piece of BuryFlex is right at 50 ohms, but I'm not > too surprised at this amount of variation given the foamed dielectric. I > measured 80% velocity factor, so if our respective measurements are good, > the velocity factor of your piece should be around 72%. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 220053 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca> From: Dave Holford Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> <439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca> <11pp8917jqjsaff@news.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:40:28 -0500 That's a guarantee?? Dave Charlie wrote: > At the bottom of this page the ** footnote > 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm > > "note that Bury-Flex has a 20+ year abrasive resistant jacket of PE" > > -- > > Charlie > > "Dave Holford" wrote in message > news:439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca... > > > > > > Charlie wrote: > > > >> Wes Stewart said: > >> >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these events > >> >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the > >> >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. > >> > >> It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been removed > >> from > >> service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 > >> does > >> have a warranted - 20 year service life - > >> > >> Is there any other coax with such a warranty? > >> --- > >> > >> Charlie > > > > I don't seem to be able to find any mention of a warranty on their site - > > can > > you point it out for me? > > > > Dave > > Article: 220054 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <439CBAA1.C9F84FCC@sympatico.ca> From: Dave Holford Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com> <11pn17e4butp40b@news.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:47:45 -0500 It is NOT brand loyalty, but the published data by GM for the past xx+ years shows that their cars are best so I'll continue to drive GM, despite what independent testers may say. Besides which my son-in-law sells them so they must be best. Dave Charlie wrote: > Owen it is NOT brand loyalty. It is the publicly published data by RF Davis > (for the past 10+ years) vs. Roy's one-shot test setup some years ago. I'm > not out to discredit Roy...I even shook his hand once at a Hamfest. > > -- > > Charlie > > "Owen Duffy" wrote in message > news:740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 17:15:44 -0800, Roy Lewallen > > wrote: > > > >>If no other reader of this newsgroup has some of this cable and the > >>ability to test it, I'll see if I can arrange for someone else to make > >>measurements and post results. > > > > Roy, this seems a case of brand loyalty vs objective measurement and > > evaluation (albeit on a single sample). > > > > You will change your mind based on more measurement data, either > > strengthening your existing opionion or changing it. > > > > Those with brand loyalty already know all they need to know, life is > > comfortable. > > > > You are talking different languages, and the only way there will be > > agreement is if you capitulate (which would be unprincipled in the > > absence of evidence). > > > > Owen > > > > I remember the fierce debates over 9913, there were nearly as many > > words written about how fabulous it was, as there were words written > > on how to keep water out of it. > > -- Article: 220055 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Butch Magee Subject: 'oL STEVEO Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:09:15 -0600 Message-ID: <11ppftdm5aij5aa@corp.supernews.com> I think it is about time that 'ol Steveo was removed from this group. I have just read too much of his trash on these groups. Don't need 'im, can't use him. I just detest his vulgar mouth. Anybody can use a cuss word now and then, however, Steveo thrives on the most vulgar words and in long runs and young people and YLs read these posts and I feel very sad for them. Butch KF5DE Article: 220056 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: 'oL STEVEO From: Steveo Date: 12 Dec 2005 00:23:56 GMT Message-ID: <20051211192356.634$Py@newsreader.com> References: <11ppftdm5aij5aa@corp.supernews.com> Butch Magee wrote: > I think it is about time that 'ol Steveo was removed from this group. > Get busy, jackass. Article: 220057 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Antenna Modeling (dumb question#305) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:30:41 GMT Hi.all, and BTW, Happy Holidays! Am attempting to model a "Cushcrunch" A-627013, yagi and have it all but written, and modeled what I have of it-- It is a 70 cm, with 6 and 2 meter yagis, the 6 meter horizontally polarized, both the 2 and 70 cm are vertically polarized, on the same boom, ofset by aprox 1 inch , and the beast is mounted on a mast, 6 inch >from the two meter reflector. This is the first time attempted modeling a multi band antenna, especially with the mast in the same plane as the yagi. My question is 2 fold: 1; Given it is behind the reflector, just how much diff does THAT add to the pattern of the antenna, and 2; If it does, just HOW LONG an element would this represent?? The mast length? and for the small portion of mast, ABOVE the mast clamp?? Just curious as to the effect it has . Your thoughts , please. Jim NN7K Article: 220058 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "SignalFerret" Subject: EZNEC model of a 2m Ringo Ranger Message-ID: <6M3nf.36595$Y7.27615@trnddc02> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:46:58 GMT Anyone model a Ringo Ranger? Thought I'd ask before I rediscover the wheel. I'm having trouble with the feed section. Robert N3LGC Article: 220059 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Hal Rosser" References: <1133964872.439314.98450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Antenna ID Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:47:57 -0500 "Jimmy" wrote in message news:1133964872.439314.98450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Please excuse a curious newbie. This photo is from a neighbor's roof > top. What kind of antenna is this? > http://www.keepmyfile.com/image/399e1e252372 > > Thanks. > Looks like the antenna we used for TRC-24's back in the early 70s late 60s in Co A USASTRATCOM Long Lines Battalion North. - near Seoul Korea. So its probably VHF . Article: 220060 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Greg Ordy" References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <11ppe3boh3dl889@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:39:55 GMT Roy Lewallen, W7EL, wrote: >>>I measured 80% velocity factor, so if our respective >>>measurements are good, the velocity factor of your piece should be >>>around 72%. Ok, my curiosity got the best of me, and I decided to to measure the velocity factor. My VNA software has a "distance to fault" feature, and I "worked backwards", which is to say that I measured a length of the BuryFlex with a tape measure (27' 2"), and adjusted the VF on the distance to fault tool until I obtained the same physical length. The far end of the cable was terminated with an open circuit. I happened to start with the measurement frequency set to 1 MHz. Lo and behold, the VF needed to compute the same physical length was 72%, as you suggested. My own understanding is that VF should be constant with respect to frequency, so I decided to vary the test frequency. I should have left well enough alone. I picked 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 MHz. For those frequencies, I measured the following VFs: 1 MHz = 72% 2 MHz = 73% 4 MHz = 75% 8 MHz = 80% 16 MHz = 79% 32 MHz = 79% I'm rounding the VF to integer values, since I don't think that any more accuracy can be claimed in this setup. Since that result was a little surprising, I grabbed some mini 8 (8X) that was nearby, about 51.25 feet. The published VF is 78%, and I measured the following, at the same test frequencies: 1 MHz = 78% 2 MHz = 78% 4 MHz = 79% 8 MHz = 79% 16 MHz = 80% 32 MHz = 80% With this cable, the VF appeared much more constant across the 1 to 32 MHz range. Is there an explanation that fits with my measurements? Greg, W8WWV Article: 220061 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Antenna Modeling (dumb question#305) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:47:06 -0800 Message-ID: <11pplkv99f6f5c0@corp.supernews.com> References: If you're modeling it with EZNEC or a similar program, just include the mast in the model as an additional wire. It's probably not practical to include the entire mast at full segmentation, but I'd think that two or three wavelengths would be enough to get an idea of how much effect it's likely to be having. You could model it as several wires, each segmented more coarsely as you get farther from the antenna. Add and remove the mast wire(s) to see what its effect is. But your asking about for an equivalent element length for the mast makes it sound like you're using some sort of Yagi-specific program. If you are, perhaps someone familiar with the particular program could answer your question. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Jim - NN7K wrote: > Hi.all, and BTW, Happy Holidays! Am attempting to model > a "Cushcrunch" A-627013, yagi and have it all but written, > and modeled what I have of it-- It is a 70 cm, with 6 and 2 > meter yagis, the 6 meter horizontally polarized, both the > 2 and 70 cm are vertically polarized, on the same boom, ofset > by aprox 1 inch , and the beast is mounted on a mast, 6 inch > from the two meter reflector. This is the first time attempted > modeling a multi band antenna, especially with the mast in the > same plane as the yagi. My question is 2 fold: 1; Given it is > behind the reflector, just how much diff does THAT add to the > pattern of the antenna, and 2; If it does, just HOW LONG an > element would this represent?? The mast length? and for the > small portion of mast, ABOVE the mast clamp?? Just curious > as to the effect it has . Your thoughts , please. Jim NN7K Article: 220062 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:53:17 -0600 Message-ID: <11ppm0ndl78r49d@news.supernews.com> References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> <439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca> <11pp8917jqjsaff@news.supernews.com> <439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca> I don't recall -anyone- using the word "guarantee". Please post that reference.....TY -- Charlie "Dave Holford" wrote in message news:439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca... > That's a guarantee?? > > Dave > > Charlie wrote: > >> At the bottom of this page the ** footnote >> 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm >> >> "note that Bury-Flex has a 20+ year abrasive resistant jacket of PE" >> >> -- >> >> Charlie >> >> "Dave Holford" wrote in message >> news:439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca... >> > >> > >> > Charlie wrote: >> > >> >> Wes Stewart said: >> >> >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these events >> >> >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the >> >> >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. >> >> >> >> It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been removed >> >> from >> >> service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 >> >> does >> >> have a warranted - 20 year service life - >> >> >> >> Is there any other coax with such a warranty? >> >> --- >> >> >> >> Charlie >> > >> > I don't seem to be able to find any mention of a warranty on their >> > site - >> > can >> > you point it out for me? >> > >> > Dave >> > > Article: 220063 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <439CE168.95746EC1@sympatico.ca> From: Dave Holford Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> <439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca> <11pp8917jqjsaff@news.supernews.com> <439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca> <11ppm0ndl78r49d@news.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:33:12 -0500 Ah yes -"warranted" - my apology! "After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 does have a warranted - 20 year service life" Dave Charlie wrote: > I don't recall -anyone- using the word "guarantee". Please post that > reference.....TY > > -- > > Charlie > > "Dave Holford" wrote in message > news:439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca... > > That's a guarantee?? > > > > Dave > > > > Charlie wrote: > > > >> At the bottom of this page the ** footnote > >> 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm > >> > >> "note that Bury-Flex has a 20+ year abrasive resistant jacket of PE" > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Charlie > >> > >> "Dave Holford" wrote in message > >> news:439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca... > >> > > >> > > >> > Charlie wrote: > >> > > >> >> Wes Stewart said: > >> >> >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these events > >> >> >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the > >> >> >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. > >> >> > >> >> It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been removed > >> >> from > >> >> service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 > >> >> does > >> >> have a warranted - 20 year service life - > >> >> > >> >> Is there any other coax with such a warranty? > >> >> --- > >> >> > >> >> Charlie > >> > > >> > I don't seem to be able to find any mention of a warranty on their > >> > site - > >> > can > >> > you point it out for me? > >> > > >> > Dave > >> > > > Article: 220064 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Earl Needham" Subject: Re: Antenna ID Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 19:49:34 -0700 Message-ID: <11ppp9t7u4p4i3a@corp.supernews.com> References: <1133964872.439314.98450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "Hal Rosser" wrote in message news:QK3nf.74124$Y82.56525@bignews4.bellsouth.net... > > "Jimmy" wrote in message > news:1133964872.439314.98450@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Please excuse a curious newbie. This photo is from a neighbor's roof > > top. What kind of antenna is this? > > http://www.keepmyfile.com/image/399e1e252372 > > > > Thanks. > > > Looks like the antenna we used for TRC-24's back in the early 70s late 60s > in Co A USASTRATCOM Long Lines Battalion North. - near Seoul Korea. > So its probably VHF . UHF television, I think. Earl -- Earl Needham Clovis, New Mexico USA Article: 220065 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Charlie" Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:18:30 -0600 Message-ID: <11ppr0eg481fe5a@news.supernews.com> References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> <439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca> <11pp8917jqjsaff@news.supernews.com> <439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca> <11ppm0ndl78r49d@news.supernews.com> <439CE168.95746EC1@sympatico.ca> So now that has been cleared up..the question remains.. Is there any other coax available for amateur use that has a 20 years service life warranty? -- Charlie "Dave Holford" wrote in message news:439CE168.95746EC1@sympatico.ca... > Ah yes -"warranted" - my apology! > > "After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 does have a warranted - 20 year service > life" > > Dave > > > > Charlie wrote: > >> I don't recall -anyone- using the word "guarantee". Please post that >> reference.....TY >> >> -- >> >> Charlie >> >> "Dave Holford" wrote in message >> news:439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca... >> > That's a guarantee?? >> > >> > Dave >> > >> > Charlie wrote: >> > >> >> At the bottom of this page the ** footnote >> >> 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm >> >> >> >> "note that Bury-Flex has a 20+ year abrasive resistant jacket of PE" >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Charlie >> >> >> >> "Dave Holford" wrote in message >> >> news:439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Charlie wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Wes Stewart said: >> >> >> >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these >> >> >> >events >> >> >> >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the >> >> >> >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. >> >> >> >> >> >> It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been >> >> >> removed >> >> >> from >> >> >> service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex >> >> >> 9914 >> >> >> does >> >> >> have a warranted - 20 year service life - >> >> >> >> >> >> Is there any other coax with such a warranty? >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> >> >> Charlie >> >> > >> >> > I don't seem to be able to find any mention of a warranty on their >> >> > site - >> >> > can >> >> > you point it out for me? >> >> > >> >> > Dave >> >> > >> > > Article: 220066 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:25:23 -0800 Message-ID: <11pputoshoj3ua5@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11plec7eqh96s81@corp.supernews.com> <11ppe3boh3dl889@corp.supernews.com> One thing I've learned is that a (good) short circuit is a better termination for this kind of measurement than an open circuit. With an open circuit you get fringing which varies with frequency and cable diameter. If you don't have a decent commercially made short circuit, you can do reasonbly well with a connector and several radial wires from the shell to the center conductor, or better yet a metal disk. Or you could put a male connector on a short piece of coax and short circuit the end of the cable by squeezing the braid into the center and soldering it to the center conductor, taking its length into account for the measurement of course. The object is to minimize the series inductance which would be created with a single-wire or similar connection. Wes and Ian can probably point you to more possible causes for this measurement result -- they're the real experts on VNA measurements. I'd be very surprised if the VF really varies with frequency -- in theory, it can't, in an ideal coaxial cable. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Greg Ordy wrote: > Roy Lewallen, W7EL, wrote: > > >>>>I measured 80% velocity factor, so if our respective >>>>measurements are good, the velocity factor of your piece should be >>>>around 72%. > > > Ok, my curiosity got the best of me, and I decided to > to measure the velocity factor. My VNA software has > a "distance to fault" feature, and I "worked backwards", > which is to say that I measured a length of the > BuryFlex with a tape measure (27' 2"), and adjusted > the VF on the distance to fault tool until I obtained the > same physical length. The far end of the cable was > terminated with an open circuit. > > I happened to start with the measurement frequency set > to 1 MHz. Lo and behold, the VF needed to compute the > same physical length was 72%, as you suggested. > > My own understanding is that VF should be constant with > respect to frequency, so I decided to vary the test frequency. > I should have left well enough alone. > > I picked 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 MHz. For those frequencies, > I measured the following VFs: > > 1 MHz = 72% > 2 MHz = 73% > 4 MHz = 75% > 8 MHz = 80% > 16 MHz = 79% > 32 MHz = 79% > > I'm rounding the VF to integer values, since I don't think that any more accuracy > can be claimed in this setup. > > > Since that result was a little surprising, I grabbed some mini 8 (8X) > that was nearby, about 51.25 feet. The published VF is 78%, and > I measured the following, at the same test frequencies: > > 1 MHz = 78% > 2 MHz = 78% > 4 MHz = 79% > 8 MHz = 79% > 16 MHz = 80% > 32 MHz = 80% > > With this cable, the VF appeared much more constant across the > 1 to 32 MHz range. > > Is there an explanation that fits with my measurements? > > Greg, W8WWV > > > > > > > Article: 220067 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:35:23 -0800 Message-ID: <11ppvggf7fr4l63@corp.supernews.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com> <11pn17e4butp40b@news.supernews.com> <11pn8stqvvd6e51@news.supernews.com> Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > . . . > Coaxial cables with braid-over-foil shielding have a generic problem > that if they're bent too sharply, the foil will tear into separated > segments each about an inch long. The cable then relies on the braid for > overall shield continuity. It will still function, especially at low > frequencies, but there isn't much contact pressure to maintain the > continuity between the braid and the foil. > . . . Most interesting! The cable I've been measuring has been kept in a coil of about 3 feet diameter, but squeezing and handling it has reduced that to probably about a foot or so at times. But I don't recall the coil size when I received the cable, and of course I don't know anything about how it was handled between the manufacturer and delivery to my home. This might be an explanation for the variablility. I did hear from someone else a while back that he'd seen variability in a foil-wrapped cable, but I don't think it was specifically Bury-Flex. I have some RG-58 size cable with the same general construction which doesn't show this variability. But it looks like the stress would be worse on the foil in a larger diameter cable. Also, there seems to be some difference in how the foil is more-or-less bonded to the PE, and that would also play a role in the stress. I want to keep the piece I've measured intact for the time being, but if I get up the time and interest to do more measurements on another piece of cable, a post mortem might be revealing. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 220068 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Coax recomendations Message-ID: <2ovpp1lo4bmq5u189trd4m8v8p47k28sp3@4ax.com> References: <11pl2ihjg99tbb4@news.supernews.com> <11pmoprb85261b9@news.supernews.com> <11pmtnar3ej7ee3@corp.supernews.com> <11pmujnmbrqan11@news.supernews.com> <11pmve465hco98d@corp.supernews.com> <740np1hp0pauohor2336un600ni8fbvod6@4ax.com> <11pn17e4butp40b@news.supernews.com> <11pn8stqvvd6e51@news.supernews.com> <11ppvggf7fr4l63@corp.supernews.com> Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:49:17 GMT On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:35:23 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: >Most interesting! The cable I've been measuring has been kept in a coil >of about 3 feet diameter, but squeezing and handling it has reduced that >to probably about a foot or so at times. But I don't recall the coil >size when I received the cable, and of course I don't know anything >about how it was handled between the manufacturer and delivery to my >home. This might be an explanation for the variablility. I did hear from Further, you may not know the manufacturers specifications for minimum bending radius to preserve operating characteristics. When I went to the Davis site, I found a table of losses for several cables including BuryFlex, but it did not state the length. I assumed that the length was 100' from the losses quoted for some other cables. The VF (82%) was buried in text, and I found no explicit information on Zo, mechanical properties, bending restrictions, operating temperatures etc. Some properties may be implied by description as an RG8 type cable, but min bending radius is likely to be larger than a solid dielectric / no foil cable. Perhaps there is spec sheet there somewhere, it didn't leap out at me! Owen -- Article: 220069 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <439CFF27.F7FAA66@sympatico.ca> From: Dave Holford Subject: Re: Coax recomendations References: <4vdnp11ndlbk4m7b4ji5to0p6k0q1ts3lk@4ax.com> <11poiv0fb65aqa6@news.supernews.com> <439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca> <11pp8917jqjsaff@news.supernews.com> <439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca> <11ppm0ndl78r49d@news.supernews.com> <439CE168.95746EC1@sympatico.ca> <11ppr0eg481fe5a@news.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 23:40:07 -0500 Where do you see a warranty? Charlie wrote: > So now that has been cleared up..the question remains.. > Is there any other coax available for amateur use that has a 20 years > service life warranty? > > -- > > Charlie > > "Dave Holford" wrote in message > news:439CE168.95746EC1@sympatico.ca... > > Ah yes -"warranted" - my apology! > > > > "After all Davis BuryFlex 9914 does have a warranted - 20 year service > > life" > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > Charlie wrote: > > > >> I don't recall -anyone- using the word "guarantee". Please post that > >> reference.....TY > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Charlie > >> > >> "Dave Holford" wrote in message > >> news:439CB8EC.D3253D99@sympatico.ca... > >> > That's a guarantee?? > >> > > >> > Dave > >> > > >> > Charlie wrote: > >> > > >> >> At the bottom of this page the ** footnote > >> >> 1. http://www.davisrf.com/ham1/coax.htm > >> >> > >> >> "note that Bury-Flex has a 20+ year abrasive resistant jacket of PE" > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> > >> >> Charlie > >> >> > >> >> "Dave Holford" wrote in message > >> >> news:439C9C26.DB2D78FF@sympatico.ca... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Charlie wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Wes Stewart said: > >> >> >> >I find it curious that Andrew cable is seen so often at these > >> >> >> >events > >> >> >> >and yet I've -never- even seen a piece of Davis cable, dispite the > >> >> >> >claims that miles of it are in commercial use. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It might be that the BuryFlex is still in use and has not been > >> >> >> removed > >> >> >> from > >> >> >> service as the Heliax you cite has been. After all Davis BuryFlex > >> >> >> 9914 > >> >> >> does > >> >> >> have a warranted - 20 year service life - > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Is there any other coax with such a warranty? > >> >> >> --- > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Charlie > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't seem to be able to find any mention of a warranty on their > >> >> > site - > >> >> > can > >> >> > you point it out for me? > >> >> > > >> >> > Dave > >> >> > > >> > > >