Article: 221294 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:18:49 -0800 Message-ID: <11tek4desq7uv56@corp.supernews.com> References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Bill Turner wrote: > > More likely you have had one year of experience 52 times. > > Consider an eight foot center loaded whip on 80 meters. The feedpoint > impedance of the whip is going to be very small - an ohm or two. Worked > against an automobile chassis which, capacity coupled to the earth, > will have an impedance of somewhere between 10-36 ohms, you will have > major imbalance. No amount of "grounding" will improve the imbalance. > In fact, just the opposite. The closer you come to the theoretical > perfect 36 ohm ground, the worse the imbalance gets. I don't understand this at all. What does antenna feedpoint impedance have to do with imbalance? > Now whether this is a problem in a particular installation is a > different question, but the imbalance is there. The coax will have a > large differential current flowing on the outside as a direct result of > that imbalance. > . . . I know of two causes of current on the outside of a coax cable, conduction and mutual coupling, and I think I understand the mechanisms quite well. But neither has anything to do with the antenna feedpoint impedance. Can you explain what the mechanism is for an impedance mismatch to cause a current on the outside of the coax? Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 221295 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:02:21 GMT Bill Turner wrote: > The coax will have a > large differential current flowing on the outside as a direct result of > that imbalance. Bill, could you explain what you mean here? Where is the second equal-magnitude/opposite-phase current flowing? Through the vehicle chassis? Through the ground under the chassis? Since the vehicle's counterpoise currents are necessary for resonance, what good does it do to choke the coax currents when the coax braid is connected to the vehicle chassis at both ends? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221296 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Richard Fry" References: <1137679046.849697.239010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11t7u80f9s1gi0a@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: HF-Ground Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:25:23 -0600 Message-ID: <43d7899d_1@newsfeed.slurp.net> "Reg Edwards" > There are also, very common, 2 and 3-wire (3-phase) transmission lines > which have smaller radiation resistances, but radiation resistances > they DO have depending on conductor spacing. __________ Doesn't the term "radiation resistance" normally apply to a characteristic of antennas -- not transmission lines? RF Article: 221297 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Antenna Counterpoise Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:01:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: I would like to know the input resistance, at resonance, of a 1/4-wavelength counterpoise, at a low height above a ground of known conductivity. It will require modelling on an NEC-type program which takes soil conductivity and very low heights accurately into account. If there is such a program!. The counterpoise can be modelled as a low-height, Inverted-L antenna with the vertical and horizontal sections totalling 1/4-wavelength. Modelled at approximately - 2 MHz and 10 MHz. With heights above ground approximately - 0.005, 0.1, 1.0 metres. With wire diameter = 1.6 mm or 14 awg. With ground resistivities - 50, 200, 1000 ohm-metres. (20, 5, 1 milli-Siemens). I am interested only in input resistance. Input reactance will be small when near resonance. Input resistance will not change very much in the vicinity of resonance. So obtaining exact resonance is not necessary. I would be happy with resistance values accurate to within 15 or 20 percent. If anyone has a suitable modelling program and the time to spare I would be very grateful. Just one or two figures would be useful. ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 221298 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 25 Jan 2006 15:29:28 GMT Message-ID: References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> <11tek4desq7uv56@corp.supernews.com> Roy Lewallen wrote: > I know of two causes of current on the outside of a coax cable, > conduction and mutual coupling, and I think I understand the > mechanisms quite well. But neither has anything to do with the > antenna feedpoint impedance. Can you explain what the mechanism is > for an impedance mismatch to cause a current on the outside of the > coax? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The impedance mismatch I was talking about is between the halves of the antenna, not between the antenna and the coax. A mobile antenna with a typical center loaded whip operating on a relatively low frequency such as 80 or 40 meters is severely unbalanced in that respect. That does not mean it won't work or is inefficient or anything of the like. Only that it is unbalanced, much like a non-resonant long wire worked against ground. Bill, W6WRT Article: 221299 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 25 Jan 2006 15:33:27 GMT Message-ID: References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > what good does it do to > choke the coax currents when the coax braid is connected > to the vehicle chassis at both ends? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The coax braid may be connected to the chassis at the antenna end, but not at the transceiver end, and the result is often a "hot" chassis. Some "experts" advise to ground the chassis with a short, heavy conductor to cure the problem, but I feel it's better to keep such currents off the coax to begin with. That does not mean such methods don't work or are inefficient. I have operated both ways and both ways work. I just prefer not trying to "ground" current which should not be there in the first place. Bill, W6WRT Article: 221300 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Antenna Counterpoise References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:57:18 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > I would like to know the input resistance, at resonance, of a > 1/4-wavelength counterpoise, at a low height above a ground of known > conductivity. A physical 1/4 wavelength (234/f) counterpoise is not resonant at low heights so you must be talking about an electrical 1/4 wavelength? For a fixed length, the resonant frequency will change with height. Can EZNEC be used for some of the configurations? For instance, given my ground description (0.005, 13) set for EZNEC, a 62 foot dipole one foot above ground has a feedpoint impedance of 97 ohms on 7.188 MHz. Would that imply a radial impedance of 48.5 ohms? The same dipole 0.1 foot above ground shows an impedance of 112 at 5.94 MHz. It seems as the wire gets closer to ground, the feedpoint virtual impedance increases because the forward and reflected waves on the radial are attenuated by the ground. This rise in impedance is sometimes separated out as "ground-loss resistance". Roy, can NEC4 be used to model an underground dipole? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221301 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 25 Jan 2006 16:19:51 GMT Message-ID: References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Bill Turner wrote: > The coax braid may be connected to the chassis at the antenna end, but > not at the transceiver end, and the result is often a "hot" chassis. > Some "experts" advise to ground the chassis with a short, heavy > conductor to cure the problem, but I feel it's better to keep such > currents off the coax to begin with. > > That does not mean such methods don't work or are inefficient. I have > operated both ways and both ways work. I just prefer not trying to > "ground" current which should not be there in the first place. > > Bill, W6WRT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's not every day I post a followup to my own message, but it seems appropriate here. If you would like to experiment with this, try operating 17 meter mobile. If your installation is like mine, the length of coax will be very close to 1/4 wave on 17 (about 13 feet) and the transceiver's chassis will be "hot" for RF. We all know about a 1/4 wave conductor grounded at one and what happens at the other end. I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that current on the outside of coax is not subject to the velocity factor issue because what's inside the coax is not involved. It's just like a piece of wire in this respect. It would be interesting to try it with a 26 foot coax but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Most likely it would only be effective on the one band anyway, since 17 isn't harmonically related to any other HF band. Bill, W6WRT Article: 221302 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:02:42 GMT Bill Turner wrote: > I just prefer not trying to > "ground" current which should not be there in the first place. Wouldn't you still get RF burns if you touch the floating transceiver chassis and anything "grounded" to the vehicle chassis at the same time? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221303 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "AAA RF Products" Subject: Coax Cable, Connectors & Adapters Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:02:06 -0800 For your free copy of our new catalog, please email sales@AAARFProducts.com or see www.aaarfproducts.com or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) No minimum order. No handling charges. Article: 221304 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John, N9JG" Subject: Vertical ant gain vs No radials Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:25:50 GMT My antenna is a Butternut HF6V vertical. This antenna is ground mounted and has 32 radials, which have been laid on top of the grass. The average length of the radials is about 30 feet. I operate primarily on 40 meters, and I seem to receive good signal reports. Today, I ran into another operator on 40 meters, who told me that I would get a large signal improvement if I increased the number of radials from the current 32 to 100 or 120. In fact he said he had seen information on the SteppIR website (http://www.steppir.com/) that supported his assertion. Remembering how hard I had worked to install my existing 32 radials, I responded that the effect of quadrupling my radial count would probably give only a small increase in gain of less than one dB. Indeed Cebik's website (http://www.cebik.com/gp/gr.html) seems to support this view with a graphic titled "Radial Length vs. Number of Radials". If I am interpreting this graphic correctly, the gain increase from 32 radials to 128 radials is about 0.5 dB. Any comments would be gratefully received. John, N9JG Article: 221305 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John, N9JG" References: <7rtft15r87o3fnepcu40ur4jc7e7sipekr@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Vertical ant gain vs No radials Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:41:27 GMT Well you always wonder if the guy was trolling me, but I wasn't about to plan on spending the spring putting in an additional 90 verticals unless there was the prospect of a reasonable payoff. -- John "Richard Clark" wrote in message news:7rtft15r87o3fnepcu40ur4jc7e7sipekr@4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:25:50 GMT, "John, N9JG" > wrote: > >>If I am interpreting this graphic correctly, the gain increase >>from 32 radials to 128 radials is about 0.5 dB. > > Hi John, > > Well, if you read the site closely, there are far more variables > involved than one graph offers a final answer to. > > On the other hand, if this graph accurately represents all those > variables converging on your conditions; then, yes, it is a huge > increase as reported. You can, on your next QSO offer to that > operator that it probably will boost your signal one half of an > S-meter needle's width. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 221306 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John, N9JG" References: <7rtft15r87o3fnepcu40ur4jc7e7sipekr@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Vertical ant gain vs No radials Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:46:45 GMT CORRECTION - I mean to write 90 radials rather than 90 verticals!!! "John, N9JG" wrote in message news:r8TBf.756002$xm3.570205@attbi_s21... > Well you always wonder if the guy was trolling me, but I wasn't about to > plan on spending the spring putting in an additional 90 verticals unless > there was the prospect of a reasonable payoff. > -- John > > "Richard Clark" wrote in message > news:7rtft15r87o3fnepcu40ur4jc7e7sipekr@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:25:50 GMT, "John, N9JG" >> wrote: >> >>>If I am interpreting this graphic correctly, the gain increase >>>from 32 radials to 128 radials is about 0.5 dB. >> >> Hi John, >> >> Well, if you read the site closely, there are far more variables >> involved than one graph offers a final answer to. >> >> On the other hand, if this graph accurately represents all those >> variables converging on your conditions; then, yes, it is a huge >> increase as reported. You can, on your next QSO offer to that >> operator that it probably will boost your signal one half of an >> S-meter needle's width. >> >> 73's >> Richard Clark, KB7QHC > > Article: 221307 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 23:22:00 GMT "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... > Frank, > > The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It is a 4 > inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter inch form and a > 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I adjust the frequency by > stretching or compressing the coil. Currently it is resonant at about > 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a phase shift of 1 degree per 30 kc change in > frequency. > > I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both predict an > antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db power difference > between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a 10 db power difference > between forward and reverse. > > Thanks - Dan Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in length >from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. An, approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to be resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input impedance at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required load inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard single port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual input impedance of the antenna. Frank Article: 221308 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: References: Subject: Re: Antenna Counterpoise Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:39:38 GMT that's a bit mean, Reg is trying to help radio enthusiasts with his hard work, and mathematical problem solving skills, he is a good man to have in your tool box! Some of us appreciate his hard work. Article: 221309 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: external wifi antennas in laptops From: Ed Message-ID: Date: 26 Jan 2006 02:14:14 GMT Many laptops now-a-days have mini-pci wifi internal wifi cards for wireless internet. Laptops such as the IBM Thinkpad series apparently have an antenna built into the top of the display, which enhances wifi signal. Does anyone have any idea what type of antenna is used? A neighbor has a wifi coverage problem and he says he measures a (DC) short circuit at the little coax coming from this built in antenna. I suspect this might be normal, but would like further opinion here. Thanks. Ed K7AAT Article: 221310 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: external wifi antennas in laptops Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:30:08 -0000 Message-ID: <11tgd1g2hb4s970@corp.supernews.com> References: > Many laptops now-a-days have mini-pci wifi internal wifi cards for >wireless internet. Laptops such as the IBM Thinkpad series apparently have >an antenna built into the top of the display, which enhances wifi signal. > > Does anyone have any idea what type of antenna is used? A neighbor has >a wifi coverage problem and he says he measures a (DC) short circuit at the >little coax coming from this built in antenna. I suspect this might be >normal, but would like further opinion here. Thanks. I believe that some of them use an inverted-F configuration or straight-F configuration, either printed right on the PC board or mounted above it. My recollection (and brief Googling on the net) suggest that such antennas use a shorted inductive stub as part of their matching/tuning arrangement, and will thus look like a short circuit at DC. -- 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: 221311 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Questions about Plane reflector Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:19:04 GMT I am "playing" with a plane reflector at 920 MHz. The physical construction is a copper sheet as reflector (290mm x 240mm). A single dipole is mounted in the centre vertically. The dipole consists of 2 aluminium rods that are 6mm diameter and the length between the tips is 123mm. I seem to get a double dip of lowest SWR at 908MHz and again at 945 MHz (I am not sure of exact SWR but it is closer to 1:1 than 2:1 - I set up a SWR brodge and noted 1:1 level and 2:1 level using calibrated loads). The design was scaled from Cebik's 432 MHz version. The calculated length of the dipole should have been 134.8mm. My questions are... 1. Why do I see a double dip in SWR instead of single dip 2. Why is the element length so short compared to calculated lenth (I want antenna to operate at 920MHz) 3. Should I have a choke (Say 5 turns of the coax on a 10mm diamtere at the feedpoint ? Thanks in advance for any help. (Just in case you are curious, I wanting to use the finished unit as a reference antenna to compare antenna gains) Article: 221312 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Missed information on plane antenna Message-ID: <07YBf.227215$V7.136542@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:21:16 GMT Opps, should have mentioned, dipole is set off from plane 56mm using nylon insulators. Article: 221313 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 26 Jan 2006 05:51:25 GMT Message-ID: References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > > Wouldn't you still get RF burns if you touch the floating > transceiver chassis and anything "grounded" to the vehicle > chassis at the same time? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If the transceiver chassis really is "floating", the answer is no. Bill, W6WRT Article: 221314 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Brian Howie Subject: Re: New 4nec2 version Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:46:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1138119779.443881.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In message <43D82AEB.1020009@comcast.net>, dansawyeror writes >All, > >Has anyone tried this successfully? If so what OS and level did you >use? I tried, the installation went issue however attempts to execute >the app result in an error: 50003. > >Has anyone successfully gotten this to work? It runs correctly under W2000 here. Brian GM4DIJ -- Brian Howie Article: 221315 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Donato Pace" Subject: I am a beginner, where find documentation to use antenna? Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:20:45 +0100 Message-ID: <43d8946b$0$47915$4fafbaef@reader3.news.tin.it> Can you hel me to find a documentation about antenna? I want learn to realize them and make little experiment. Article: 221316 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:20:35 -0800 Message-ID: <11th8jlcskss9a5@corp.supernews.com> References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> <11tek4desq7uv56@corp.supernews.com> Bill Turner wrote: > Roy Lewallen wrote: > > >>I know of two causes of current on the outside of a coax cable, >>conduction and mutual coupling, and I think I understand the >>mechanisms quite well. But neither has anything to do with the >>antenna feedpoint impedance. Can you explain what the mechanism is >>for an impedance mismatch to cause a current on the outside of the >>coax? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The impedance mismatch I was talking about is between the halves of the > antenna, not between the antenna and the coax. A mobile antenna with a > typical center loaded whip operating on a relatively low frequency such > as 80 or 40 meters is severely unbalanced in that respect. That does > not mean it won't work or is inefficient or anything of the like. Only > that it is unbalanced, much like a non-resonant long wire worked > against ground. Guess I don't understand what you mean by an impedance mismatch between halves of an antenna. Can you elaborate a bit, and how it causes current to get to the outside of the coax? There's no reason a non-resonant long wire worked against ground should produce more current on the outside of a coax feedline than a resonant one. The conducted current on the outside of the coax is determined by the relative impedances to ground of the two available paths at the shield connection at the end of the coax. In the case of a grounded antenna, the ground system is one of the paths. The other is the outside of the coax. If the ground system is any good, its impedance is much lower than the outside of the coax, so very little current flows on the coax. Changing the "antenna" makes very little difference to the relationship between those paths, so it has very little effect on the current conducted to the outside of the feedline. You can find a more detailed explanation at http://eznec.com/Amateur/Articles/Baluns.pdf. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 221317 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:31:45 -0800 Message-ID: <11th98hnvm5paa9@corp.supernews.com> References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Bill Turner wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > > >>what good does it do to >>choke the coax currents when the coax braid is connected >>to the vehicle chassis at both ends? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The coax braid may be connected to the chassis at the antenna end, but > not at the transceiver end, and the result is often a "hot" chassis. > Some "experts" advise to ground the chassis with a short, heavy > conductor to cure the problem, but I feel it's better to keep such > currents off the coax to begin with. > > That does not mean such methods don't work or are inefficient. I have > operated both ways and both ways work. I just prefer not trying to > "ground" current which should not be there in the first place. Unless you're using the shield strictly for electric field shielding at very low (like audio) frequencies, you should *always* connect the shield at both ends, with low inductance connections. Think of a rig with an SO-239 connector. There's current coming out of the center pin, and there's an equal amount flowing in the opposite direction on the inside of the shell part of the connector. And inside a coax, there are equal and opposite currents on the outside of the center conductor and the inside of the shield. If you connect a coax to the rig via a properly installed PL-259, all the current on the inside of the SO-239 shell ends up inside the coax shield, and all the current from the SO-239 center pin ends up on the coax center conductor. Both sets of conditions are satisfied, and there's no current left over to flow on the outside of the coax or the outside of the rig. But what happens if you cut the shield at the rig? Then the current on the inside of the SO-239 shell has nowhere to go but over the edge and over the outside of the rig. And the current on the inside of the coax shield flows over the edge of the coax and along its outside. Somehow there'll be a path between the two, by conduction or coupling -- otherwise the rig would see an infinite impedance and no current would flow at all. But you probably won't like the path the current takes. It'll cause radiation >from whatever it flows on, and because of the path impedance, RF voltage drops will be created between the coax shield and the rig, and anything else in the path. You might be able to alter its path with "ground" wires and such, but you'll have a lot of trouble controlling it, and it'll always be flowing somewhere besides where it should be -- on the inside of the coax. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 221318 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: References: <11tgd1g2hb4s970@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: external wifi antennas in laptops Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:43:37 GMT Dave Platt, well I never... your sister Sarah, bit young for kids,,, nice though, in a whiny sort of way. Quick tip... leave a roller skate on the stairs to put Phil out of 'the picture for a while. I love seeing your mum Gail cry, such fun... Article: 221319 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Gary Smith" Subject: Antenna booster amp Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:49:33 +1100 Message-ID: Hi, i have a question about a Kingray masthead TV antenna Amp, the power supply feeds 22vac up to the amp. as far as i know, there should be no voltage showing on the tv side of the power supply. i tested 2 of these power supplies, one had 22v at the output to tv and to the antenna, other had 22vac to antenna and about 8vac to tv. both 22vac 150ma. Somehow i don't think either of them are any good. what do you people think? Gary Article: 221320 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <1138119779.443881.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43D82AEB.1020009@comcast.net> <1138275019.217196.21700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: New 4nec2 version Message-ID: <277Cf.110589$AP5.60182@edtnps84> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:52:14 GMT p.s. To get help editing the Nec2 or Nec4 cards, select the 'Nec editor'on the settings menu or avoid all Nec related stuff and use the drag and draw style editor. Arie, what I like about NEC are the NEC cards. I have been using NEC for so many years I feel lost without direct access to the deck. Anyway your comments are appreciated, and I guess I should read the help instructions. You mention "Nec 4 cards". Do you actually support NEC 4? I plan to obtain a license for NEC 4 in the near future, and your interface looks interesting; The cost of GNEC from Nittany Scientific is a bit high, but thought it is probably the only way to run NEC 4 on a PC. Frank Article: 221321 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Re: New 4nec2 version References: <1138119779.443881.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43D82AEB.1020009@comcast.net> <1138275019.217196.21700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43D8E6B0.2010204@comcast.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:11:08 GMT Can you advise where I can get wgnuplot ? The program complains that I need this file but I cannot locate it on your site. Thanks dansawyeror wrote: > It seems to be the asycfilt.dll that is in error. What version of Win98 > are you using? What is the size and date of asycfilt.dll please? > > Thanks - Dan > > Arie wrote: >> dansawyeror wrote: >> >> >>> Has anyone tried this successfully? If so what OS and level did you >>> use? I >>> tried, the installation went issue however attempts to execute the >>> app result in >>> an error: 50003. >>> >>> Has anyone successfully gotten this to work? >> >> >> Yes numerous people did,.. at least previous versions. >> >> I thought I did mention something about the OS capable of running 4nec2 >> on my website, but maybe I was not clear enough. On the other hand it's >> alważs possible you trapped a yet unknow problem. >> >> Concerning the operating systems, overhere I did test things on W-98, >> W-me, W-XP and W-2000. >> >> Sorry for the inconvenience, >> Arie. >> >> p.s. To get help editing the Nec2 or Nec4 cards, select the 'Nec >> editor'on the settings menu or avoid all Nec related stuff and use the >> drag and draw style editor. >> Article: 221322 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:12:18 -0000 Message-ID: <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> In article <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com>, Joe S. wrote: >I have solved the problem -- the dealer had a tech bulletin that told me to >keep coax 12 inches from the retractor and to ground everything -- so -- I >drilled a 1-inch diameter hole in the floor board under the driver's seat >and installed a plastic plug in the hole. I drilled two 1/4-inch diameter >holes in the plug through which I routed the coax -- one cable for HF, one >for VHF/UHF. Grounded the negative power lead to the chassis in the engine >compartment; grounded the rig (which is under the driver's seat) to the >frame by loosening a seat mounting bolt and grounding one end of a pigtail >to that bolt and the other end of the pigtail goes to the rig's chassis. You'd be somewhat better off running the power-ground wire all the way back to the battery, and connecting directly to the battery's negative post. Include a fuse in this line just before it connects to the battery negative. Avoid using the body frame for high-current power supply ground return. It's too easy for noise from other portions of the electronics to get into your power, due to the non-zero resistance of the shared ground path. Clamping a couple of RF-suppression ferrites onto each coax at various points along their runs might also help block, or dissipate, any RF which does try to come back along the coax. >The stake hole mounts have mounting bolts in their bottoms. Remove the tail >light assembly; drill a 5/8-inch hole in the bottom of the bracket in the >stake hole; grind off the paint from around the hole with a Dremel tool; put >star lock washers on the bolt that comes out the bottom of the stake hole >mount and tighten the living shit out of the mounting bolt, thereby >grounding the antenna mount to the chassis sheet metal. Adding a corrosion-preventive antioxidant paste or cream between the chassis, washer, and bolt is a good idea, also. It'll help make sure that infiltration of oxygen and moisture does not cause this critical grounding junction to go high-Z in the future. There are numerous such pastes/products on the market. The one I used is a copper-loaded grease marketed by Butternut, under the cutesie name "Butter-it's-not". You might be able to find an equally usable copper-grease at a good auto-supply store. -- 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: 221323 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Carsten Hjorth" Subject: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:13:53 +0100 Message-ID: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> Hello! I just bought this: http://www.rustindustries.co.uk/remote.htm The range is only 10-15 meters in free air, only 5-7 meters indoor. Is it possible to connect a whip type antenna? I have calculated a length ca 17 cm. But i cannot see where to connect the antenna. The transmitter has a loop style antenna, powered by one transistor and a oscillator of some sort, i have drawn a schematic: http://media.openbloc.com/1tpwr I have tried to connect the antenna to the collector, but that gave me no output at all. Regards Carsten Hjorth Article: 221324 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 22:35:23 -0000 Message-ID: <11tijlbhdsju776@corp.supernews.com> References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> In article <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net>, Carsten Hjorth wrote: >Hello! > >I just bought this: http://www.rustindustries.co.uk/remote.htm >The range is only 10-15 meters in free air, only 5-7 meters indoor. >Is it possible to connect a whip type antenna? >I have calculated a length ca 17 cm. >But i cannot see where to connect the antenna. >The transmitter has a loop style antenna, powered by one transistor and a >oscillator of some sort, i have drawn a schematic: >http://media.openbloc.com/1tpwr >I have tried to connect the antenna to the collector, but that gave me no >output at all. I looked at the design of a similar 433 MHz nonlicensed transmitter a couple of months ago (it was for an IR-remote-to-RF repeater system). It looked to me as if it was using the loop both as part of a tuned LC tank circuit, and as the radiating element. I suspect that the same is true of the circuit in your transmitter. Adding a length of wire to it would very probably de-tune the tank circuit. At best, it'd oscillate and transmit on the wrong frequency. At worst, the wire loading would de-Q the tank to the point that it wouldn't oscillate at all. To boost the transmitter power or the antenna gain (if doing so is even legal under your RF-use rules) would probably require a significant redesign of the circuit. In your situation, would it be adequate to boost the _receiver_ gain instead? You can probably do anything you want, legally, to the receiver... add a collinear antenna, change to a Yagi, use a corner reflector, etc. -- 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: 221325 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> <11tijlbhdsju776@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <8ZcCf.227987$V7.78956@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:31:16 GMT What country are you in ? The device is made in the UK and European EIRP limit should be 10mW. We make low power transmitters at 433 and 915MHz and find we normally get over 20m even with a resistor dummy load across the antenna terminal. We made a transmitter in a plastic wristwatch that the oscillator coupled directly into a loop antenna (you need to move the collector connection along the loop till you get best match). This unit had radiated power of around 100uW and still achieved 100m range. Our 10mW units achieve over 1km line of sight outdoor range typically. I cannot imagine a range of only 5-7m (unless the receiver is extremely insensitive or the transmitter and receiver are not tuned to the same frequency). Dave Platt wrote: > In article <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net>, > Carsten Hjorth wrote: >> Hello! >> >> I just bought this: http://www.rustindustries.co.uk/remote.htm >> The range is only 10-15 meters in free air, only 5-7 meters indoor. >> Is it possible to connect a whip type antenna? >> I have calculated a length ca 17 cm. >> But i cannot see where to connect the antenna. >> The transmitter has a loop style antenna, powered by one transistor and a >> oscillator of some sort, i have drawn a schematic: >> http://media.openbloc.com/1tpwr >> I have tried to connect the antenna to the collector, but that gave me no >> output at all. > > I looked at the design of a similar 433 MHz nonlicensed transmitter a > couple of months ago (it was for an IR-remote-to-RF repeater system). > > It looked to me as if it was using the loop both as part of a tuned LC > tank circuit, and as the radiating element. I suspect that the same > is true of the circuit in your transmitter. > > Adding a length of wire to it would very probably de-tune the tank > circuit. At best, it'd oscillate and transmit on the wrong frequency. > At worst, the wire loading would de-Q the tank to the point that it > wouldn't oscillate at all. > > To boost the transmitter power or the antenna gain (if doing so is > even legal under your RF-use rules) would probably require a > significant redesign of the circuit. > > In your situation, would it be adequate to boost the _receiver_ gain > instead? You can probably do anything you want, legally, to the > receiver... add a collinear antenna, change to a Yagi, use a corner > reflector, etc. > Article: 221326 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: References: <11tgd1g2hb4s970@corp.supernews.com> <1s1it1dhc996aknrs1s3811ijurlt4jv8p@4ax.com> Subject: Re: external wifi antennas in laptops Message-ID: <70dCf.68272$W4.38284@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:34:27 GMT a proper weirdo! Article: 221327 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> <11tijlbhdsju776@corp.supernews.com> <8ZcCf.227987$V7.78956@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter Message-ID: <59dCf.67758$Dg6.32224@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:44:01 GMT We make low power transmitters at 433 and 915MHz and find we normally get over 20m even with a resistor dummy load across the antenna terminal. got a link? Article: 221328 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> <11tijlbhdsju776@corp.supernews.com> <8ZcCf.227987$V7.78956@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <59dCf.67758$Dg6.32224@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net> Message-ID: <9qdCf.228022$V7.207343@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:02:13 GMT www.orbitcoms.com We have a lot more in development that is not on the site yet so feel free to email us if you are looking for something - we may have it but not yet posted the details. apropperwierdo@hotman.com wrote: > We make low power transmitters at 433 and 915MHz and find we normally > get over 20m even with a resistor dummy load across the antenna terminal. > > > got a link? > > Article: 221329 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:18:51 -0600 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: How to earn money with PAYPAL!!!! 37 References: <1137709653.497618.151660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <174c$43d041ea$18d6b488$14817@KNOLOGY.NET> <1137785765.969348.81760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <43d974fb$0$33682$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> hhc314@yahoo.com wrote: > Same here Cecil. > > The young kids don't have a clue about Social Security, because it > isn't important to them at their time in life, nor was it for me when I > was 25. None of us ever thought that we would live to see 65, hence it > was just like income tax, something that you simply had to pay. > > The problem is not for us elders, but for the younger people who will > hopefully someday reach 65. Today, most of these kids don't realize is > that the fault with the Social Security system is not in its basic > design, but what I beleve is called SSI that allows anyone regardless > of age to claim benefits unser Social Security by claiming some form of > disability, even if they have never contributed to the system. > > Just as an example, when I went to the Social Security office to claim > my earned beneits, I was the only American present in the waiting area > containing roughly 30 applicants. Most of these individuals were there > seeking SSI benefits, few were American citizens, and most had never > paid a dime into the system. This is precisely the problem that Social > Security faces. > > No wonder Social Security is in trouble. It is comparable to a > corporation that pays dividends to people that don't even own stock in > the company! > > 'Nuff said on that subject. > > Curmudgeonly yours, Harry C. > Social Security is in trouble because when they figured the original numbers, the average person lived to 65, so the government thought they would, more or less, never really have to pay anything significant out. That changed due to decent medical science, as most people in this group (rraa is where I am right now) are more than aware. Social Security has been busted for more than a couple decades, and none of the bastards in the Senate or Congress or the Administration have had the balls to let it just disappear. It is a dinosaur. And please note I never mentioned a party here, since all are guilty of just covering their asses just to get through another term. And, at 52, I am one of the people that's going to lose evcerything that the government stole from me and gave away in this deal, so don't start ripping me for not caring. Tom K0TAR Article: 221335 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:16:42 GMT Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have any experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC manual to figure out what the error is. The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. My first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a length of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed by a coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW 1, card to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS field) was filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" to be moved (000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there are only 2 tags prior to the GM card, so don't know why this happened). In any case this worked on my model. The default entry for the ITS field is zero, or just leave blank. This works fine for me, and just moves the GW 1, and GH card positions as desired. Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function fails. More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the correct structure for the ITS field. Frank "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" > > "ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" > > Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? > > Thanks - Dan > > > > > Frank wrote: >> Dan, >> >> Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. Anyway, >> it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, although my physical >> NEC helix models do not agree based on my estimate of your coil >> dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a "Minninec" ground, which >> allows antenna contact with a perfect ground, but uses actual ground >> parameters to analyze the reflections. I am not sure about this, but >> would assume from the point of view of the input impedance, that the >> ground would be considered perfect; and therefore lossless. I also >> noticed I had some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to construct a >> coil with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much thinner >> conductor. >> >> My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a perfect >> ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 ohms was far >> from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. Ideally I should >> construct a ground screen, but for the time being will consider a perfect >> ground. >> >> A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >> understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >> >> Frank >> >> PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >> >> CM Loaded 2 m monopole >> CE >> GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >> GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >> GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >> GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >> GS 0 0 0.025400 >> GE 1 >> GN 1 >> EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >> LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >> LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >> LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >> FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >> RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >> EN >> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >> news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >> >>>Frank, >>> >>>I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using EZNec. >>>It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was using an >>>average real ground.) >>> >>>If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the ground >>>that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the modeled 12 Ohms? >>> >>>Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>> >>>Dan >>> >>>Frank wrote: >>> >>>>"dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>Frank, >>>>> >>>>>The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It is a >>>>>4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter inch form >>>>>and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I adjust the >>>>>frequency by stretching or compressing the coil. Currently it is >>>>>resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a phase shift of 1 degree >>>>>per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>> >>>>>I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both predict >>>>>an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db power >>>>>difference between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a 10 db power >>>>>difference between forward and reverse. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks - Dan >>>> >>>> >>>>Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in length >>>>from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. An, >>>>approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to be >>>>resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input impedance >>>>at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required load >>>>inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>> >>>>The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard single >>>>port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual input impedance >>>>of the antenna. >>>> >>>>Frank >> >> Article: 221336 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:35:27 GMT Ok Dan, figured where the problem was. It is just necessary to set the ITS field to zero, and the code runs ok. Frank "Frank" wrote in message news:eXpCf.199081$OU5.8916@clgrps13... > Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have any > experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC manual to > figure out what the error is. > The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. My > first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a length > of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed by a > coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW 1, card > to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS field) was > filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" to be moved > (000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there are only 2 tags > prior to the GM card, so don't know why this happened). In any case this > worked on my model. The default entry for the ITS field is zero, or just > leave blank. This works fine for me, and just moves the GW 1, and GH card > positions as desired. > > Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, > followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is > only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function > fails. > > More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the correct > structure for the ITS field. > > Frank > > > "dansawyeror" wrote in message > news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >>I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" >> >> "ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" >> >> Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? >> >> Thanks - Dan >> >> >> >> >> Frank wrote: >>> Dan, >>> >>> Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. Anyway, >>> it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, although my >>> physical NEC helix models do not agree based on my estimate of your coil >>> dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a "Minninec" ground, which >>> allows antenna contact with a perfect ground, but uses actual ground >>> parameters to analyze the reflections. I am not sure about this, but >>> would assume from the point of view of the input impedance, that the >>> ground would be considered perfect; and therefore lossless. I also >>> noticed I had some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to construct >>> a coil with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much thinner >>> conductor. >>> >>> My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a perfect >>> ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 ohms was far >>> from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. Ideally I should >>> construct a ground screen, but for the time being will consider a >>> perfect ground. >>> >>> A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >>> understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >>> >>> CM Loaded 2 m monopole >>> CE >>> GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >>> GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >>> GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >>> GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >>> GS 0 0 0.025400 >>> GE 1 >>> GN 1 >>> EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >>> LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >>> LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >>> LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >>> FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >>> RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >>> EN >>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>> news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >>> >>>>Frank, >>>> >>>>I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>>600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using EZNec. >>>>It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was using an >>>>average real ground.) >>>> >>>>If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the ground >>>>that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the modeled 12 Ohms? >>>> >>>>Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>>> >>>>Dan >>>> >>>>Frank wrote: >>>> >>>>>"dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Frank, >>>>>> >>>>>>The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It is >>>>>>a 4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter inch >>>>>>form and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I adjust >>>>>>the frequency by stretching or compressing the coil. Currently it is >>>>>>resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a phase shift of 1 degree >>>>>>per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>>> >>>>>>I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both predict >>>>>>an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db power >>>>>>difference between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a 10 db >>>>>>power difference between forward and reverse. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks - Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in >>>>>length from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. An, >>>>>approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to be >>>>>resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input impedance >>>>>at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required load >>>>>inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>>> >>>>>The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard single >>>>>port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual input >>>>>impedance of the antenna. >>>>> >>>>>Frank >>> >>> > Article: 221337 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Henry Kolesnik" Subject: RFID ant cookbook link Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:07:53 GMT Interesting loop ant design for RFID from TI. http://www.ti.com/rfid/docs/manuals/appNotes/HFAntennaCookbook.pdf -- 73 Hank WD5JFR Article: 221338 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 27 Jan 2006 17:12:31 GMT Message-ID: References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> John Popelish wrote: > Why would that be the best arrangement? No steady state power comes > from the battery. If you want the least voltage drop, you take a > pair of wires back to the alternator, where the power originates. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I think John is right, however I would never do it that way. The extra millivolts you pick up are going to be smothered in alternator noise and if large enough, might actually be too high for the radio. Radios are typically designed to run from 13.8 volts maximum, whereas alternators often put out more than that. The additional few watts you get from your transmitter will not be noticeable in normal operation anyway. Bill, W6WRT Article: 221339 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 27 Jan 2006 17:22:39 GMT Message-ID: References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <11tjc4ef0sh65de@corp.supernews.com> <43d9b779$0$25084$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> CLFE wrote: > although you can get away often - with grounding the negative and > fusing the positive to the battery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you connect the radio's negative lead (unfused) to the car's chassis you should be ok. A problem can occur if you connect the radio's unfused negative lead directly to the battery terminal, as is often advised. If the car's ground wire from the battery to the car's chassis ever comes loose and you go to start the car, all the starter current will try to flow through your radio's negative lead and through your coax to where the coax is grounded at the antenna feed point. I have seen pictures of what this several hundred amps does to a radio and it's not pretty. Most radios today are supplied with a power cord having a fuse in each lead for good reason. Don't defeat their purpose. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221340 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:13:29 GMT What are these "Cards" you guys are referring to ? Frank wrote: > Ok Dan, figured where the problem was. It is just necessary to set the ITS > field to zero, and the code runs ok. > > Frank > > "Frank" wrote in message > news:eXpCf.199081$OU5.8916@clgrps13... >> Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have any >> experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC manual to >> figure out what the error is. >> The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. My >> first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a length >> of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed by a >> coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW 1, card >> to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS field) was >> filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" to be moved >> (000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there are only 2 tags >> prior to the GM card, so don't know why this happened). In any case this >> worked on my model. The default entry for the ITS field is zero, or just >> leave blank. This works fine for me, and just moves the GW 1, and GH card >> positions as desired. >> >> Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, >> followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is >> only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function >> fails. >> >> More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the correct >> structure for the ITS field. >> >> Frank >> >> >> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >> news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >>> I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" >>> >>> "ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" >>> >>> Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? >>> >>> Thanks - Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Frank wrote: >>>> Dan, >>>> >>>> Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. Anyway, >>>> it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, although my >>>> physical NEC helix models do not agree based on my estimate of your coil >>>> dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a "Minninec" ground, which >>>> allows antenna contact with a perfect ground, but uses actual ground >>>> parameters to analyze the reflections. I am not sure about this, but >>>> would assume from the point of view of the input impedance, that the >>>> ground would be considered perfect; and therefore lossless. I also >>>> noticed I had some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to construct >>>> a coil with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much thinner >>>> conductor. >>>> >>>> My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a perfect >>>> ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 ohms was far >>>> from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. Ideally I should >>>> construct a ground screen, but for the time being will consider a >>>> perfect ground. >>>> >>>> A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >>>> understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >>>> >>>> CM Loaded 2 m monopole >>>> CE >>>> GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >>>> GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >>>> GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >>>> GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >>>> GS 0 0 0.025400 >>>> GE 1 >>>> GN 1 >>>> EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >>>> LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>> LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >>>> LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>> FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >>>> RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >>>> EN >>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>> news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >>>> >>>>> Frank, >>>>> >>>>> I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>>> 600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using EZNec. >>>>> It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was using an >>>>> average real ground.) >>>>> >>>>> If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the ground >>>>> that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the modeled 12 Ohms? >>>>> >>>>> Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>> news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It is >>>>>>> a 4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter inch >>>>>>> form and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I adjust >>>>>>> the frequency by stretching or compressing the coil. Currently it is >>>>>>> resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a phase shift of 1 degree >>>>>>> per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both predict >>>>>>> an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db power >>>>>>> difference between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a 10 db >>>>>>> power difference between forward and reverse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in >>>>>> length from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. An, >>>>>> approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to be >>>>>> resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input impedance >>>>>> at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required load >>>>>> inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard single >>>>>> port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual input >>>>>> impedance of the antenna. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frank >>>> > > Article: 221341 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:00:08 GMT A card is a line of NEC code. I guess it is a hold over from the old days when NEC must have been run with FORTRAN punch-cards on a mainframe computer. Frank "David" wrote in message news:Z1wCf.228727$V7.167866@news-server.bigpond.net.au... > What are these "Cards" you guys are referring to ? > > Frank wrote: >> Ok Dan, figured where the problem was. It is just necessary to set the >> ITS field to zero, and the code runs ok. >> >> Frank >> >> "Frank" wrote in message >> news:eXpCf.199081$OU5.8916@clgrps13... >>> Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have >>> any experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC manual >>> to figure out what the error is. >>> The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. My >>> first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a length >>> of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed by a >>> coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW 1, card >>> to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS field) was >>> filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" to be moved >>> (000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there are only 2 tags >>> prior to the GM card, so don't know why this happened). In any case >>> this worked on my model. The default entry for the ITS field is zero, >>> or just leave blank. This works fine for me, and just moves the GW 1, >>> and GH card positions as desired. >>> >>> Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, >>> followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is >>> only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function >>> fails. >>> >>> More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the >>> correct structure for the ITS field. >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> >>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>> news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >>>> I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" >>>> >>>> "ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" >>>> >>>> Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? >>>> >>>> Thanks - Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Frank wrote: >>>>> Dan, >>>>> >>>>> Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. >>>>> Anyway, it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, although >>>>> my physical NEC helix models do not agree based on my estimate of your >>>>> coil dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a "Minninec" ground, >>>>> which allows antenna contact with a perfect ground, but uses actual >>>>> ground parameters to analyze the reflections. I am not sure about >>>>> this, but would assume from the point of view of the input impedance, >>>>> that the ground would be considered perfect; and therefore lossless. >>>>> I also noticed I had some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to >>>>> construct a coil with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much >>>>> thinner conductor. >>>>> >>>>> My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a >>>>> perfect ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 ohms >>>>> was far from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. >>>>> Ideally I should construct a ground screen, but for the time being >>>>> will consider a perfect ground. >>>>> >>>>> A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >>>>> understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >>>>> >>>>> Frank >>>>> >>>>> PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >>>>> >>>>> CM Loaded 2 m monopole >>>>> CE >>>>> GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >>>>> GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >>>>> GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >>>>> GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >>>>> GS 0 0 0.025400 >>>>> GE 1 >>>>> GN 1 >>>>> EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >>>>> LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>> LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >>>>> LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>> FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >>>>> RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >>>>> EN >>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>> news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >>>>> >>>>>> Frank, >>>>>> >>>>>> I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>>>> 600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using >>>>>> EZNec. It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was >>>>>> using an average real ground.) >>>>>> >>>>>> If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the >>>>>> ground that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the >>>>>> modeled 12 Ohms? >>>>>> >>>>>> Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>>> news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It >>>>>>>> is a 4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter >>>>>>>> inch form and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I >>>>>>>> adjust the frequency by stretching or compressing the coil. >>>>>>>> Currently it is resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a >>>>>>>> phase shift of 1 degree per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both >>>>>>>> predict an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db >>>>>>>> power difference between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a >>>>>>>> 10 db power difference between forward and reverse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in >>>>>>> length from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. >>>>>>> An, approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to >>>>>>> be resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input >>>>>>> impedance at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required >>>>>>> load inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard >>>>>>> single port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual >>>>>>> input impedance of the antenna. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frank >>>>> >> Article: 221342 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Carsten Hjorth" References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> <7sOdnZEHkLUco0fenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com> Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:49:02 +0100 Message-ID: <43daa35c$0$11673$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> "Tam/WB2TT" skrev i en meddelelse news:7sOdnZEHkLUco0fenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Carsten Hjorth" wrote in message > news:43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net... >> Hello! >> >> I just bought this: http://www.rustindustries.co.uk/remote.htm >> The range is only 10-15 meters in free air, only 5-7 meters indoor. >> Is it possible to connect a whip type antenna? >> I have calculated a length ca 17 cm. >> But i cannot see where to connect the antenna. >> The transmitter has a loop style antenna, powered by one transistor and a >> oscillator of some sort, i have drawn a schematic: >> http://media.openbloc.com/1tpwr >> I have tried to connect the antenna to the collector, but that gave me no >> output at all. >> >> Regards >> >> Carsten Hjorth >> > You might want to do something with the receiving antenna. My 4xx MHz > garage door opener has about 30 meters range. > > Tam/WB2TT I“m in Denmark and its frezing... Should i extend the wip antenna on the receiver? Now it“s a 1/4 wave, should i try full wave? /Carsten Article: 221343 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "don" Subject: need advice Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:28:19 -0600 Message-ID: <11tlb4kkc5qr73b@corp.supernews.com> just bought a 26 ft seafox boat have a icom V8000 installed but was wonder about the antenna SUGGESTIONS???? -- Don KB5FHX SEMPER VIGILIS REAL TIME WEATHER OBS http://myweb.cableone.net/wxfreqrs/ JCARA RADIO HOMEPAGE http://www.jcmsara.org MARITIME MINUTEMEN http://gulfmaritime.minutemen.amist.us/ Article: 221344 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:29:38 GMT Frank, Thanks for that. BTW: Does anyone know where I can get the wgnuplot.exe for 4nec2ex ? The site has a link to the gnuplot only, I tried this link but is brings up a page error. Frank wrote: > A card is a line of NEC code. I guess it is a hold over from the old days > when NEC must have been run with FORTRAN punch-cards on a mainframe > computer. > > Frank > > "David" wrote in message > news:Z1wCf.228727$V7.167866@news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> What are these "Cards" you guys are referring to ? >> >> Frank wrote: >>> Ok Dan, figured where the problem was. It is just necessary to set the >>> ITS field to zero, and the code runs ok. >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> "Frank" wrote in message >>> news:eXpCf.199081$OU5.8916@clgrps13... >>>> Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have >>>> any experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC manual >>>> to figure out what the error is. >>>> The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. My >>>> first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a length >>>> of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed by a >>>> coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW 1, card >>>> to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS field) was >>>> filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" to be moved >>>> (000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there are only 2 tags >>>> prior to the GM card, so don't know why this happened). In any case >>>> this worked on my model. The default entry for the ITS field is zero, >>>> or just leave blank. This works fine for me, and just moves the GW 1, >>>> and GH card positions as desired. >>>> >>>> Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, >>>> followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is >>>> only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function >>>> fails. >>>> >>>> More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the >>>> correct structure for the ITS field. >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> >>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>> news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >>>>> I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" >>>>> >>>>> "ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" >>>>> >>>>> Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>>> Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. >>>>>> Anyway, it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, although >>>>>> my physical NEC helix models do not agree based on my estimate of your >>>>>> coil dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a "Minninec" ground, >>>>>> which allows antenna contact with a perfect ground, but uses actual >>>>>> ground parameters to analyze the reflections. I am not sure about >>>>>> this, but would assume from the point of view of the input impedance, >>>>>> that the ground would be considered perfect; and therefore lossless. >>>>>> I also noticed I had some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to >>>>>> construct a coil with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much >>>>>> thinner conductor. >>>>>> >>>>>> My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a >>>>>> perfect ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 ohms >>>>>> was far from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. >>>>>> Ideally I should construct a ground screen, but for the time being >>>>>> will consider a perfect ground. >>>>>> >>>>>> A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >>>>>> understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frank >>>>>> >>>>>> PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >>>>>> >>>>>> CM Loaded 2 m monopole >>>>>> CE >>>>>> GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >>>>>> GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >>>>>> GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >>>>>> GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >>>>>> GS 0 0 0.025400 >>>>>> GE 1 >>>>>> GN 1 >>>>>> EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >>>>>> LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>> LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >>>>>> LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>> FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >>>>>> RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >>>>>> EN >>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>> news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>>>>> 600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using >>>>>>> EZNec. It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was >>>>>>> using an average real ground.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the >>>>>>> ground that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the >>>>>>> modeled 12 Ohms? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It >>>>>>>>> is a 4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter >>>>>>>>> inch form and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I >>>>>>>>> adjust the frequency by stretching or compressing the coil. >>>>>>>>> Currently it is resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a >>>>>>>>> phase shift of 1 degree per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both >>>>>>>>> predict an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db >>>>>>>>> power difference between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a >>>>>>>>> 10 db power difference between forward and reverse. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>>>>> Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in >>>>>>>> length from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. >>>>>>>> An, approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to >>>>>>>> be resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input >>>>>>>> impedance at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required >>>>>>>> load inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard >>>>>>>> single port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual >>>>>>>> input impedance of the antenna. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frank > Article: 221345 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: David Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> <7sOdnZEHkLUco0fenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com> <43daa35c$0$11673$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> Message-ID: <_2yCf.228818$V7.160041@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:31:06 GMT Have you contacted the supplier to verify what the typical range should be and get their recommendation for appropriate antenna ? Carsten Hjorth wrote: > "Tam/WB2TT" skrev i en meddelelse > news:7sOdnZEHkLUco0fenZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@comcast.com... >> "Carsten Hjorth" wrote in message >> news:43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net... >>> Hello! >>> >>> I just bought this: http://www.rustindustries.co.uk/remote.htm >>> The range is only 10-15 meters in free air, only 5-7 meters indoor. >>> Is it possible to connect a whip type antenna? >>> I have calculated a length ca 17 cm. >>> But i cannot see where to connect the antenna. >>> The transmitter has a loop style antenna, powered by one transistor and a >>> oscillator of some sort, i have drawn a schematic: >>> http://media.openbloc.com/1tpwr >>> I have tried to connect the antenna to the collector, but that gave me no >>> output at all. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Carsten Hjorth >>> >> You might want to do something with the receiving antenna. My 4xx MHz >> garage door opener has about 30 meters range. >> >> Tam/WB2TT > > I“m in Denmark and its frezing... > Should i extend the wip antenna on the receiver? Now it“s a 1/4 wave, should > i try full wave? > > /Carsten > > Article: 221346 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Hal Rosser" References: <11tlb4kkc5qr73b@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: need advice Message-ID: <2DBCf.735$fZ2.41@bignews4.bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:37:01 -0500 "don" wrote in message news:11tlb4kkc5qr73b@corp.supernews.com... > just bought a 26 ft seafox boat > have a icom V8000 installed but was wonder about the antenna > nice boat and nice rig..... put a 50 ft pine tree on the bow and another on the stern, and string up a dipole. :-) or - - a 5/8-wave vertical for everyday use and a 3-element beam for reaching back to shore from way-out. --- but --- If you loose the repeater while using the vertical, head back in right away, because you're too far from shore. Article: 221347 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "don" Subject: Re: need advice Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:24:49 -0600 Message-ID: <11tlsghn62h8bf2@corp.supernews.com> References: <11tlb4kkc5qr73b@corp.supernews.com> <1138420112.068973.242400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> will check it out thinking of hustler Model CGT-144 -- Don SEMPER VIGILIS REAL TIME WEATHER OBS http://myweb.cableone.net/wxfreqrs/ JCARA RADIO HOMEPAGE http://www.jcmsara.org MARITIME MINUTEMEN http://gulfmaritime.minutemen.amist.us/ "Capt Jack" wrote in message news:1138420112.068973.242400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hamstick has a nice antenna for marine/boat applications > http://www.hamstick.com/ > > Jack > w4grj > Article: 221348 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:29:38 -0600 Message-ID: <4476-43DAF332-28@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net> References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> Carsten wrote: "Is it possible to connect a whip type?" Probably, or perhaps a dipole. The wavelength is short. You can get antenna gain without connections if you use reflectors with your existing antennas. The reflecting surfaces can be plane sheets or grids aligned with the polarization of the antenna. You did not give the size of your loop. If the loop has a perimeter of one wavelength, propagation is broadside to the loop. If it is smaller, propagation is in the plane of the loop. Polarization depends on where the loop is fed. Your wavelength is about 0.7 m. If a perfect flat sheet is 1/4-wavelength behind your antenna, you may get about 5 dB gain in the forward direction from the reflector. Replace the flat sheet with a 90-degree corner reflector, and the gain rises to 10 dB with 1/4-wave spacing between the antenna and the corner. 11 or 12 dB gain may be obtained by using a 60-degree corner. For a 1/2-wave dipole spaced either 1/4-wave or 1/2-wave from a 90-degree corner, the gain is about the same (10 dB). 1/4-wave spacing of a 1/2-wave dipole from a 90-degree corner gives a drivepoint impedance of about 85 ohms. 1/2-wave spacing of a 1/2-wave dipole from a 90-degree corner gives a drivepoint impedance of about 125 ohms. As the 1/2-wave dipole without a reflector has a drivepoint impedance of 73 ohms, impedance upset from coupling to the reflector is significant but not excessive. See Kraus "Antennas" under the topic: "Corner reflector" for details. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 221349 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> <43DAD133.2000705@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? Message-ID: <7uDCf.202839$OU5.128573@clgrps13> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:41:23 GMT Dan, here is the code I copied and pasted it directly from 4nec2 nec edit page. I have not yet figured out how to have swept frequency data, as the program only seems to recognize the first frequency of 135 MHz. Frank CM Loaded 2 m monopole CE GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 GS 0 0 0.025400 GE 1 GN 1 EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 EN "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:43DAD133.2000705@comcast.net... > Frank, > > Umm. I tried to set the GM ITS field to 0 and that did not make any > difference. Can you forward the nec file that does not produce the error? > > Thanks - Dan > > Frank wrote: >> Ok Dan, figured where the problem was. It is just necessary to set the >> ITS field to zero, and the code runs ok. >> >> Frank >> >> "Frank" wrote in message >> news:eXpCf.199081$OU5.8916@clgrps13... >> >>>Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have any >>>experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC manual to >>>figure out what the error is. >>>The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. My >>>first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a length >>>of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed by a >>>coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW 1, card >>>to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS field) was >>>filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" to be moved >>>(000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there are only 2 tags >>>prior to the GM card, so don't know why this happened). In any case this >>>worked on my model. The default entry for the ITS field is zero, or just >>>leave blank. This works fine for me, and just moves the GW 1, and GH card >>>positions as desired. >>> >>>Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, >>>followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is >>>only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function >>>fails. >>> >>>More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the >>>correct structure for the ITS field. >>> >>>Frank >>> >>> >>>"dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >>> >>>>I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" >>>> >>>>"ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" >>>> >>>>Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? >>>> >>>>Thanks - Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Frank wrote: >>>> >>>>>Dan, >>>>> >>>>>Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. >>>>>Anyway, it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, although >>>>>my physical NEC helix models do not agree based on my estimate of your >>>>>coil dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a "Minninec" ground, >>>>>which allows antenna contact with a perfect ground, but uses actual >>>>>ground parameters to analyze the reflections. I am not sure about >>>>>this, but would assume from the point of view of the input impedance, >>>>>that the ground would be considered perfect; and therefore lossless. I >>>>>also noticed I had some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to >>>>>construct a coil with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much >>>>>thinner conductor. >>>>> >>>>>My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a perfect >>>>>ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 ohms was far >>>>>from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. Ideally I >>>>>should construct a ground screen, but for the time being will consider >>>>>a perfect ground. >>>>> >>>>>A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >>>>>understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >>>>> >>>>>Frank >>>>> >>>>>PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >>>>> >>>>>CM Loaded 2 m monopole >>>>>CE >>>>>GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >>>>>GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >>>>>GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >>>>>GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >>>>>GS 0 0 0.025400 >>>>>GE 1 >>>>>GN 1 >>>>>EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >>>>>LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >>>>>LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >>>>>RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >>>>>EN >>>>>"dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Frank, >>>>>> >>>>>>I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>>>>600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using >>>>>>EZNec. It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was >>>>>>using an average real ground.) >>>>>> >>>>>>If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the ground >>>>>>that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the modeled 12 >>>>>>Ohms? >>>>>> >>>>>>Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>>>>> >>>>>>Dan >>>>>> >>>>>>Frank wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>>>news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Frank, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It >>>>>>>>is a 4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter >>>>>>>>inch form and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I >>>>>>>>adjust the frequency by stretching or compressing the coil. >>>>>>>>Currently it is resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a phase >>>>>>>>shift of 1 degree per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both >>>>>>>>predict an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db >>>>>>>>power difference between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a 10 >>>>>>>>db power difference between forward and reverse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thanks - Dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in >>>>>>>length from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. >>>>>>>An, approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to be >>>>>>>resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input >>>>>>>impedance at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required >>>>>>>load inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard >>>>>>>single port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual input >>>>>>>impedance of the antenna. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Frank >>>>> >>>>> >> Article: 221350 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> <43D45526.3030903@comcast.net> <43D4686E.6000408@comcast.net> <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? Message-ID: <%zDCf.202840$OU5.134180@clgrps13> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 05:47:39 GMT "David" wrote in message news:C1yCf.228816$V7.45635@news-server.bigpond.net.au... > Frank, > > Thanks for that. > > BTW: Does anyone know where I can get the wgnuplot.exe for 4nec2ex ? > The site has a link to the gnuplot only, I tried this link but is brings > up a page error. Dave, sorry I am not very familiar with 4nec, so have no idea what wgnuplot.exe is. Most of my NEC experience is with NEC-Win Pro, which is so straightforward and easy to use. Not that I mean to degrade 4nec2, I think the guys have done a great job for the free software. I guess your best approach is to keep bugging Arie as I am sure he knows. Frank > > Frank wrote: >> A card is a line of NEC code. I guess it is a hold over from the old >> days when NEC must have been run with FORTRAN punch-cards on a mainframe >> computer. >> >> Frank >> >> "David" wrote in message >> news:Z1wCf.228727$V7.167866@news-server.bigpond.net.au... >>> What are these "Cards" you guys are referring to ? >>> >>> Frank wrote: >>>> Ok Dan, figured where the problem was. It is just necessary to set the >>>> ITS field to zero, and the code runs ok. >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> "Frank" wrote in message >>>> news:eXpCf.199081$OU5.8916@clgrps13... >>>>> Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have >>>>> any experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC >>>>> manual to figure out what the error is. >>>>> The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. >>>>> My first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a >>>>> length of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed >>>>> by a coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW >>>>> 1, card to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS >>>>> field) was filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" >>>>> to be moved (000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there >>>>> are only 2 tags prior to the GM card, so don't know why this >>>>> happened). In any case this worked on my model. The default entry >>>>> for the ITS field is zero, or just leave blank. This works fine for >>>>> me, and just moves the GW 1, and GH card positions as desired. >>>>> >>>>> Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, >>>>> followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is >>>>> only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function >>>>> fails. >>>>> >>>>> More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the >>>>> correct structure for the ITS field. >>>>> >>>>> Frank >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>> news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >>>>>> I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" >>>>>> >>>>>> "ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" >>>>>> >>>>>> Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. >>>>>>> Anyway, it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, >>>>>>> although my physical NEC helix models do not agree based on my >>>>>>> estimate of your coil dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a >>>>>>> "Minninec" ground, which allows antenna contact with a perfect >>>>>>> ground, but uses actual ground parameters to analyze the >>>>>>> reflections. I am not sure about this, but would assume from the >>>>>>> point of view of the input impedance, that the ground would be >>>>>>> considered perfect; and therefore lossless. I also noticed I had >>>>>>> some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to construct a coil >>>>>>> with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much thinner >>>>>>> conductor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a >>>>>>> perfect ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 >>>>>>> ohms was far from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. >>>>>>> Ideally I should construct a ground screen, but for the time being >>>>>>> will consider a perfect ground. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >>>>>>> understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frank >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CM Loaded 2 m monopole >>>>>>> CE >>>>>>> GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >>>>>>> GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >>>>>>> GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >>>>>>> GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >>>>>>> GS 0 0 0.025400 >>>>>>> GE 1 >>>>>>> GN 1 >>>>>>> EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >>>>>>> LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>>> LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >>>>>>> LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>>> FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >>>>>>> RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >>>>>>> EN >>>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>>> news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>>>>>> 600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using >>>>>>>> EZNec. It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was >>>>>>>> using an average real ground.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the >>>>>>>> ground that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the >>>>>>>> modeled 12 Ohms? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. >>>>>>>>>> It is a 4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 >>>>>>>>>> diameter inch form and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid >>>>>>>>>> copper. I adjust the frequency by stretching or compressing the >>>>>>>>>> coil. Currently it is resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a >>>>>>>>>> shows a phase shift of 1 degree per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both >>>>>>>>>> predict an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 >>>>>>>>>> db power difference between forward and reverse. The antenna >>>>>>>>>> shows a 10 db power difference between forward and reverse. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>>>>>> Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in >>>>>>>>> length from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. >>>>>>>>> An, approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to >>>>>>>>> be resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input >>>>>>>>> impedance at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the >>>>>>>>> required load inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard >>>>>>>>> single port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual >>>>>>>>> input impedance of the antenna. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Frank >> Article: 221351 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? Message-ID: References: <7%aBf.132086$km.55846@edtnps89> <43D64535.8000403@comcast.net> <43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net> <8xYBf.137614$km.87081@edtnps89> <43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:14:56 GMT On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:29:38 GMT, David wrote: >Frank, > >Thanks for that. > >BTW: Does anyone know where I can get the wgnuplot.exe for 4nec2ex ? >The site has a link to the gnuplot only, I tried this link but is brings >up a page error. I didn't find it too hard, I followed the links from Arie's page. Try ftp://ftp.gnuplot.info/pub/gnuplot/ and see if you can identify the correct binary for your (unstated) needs (presumably one of the windows versions, probably win32 since you wanted w*.exe). Owen > >Frank wrote: >> A card is a line of NEC code. I guess it is a hold over from the old days >> when NEC must have been run with FORTRAN punch-cards on a mainframe >> computer. >> >> Frank >> >> "David" wrote in message >> news:Z1wCf.228727$V7.167866@news-server.bigpond.net.au... >>> What are these "Cards" you guys are referring to ? >>> >>> Frank wrote: >>>> Ok Dan, figured where the problem was. It is just necessary to set the >>>> ITS field to zero, and the code runs ok. >>>> >>>> Frank >>>> >>>> "Frank" wrote in message >>>> news:eXpCf.199081$OU5.8916@clgrps13... >>>>> Dan, I am running NEC-Win Pro from Nittany Scientific. I do not have >>>>> any experience with 4nec2, but have taken a quick look at the NEC manual >>>>> to figure out what the error is. >>>>> The "GH" card generates a helix with the base positioned at z = 0. My >>>>> first "GW" card positions a wire from the top of the helix with a length >>>>> of 4". Since the GH card position is fixed it must be followed by a >>>>> coordinate transformation "GM" to position the helix, and the GW 1, card >>>>> to the desired position. For some reason the last field (ITS field) was >>>>> filled with a decimal number indicating the range of "Tags" to be moved >>>>> (000.051 which means all tags from zero to 51, but there are only 2 tags >>>>> prior to the GM card, so don't know why this happened). In any case >>>>> this worked on my model. The default entry for the ITS field is zero, >>>>> or just leave blank. This works fine for me, and just moves the GW 1, >>>>> and GH card positions as desired. >>>>> >>>>> Experimenting with 4nec2 indicates if the only geometry card is a GH, >>>>> followed by a GM card, then the transformation appears to work. It is >>>>> only when there are other geometry cards present that the GM function >>>>> fails. >>>>> >>>>> More study of the help menu in 4nec2 is required to figure out the >>>>> correct structure for the ITS field. >>>>> >>>>> Frank >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>> news:43D9B7B8.7070004@comcast.net... >>>>>> I tried to run the nec in 4nec2. It produces and error" >>>>>> >>>>>> "ITS GM card (x,y) not supported in nec2 engine" >>>>>> >>>>>> Which model are you using? Do you know the source of this error? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>>>> Dan, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Be interested to see what the exact dimensions of the coil are. >>>>>>> Anyway, it seems we have some agreement on the 600 nH value, although >>>>>>> my physical NEC helix models do not agree based on my estimate of your >>>>>>> coil dimensions. I understand that EZNec uses a "Minninec" ground, >>>>>>> which allows antenna contact with a perfect ground, but uses actual >>>>>>> ground parameters to analyze the reflections. I am not sure about >>>>>>> this, but would assume from the point of view of the input impedance, >>>>>>> that the ground would be considered perfect; and therefore lossless. >>>>>>> I also noticed I had some borderline NEC warnings when attempting to >>>>>>> construct a coil with #10 AWG, so sometimes had to resort to a much >>>>>>> thinner conductor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My models showed about 17 ohms at resonance when connected to a >>>>>>> perfect ground. The only time I observed impedances as low as 6 ohms >>>>>>> was far from resonance when the antenna was highly capacitive. >>>>>>> Ideally I should construct a ground screen, but for the time being >>>>>>> will consider a perfect ground. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A free space dipole might be easier to model, but I am curious to >>>>>>> understand why there are discrepancies in the monopole modeling. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frank >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PS, be interested in any comments on my NEC code: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CM Loaded 2 m monopole >>>>>>> CE >>>>>>> GW 1 15 0.4 0 5.6 0.4 0 1.6 0.025 >>>>>>> GH 2 50 .32 1.6 .4 .4 .4 .4 0.025 >>>>>>> GM 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 000.051 >>>>>>> GW 3 15 0.4 0 4 0.4 0 0 0.025 >>>>>>> GS 0 0 0.025400 >>>>>>> GE 1 >>>>>>> GN 1 >>>>>>> EX 0 3 15 00 1 0 >>>>>>> LD 5 101 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>>> LD 5 102 1 50 5.8001E7 >>>>>>> LD 5 3 1 15 5.8001E7 >>>>>>> FR 0 41 0 0 135 2 >>>>>>> RP 0 181 1 1000 -90 90 1.00000 1.00000 >>>>>>> EN >>>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>>> news:43D83E86.3000708@comcast.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will re-measure the coil dimensions. The recall the coil measured >>>>>>>> 600nH. That is the value I used when I modeled this antenna using >>>>>>>> EZNec. It showed resonance at about 145 MHz and 12 Ohms. (That was >>>>>>>> using an average real ground.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I assume the antenna measurements are correct then is it the >>>>>>>> ground that accounts for the difference between 6 Ohms and the >>>>>>>> modeled 12 Ohms? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now I am on to model and measure a center loaded dipole. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frank wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "dansawyeror" wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:JJWdnUFF2tOojUreRVn-sw@comcast.com... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Frank, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The antenna I am trying to model is a center 'loaded vertical'. It >>>>>>>>>> is a 4 inch base, 5 turns at 40 percent spacing on a .8 diameter >>>>>>>>>> inch form and a 4 inch tip. The material is Num 10 solid copper. I >>>>>>>>>> adjust the frequency by stretching or compressing the coil. >>>>>>>>>> Currently it is resonant at about 141.7 Mhz. The 8405a shows a >>>>>>>>>> phase shift of 1 degree per 30 kc change in frequency. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have used both the vertload model and the EZNEC model. Both >>>>>>>>>> predict an antenna R of about 5 Ohms. The 25 Ohm load shows a 12 db >>>>>>>>>> power difference between forward and reverse. The antenna shows a >>>>>>>>>> 10 db power difference between forward and reverse. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks - Dan >>>>>>>>> Dan, I have modelled a 5 turn inductor, 0.8" diameter, varying in >>>>>>>>> length from 0.8" to 1.6". The inductance values are 380 - 490 nH. >>>>>>>>> An, approximately 9" long monopole, with a 5 turn helix appears to >>>>>>>>> be resonant at about 190 MHz, with a highly reactive 6 ohm input >>>>>>>>> impedance at 141 MHz. Using a lumped element simulation the required >>>>>>>>> load inductance, for 141 MHz, is about 600 nH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only way to resolve these discrepancies is to do a standard >>>>>>>>> single port network analyzer calibration and measure the actual >>>>>>>>> input impedance of the antenna. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Frank >> -- Article: 221359 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Date: 29 Jan 2006 05:06:07 GMT Message-ID: References: Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > I have an MFJ modle 249 (the original with a meter) antenna analyzer. > MFJ sells a kit of two coils to make it into a dip meter. > > I would like to use it to measure the resonant fequency of a traps I > am building, but am unable to purchase the coils. > > Is there a way to make then on your own? > > TIA, > > Geoff. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don't bother. I have one and it's a very poor dip meter. Get a Heathkit or Eico or Millen instead. You'll be much happier. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221360 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 06:50:28 -0000 Message-ID: <11topdk759a3tba@corp.supernews.com> References: >> I have an MFJ modle 249 (the original with a meter) antenna analyzer. >> MFJ sells a kit of two coils to make it into a dip meter. >> >> I would like to use it to measure the resonant fequency of a traps I >> am building, but am unable to purchase the coils. >> >> Is there a way to make then on your own? >Don't bother. I have one and it's a very poor dip meter. Get a Heathkit >or Eico or Millen instead. You'll be much happier. The MFJ 269 with the dip-meter coils, is probably the least-sensitive and least-usable dipmeter I've tried to date. It really isn't good for very much at all. I don't think the coil construction is terribly critical, though, since the coil inductance is not being used as part of the oscillator tuned circuit. The MFJ uses only two coils to cover a wide range of frequencies, rather than the half-dozen or so coils used by real tank-circuit dippers. You can try simply winding a few turns of hookup wire on a convenient tubular form, hooked up to an RCA or BNC or PL-259 glued to the end of the form, and see if you can get an adequate dipping for your purposes. The higher-frequency MFJ coil seems to be about 4 or 5 turns of wire - length is about 1/2" and diameter is somewhere around 3/8". The lower-frequency coil is somewhere around 12-14 turns of wire, close-wound on a 1/2"-diameter plastic form. As dippers go, the Heathkit HD-1250 solid-state model (it's a dual-gate-MOSFET-based gate-dipper rather than a grid-dipper) is better than the MFJ. It's not great, but it's probably adequate for most purposes. Haven't used a Millen but I've heard that it's better yet. Haven't used an Eico, or one of the B&W model 600 acorn-tube-based grid dippers. The Measurements/Boonton Megacycle Meter is the ne plus ultra of dippers, as far as I know. It's big and perhaps a trifle clumsy, but it has a strong oscillator which *really* dips nicely with even very loose coupling to the circuit being measured. If you ever run across one, grab it. For comparison: when testing an air-core inductor in parallel with an air-variable cap, I could barely get a dip reading at all with my MFJ and either of its coils. The coil had to be poked right up into the inductor and into contact with its windings to create enough coupling for a dip... and of course this tends to de-tune the coil and makes the measurement less accurate. A Heathkit HD-1250 would get a usable dip with its coil as far as an inch away from the inductor. A Boonton got a dip three or four inches away. -- 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: 221361 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:41:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Bill Turner wrote: > Don't bother. I have one and it's a very poor dip meter. Get a Heathkit > or Eico or Millen instead. You'll be much happier. Thanks for the information. The whole purpose is to avoid paying 180 UKP for a multiband trap antenna. I have access to coax and plastic pipe, so I was hoping to make the traps myself. As for buying an Eico or Millen, I doubt that there is one in the entire country yet alone for sale, :-( 73, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Vist my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 221362 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <11topdk759a3tba@corp.supernews.com> Dave Platt wrote: > The MFJ 269 with the dip-meter coils, is probably the least-sensitive > and least-usable dipmeter I've tried to date. It really isn't good > for very much at all. Thanks, Hopefully it won't have to be very good. I need it to make a trap antenna, I found what I want for 180 UKP (plus shipping and taxes), but simply can't afford it. In fact, buying the $20 coils is a stretch at this time. I have plenty of coax and plastic pipe is easily available. > I don't think the coil construction is terribly critical, though, > since the coil inductance is not being used as part of the oscillator > tuned circuit. The MFJ uses only two coils to cover a wide range of > frequencies, rather than the half-dozen or so coils used by real > tank-circuit dippers. It did seem awfuly cheap, the same range in their dip meter was covered by at least five coils. > You can try simply winding a few turns of hookup wire on a convenient > tubular form, hooked up to an RCA or BNC or PL-259 glued to the end of > the form, and see if you can get an adequate dipping for your > purposes. Ok, thanks, it may be exactly what I need. > The higher-frequency MFJ coil seems to be about 4 or 5 turns of wire - > length is about 1/2" and diameter is somewhere around 3/8". The > lower-frequency coil is somewhere around 12-14 turns of wire, > close-wound on a 1/2"-diameter plastic form. This sounds good to me, I should be able to duplicate that. > As dippers go, the Heathkit HD-1250 solid-state model (it's a > dual-gate-MOSFET-based gate-dipper rather than a grid-dipper) is > better than the MFJ. It's not great, but it's probably adequate for > most purposes. Heathkit? What's a heathkit? I have not seen one in the nine years I've been here. A friend supposedly has a heathkit HF rig in boxes from when he moved here, 25 years ago, I'm sure he hasn't even turned them on in at least five years. > The Measurements/Boonton Megacycle Meter is the ne plus ultra of > dippers, as far as I know. It's big and perhaps a trifle clumsy, but > it has a strong oscillator which *really* dips nicely with even very > loose coupling to the circuit being measured. If you ever run across > one, grab it. In a country there are no hamfest, no swap meets, no ham radio stores, and you need to get permission from the Ministry of Communication to buy a new rig (pro-forma, but it must be added to your license), I expect that I'll never run across one, even if I hunt it down. :-( 73, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Vist my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 221363 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Vertical on a tower References: <1137915322.724857.201990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1137964921.758569.111220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:58:29 GMT nm5k@wt.net wrote: > If you listened to long haul dx > paths, and the vertical never beat the dipole, you didn't have > a very good vertical. The vertical was 2 S-units noiser than the dipole. There's no evidence that, with the same height limits, a monopole vertical could ever beat a dipole's broadside performance by 12 dB at any angle. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221364 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "on4ahf" References: Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Message-ID: <8x1Df.217991$4Q6.7157867@phobos.telenet-ops.be> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:19:32 GMT Hi Geoff here manual with description for homemade coils http://www.darc.de/distrikte/f/27/MFJ259B_SWR584B_Handbuch1v4.pdf 73 Henk Article: 221365 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "on4ahf" References: Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Message-ID: <8x1Df.217992$wF4.7143563@phobos.telenet-ops.be> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 11:19:32 GMT Hi Geoff here manual with description for homemade coils http://www.darc.de/distrikte/f/27/MFJ259B_SWR584B_Handbuch1v4.pdf 73 Henk Article: 221366 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: 8405a working and measuring resonance? From: "Frank" Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:40:54 GMT Message-ID: References: <6NDAf.97704$AP5.43927@edtnps84> <43D3106E.4020100@comcast.net> <43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net> "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:43D3C102.1030805@comcast.net... > Frank, > > Your comment about my post is correct upon analysis it is not relevant. > > I am trying to identify the resonance frequency of an antenna. When that > point is found I am trying to measure the input impedance (should be R + > 0j). > > Assuming 50 Ohm source and cable, the smith chart shows for lengths of > cable terminated in values other the 50 Ohms, say 25R 0j, those points > will plot of a constant SWR = 2 circle. I am using that circle below: > > I am assuming that for a frequency where the antenna is resonant that the > phase read from the antenna and the phase read from non 50 Ohm 0j load > will be the same. If that is true then 'zeroing' the meter by adjusting > the phase offset will not effect the frequency of resonance. It is simply > a convenience. > > This method should yield a direct resonant frequency reading. > > Dan Dan, The reflection coefficient of 25 ohms is 0.333 <180, so if you do trim the line stretcher for 180 degrees, then attaching the antenna will determine how close you are to nominal R + j0. You need to reset your line stretcher at each frequency until you obtain a 180 degree phase shift on the return loss from the antenna. It is reasonable to assume that your antenna has an impedance in the region of 37 ohms, so the 180 phase shift is probably correct. For the reflection coefficient at 0.333 < 0 the input impedance is 100 ohms. For such an antenna it is probably easer to just tune the antenna for minimum reflection coefficient and forget the phase angle. Frank Article: 221368 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Pulling Cable in Conduit From: "Ralph Mowery" Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:07:16 GMT Message-ID: References: "gb" wrote in message news:X6WdnZrqmsgPck7eRVn-qg@comcast.com... > "Ralph Mowery" wrote in message > news:sXNAf.3715$rH5.3152@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net... > > > > "gb" wrote in message > > news:tqydneekV8fpOE7eRVn-uA@comcast.com... > >> "jimbo" wrote in message > >> news:HvKdnUnMwK5OOU7enZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> >I am getting close to pulling some cable through a 1 1/4 inch PVC > >> >conduit > >> >that runs about 20 feet from the third floor attic to the basement. The > >> >contractor claims the conduit is a "straight shot" with no bends. I have > >> >three LMR240 cables with PL259 connectors on each end. And I would also > >> >like to pull a 450 ohm length of ladder line. (Measures about 1 inch.) > > And > >> >I would like to pull at least two 16 gage insulated control wires. > >> > > >> > Any advice would be appreciated. > >> > > >> > Thanks, jimbo > >> > > >> > >> A Google search should get you the electrical handbooks and codes (e.g. > >> NEC ) for the maximum fill for each conduit size. As a rough rule NEVER > >> fill a conduit more than 70% to 75%. > >> > > > > The NEC is mostly for wires for the AC lines. It will not apply for the > > antenna wires. > > > > The ladder line is not going to work too well in the conduit with the > > other > > wire. There is a minimum distance that it should be placed from other > > conductors. > > > Ralph - > > I am not referring to the AC portion of the NEC, RATHER I am trying to > highlight the maximum fill (diameter of each cable and maximum pull). > ever try to "pull conductors" through conduit when this rule is NOT followed > ?? > > I have, it's pain .. in the xxxx. > Easy read and math calculations are minimal with tables supplied --- number > of conductors and O.D. versus the I.D. on conduit. > Yes, I have. I work at a large industral plant. Some of the wire I have pulled has been in 1 inch conduit that was probably 90% full of # 12 wire already. Still needed to get another pair of wires through that. I have cut a couple of wires in the conduit and used them to pull in wire to replace them and two new wires. No room in the conduit to push a snake through and pull the new wire in. Use lots of the wire pulling grease. Most of the wires are control wires and only have about an amp or less on them. We are not worried about overheating the wires in the conduit, but need to add new control circuits to a 40 year old plant. As you said it is a pain. Article: 221369 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <8x1Df.217992$wF4.7143563@phobos.telenet-ops.be> on4ahf wrote: > Hi Geoff > > here manual with description for homemade coils > > http://www.darc.de/distrikte/f/27/MFJ259B_SWR584B_Handbuch1v4.pdf Thank you, it's exactly what I needed. I am having trouble with one point. The wire type in the table is CuL and CuAg. Obviously CuL some sort of copper wire, with the CuAg, being copper and silver (silver plated copper?). What exactly is CuL wire? Is it critical that I use it what ever it is? Can I use plastic covered copper wire? For the high freqency coils I can easily get 2.0mm stiff copper wire for use in electrical conduit. It comes with some sort of insulation, probably PVC. Can I use it, and if I do, should I remove the insulation? Thanks in advance, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Vist my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 221370 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Date: 29 Jan 2006 12:27:17 GMT Message-ID: References: Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > As for buying an Eico or Millen, I doubt that there is one in the > entire country yet alone for sale, :-( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Try eBay. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221371 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "on4ahf" References: <8x1Df.217992$wF4.7143563@phobos.telenet-ops.be> Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Message-ID: <1W2Df.218148$Gj7.7167022@phobos.telenet-ops.be> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:54:21 GMT > The wire type in the table is CuL and CuAg. Obviously CuL some sort of > copper wire, with the CuAg, being copper and silver (silver plated > copper?). --------------lacquer-isolated copper wire (CuL), ------------ ----------------copper-silver (CuAg), ------------- > What exactly is CuL wire? Is it critical that I use it what ever it is? > Can I use plastic covered copper wire? ----------no-------------- > > For the high freqency coils I can easily get 2.0mm stiff copper > wire for use in electrical conduit. It comes with some sort of insulation, > probably PVC. Can I use it, and if I do, should I remove the insulation? --------------Yes--------------- Article: 221372 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 29 Jan 2006 12:33:31 GMT Message-ID: References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> jpopelish@rica.net wrote: > Sorry, I thought we were talking about a vehicle electrical system. > In a vehicle, the battery serves essentially one purpose, to start the > engine. After that, everything runs from the alternator, which also > recharges the battery over a period of time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Have you ever driven a car with a totally dead battery, after starting it with jumper cables and running entirely off the alternator? I have and it's not good. The battery is there for more than just starting the car. It also stores and smoothes the output from the alternator, much like a giant filter capacitor. Don't be afraid to use it as such. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221373 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 29 Jan 2006 12:31:00 GMT Message-ID: References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> jpopelish@rica.net wrote: > Are we talking about a transmitter that draws more current than an > alternator can supply? If so, I think it is a poor arrangement. I > wouldn't connect a transmitter that exceeded the output capability of > the alternator, even if it meant I had to upgrade the alternator t > oavoid it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Really? Then you should have an alternator which could supply the starter motor too, with that thinking. The battery is there as a power source for intermittent loads. Use it. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221374 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David J Windisch" References: Subject: Re: Homemade coils for using an MFJ analyzer as a dip meter? Message-ID: <_z5Df.70633$Q11.7004@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:55:38 GMT Geoff and all: The 'dip' function is simply a 2- or 3-to-1 series-connected mismatch with a capacitor, resistor, and coil to couple to the device-under-test. The dut makes the meter wiggle by absorbing a bit of power, for a visible indication of 'resonance'. That's all, afaik. 73, Dave, N3HE "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message news:slrndtnib5.v7g.gsm@cable.mendelson.com... >I have an MFJ modle 249 (the original with a meter) antenna analyzer. MFJ > sells a kit of two coils to make it into a dip meter. > > I would like to use it to measure the resonant fequency of a traps I > am building, but am unable to purchase the coils. > > Is there a way to make then on your own? > > TIA, > > Geoff. > > -- > Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM > IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: > 1-215-821-1838 > Vist my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 221375 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <767Df.29208$PL5.1624@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:40:19 GMT John Popelish wrote: > Agreed. But I prefer to design and install my own alternator RFI > filter, rather than depend on the battery for that purpose. When the engine is running, what is the difference between the voltage at the alternator and the voltage at the battery? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221376 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 29 Jan 2006 18:42:41 GMT Message-ID: References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <767Df.29208$PL5.1624@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > When the engine is running, what is the difference between the > voltage at the alternator and the voltage at the battery? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Depends on whether the battery is fully charged or not. Immediately after starting the engine, the voltage difference will be at its greatest. After a few minutes running, the difference will be very small, unless a large current drain is occurring. In other words, there is no single answer. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221377 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: Subject: Re: help editing 4nec2 model ? Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:11:43 GMT One comment Dan, you have defined a finite Sommerfeld/Norton ground. In NEC2 the antenna cannot touch the ground unless it is perfect (Unlike EZnec, with its "Minninec" ground). 2.2204e-16 is, from NEC's point of view, zero. At the moment I don't know how to address the other problems, but may play with it later. I have also noticed the problem with the frequencies. There are instructions provided with the program, but are buried as "Word", and text, documents in the 4Nec2 folder,and in the sub-folder "exe". The NEC user manual is also useful, but will only help with NEC code structure. Frank "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:T_WdndNuJIahbEHeRVn-tQ@comcast.com... > All, > > I am experimenting with 4nec2 and these are an elementary questions. I > have been able to create a 'new' model, see below, using the geometry > editor. Here are few questions: > > 1. when the model loads it shows 4 MHz instead of 144. > > 2. ground has been set but does not show in the display > > 3. I am trying to make the middle segment a coil. How is a coil created? > When inserting a helix 4nec2 errors with a divide by zero error? The steps > would be helpful. > > 4. Adding a source does not seem to take. I am not sure how how to add a > source? How to determine where it is placed? > > These are basic, but any help would be appreciated. > > Thanks - Dan > > CE > GW 1 3 0.05 0 2.2204e-16 0.05 0 > 0.1 1.29409e-3 > GW 2 3 0.05 0 0.225 0.05 0 0.125 > 1.29409e-3 > GW 3 1 0.05 0 0.125 0.05 0 0.1 > 1.29409e-3 > GE 1 > EK > GN 2 0 0 0 13 6.e-3 > FR 0 1 0 0 144 0 > EN Article: 221378 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <767Df.29208$PL5.1624@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1138556414.231655.305980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:29:44 GMT jpopelish@rica.net wrote: > The difference is the IR drop of the branch circuit from the power bus > to the battery positive, including the fuse link in the harness. I knew that - what is the *quantitative* difference between the voltage at the alternator and the voltage at the battery? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221379 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <767Df.29208$PL5.1624@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1138556414.231655.305980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1138572706.181945.314800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:39:57 GMT jpopelish@rica.net wrote: > How am I to know either the branch wiring resistance between the > alternator and the battery in your car, ... Sorry, you sounded like an expert on such. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221380 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 30 Jan 2006 01:48:07 GMT Message-ID: References: <06KdnXmGUdGV3UTeRVn-uQ@comcast.com> <11tiia21u8voh0b@corp.supernews.com> <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> John Popelish wrote: > It just seems strange to me to invest all that money in a powerful > transceiver and a custom installation and skip these three vital > parts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Vital" only if you have a noise problem. I haven't in my last three or four cars. The alternators were perfect gentlemen. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221381 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:06:45 -0600 Message-ID: <6543-43DD90D5-837@storefull-3252.bay.webtv.net> References: <1138587392.626611.200350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> John Poplish wrote: "So nice for you!" Alternator whine is often caused by a bad diode.Replacement(s) may be the most satisfactory fix. Best regards, Richard harrison, KB5WZI Article: 221382 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:42:03 -0000 Message-ID: <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> In article <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com>, Gary Schafer wrote: >Every time you turn on the headlights the noise will get worse if the >radio is connected directly to the alternator because of additional >voltage drop on that line. >If there should be a break in the alternator wire to the battery the >surge from the alternator will most likely damage the radio. A more common problem I'd be concerned about would be "load dump", which occurs when a high-amperage load on the car's electrical bus stops drawing current abruptly - for example, if the headlights are switched off while the engine's running. It's common for this to result in a large voltage spike out of the alternator, before the regulator has time to reduce the alternator output. Spikes of several dozen volts are common - my recollection is that auto-electronics manufacturers engineer their devices to be able to stand 50 volts at their power-supply terminals for a brief moment. I would expect that the magnitude of this spike would be significantly greater at the alternator terminals, than it is at the battery, due to the series resistance and series inductance of the battery-to- alternator cable, and the battery's low impedance. It's possible that a load (e.g. radio) which could survive a load-dump spike if wired to the battery, could be damaged by a higher-amplitude spike from the same load-dump event which might occur right at the alternator. It seems clear that the standard, recommended practice is to wire radios to the battery. It also seems that the original poster is not satisfied with the justification for this practice (either by convention, recommendation of authority, or theoretical arguments posed to far), and that he has some arguments from first principles which he feels justify a different approach (wiring to the alternator). In the end, for the original poster to be satisfied (either that standard practice is the best practice, or that his alternate suggestion of wiring directly across the alternator is actually superior) I suspect that he's going to have to fall back on that old mainstay of scientific discovery - he's going to have to experiment. He'll have to wire several different radios, of various makes and models, up to [1] a double-fused heavy-gauge feed from the battery posts, and [2] an equivalent feed brought back to alternator and its ground. He can then determine whether his alternate approach actually delivers more useful current to the radio, whether the transmitter powers are actually higher, whether there is indeed more alternator whine or RFI on the transmitted signal or the received audio, and whether the radios show any differential in their ability to survive a few months of usage and load-dump spikes without losing their Magic Blue Smoke. Actual results (either way) trump speculative arguments. -- 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: 221383 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Mike M. Subject: Re: need advice Message-ID: <32crt1ln35s75ld4qvddmi963gki9i657u@4ax.com> References: <11tlb4kkc5qr73b@corp.supernews.com> <1138420112.068973.242400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11tlsghn62h8bf2@corp.supernews.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:24:51 GMT On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:24:49 -0600, "don" wrotF: >will check it out >thinking of hustler Model CGT-144 If you are going to mount it on a mast, you might want the groundplane radial kit. Mike kc9doa Article: 221384 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "CLFE" References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:55:18 -0500 Message-ID: <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Dave Platt" wrote in message news:11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com... > In article <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com>, > Gary Schafer wrote: > >>Every time you turn on the headlights the noise will get worse if the >>radio is connected directly to the alternator because of additional >>voltage drop on that line. >>If there should be a break in the alternator wire to the battery the >>surge from the alternator will most likely damage the radio. > > A more common problem I'd be concerned about would be "load dump", > which occurs when a high-amperage load on the car's electrical bus > stops drawing current abruptly - for example, if the headlights are > switched off while the engine's running. It's common for this to > result in a large voltage spike out of the alternator, before the > regulator has time to reduce the alternator output. Spikes of several > dozen volts are common - my recollection is that auto-electronics > manufacturers engineer their devices to be able to stand 50 volts at > their power-supply terminals for a brief moment. > > I would expect that the magnitude of this spike would be significantly > greater at the alternator terminals, than it is at the battery, due to > the series resistance and series inductance of the battery-to- > alternator cable, and the battery's low impedance. It's possible that > a load (e.g. radio) which could survive a load-dump spike if wired to > the battery, could be damaged by a higher-amplitude spike from the > same load-dump event which might occur right at the alternator. > > It seems clear that the standard, recommended practice is to wire > radios to the battery. It also seems that the original poster is not > satisfied with the justification for this practice (either by > convention, recommendation of authority, or theoretical arguments > posed to far), and that he has some arguments from first principles > which he feels justify a different approach (wiring to the alternator). > > In the end, for the original poster to be satisfied (either that > standard practice is the best practice, or that his alternate > suggestion of wiring directly across the alternator is actually > superior) I suspect that he's going to have to fall back on that old > mainstay of scientific discovery - he's going to have to experiment. > > He'll have to wire several different radios, of various makes and > models, up to [1] a double-fused heavy-gauge feed from the battery > posts, and [2] an equivalent feed brought back to alternator and its > ground. He can then determine whether his alternate approach actually > delivers more useful current to the radio, whether the transmitter > powers are actually higher, whether there is indeed more alternator > whine or RFI on the transmitted signal or the received audio, and > whether the radios show any differential in their ability to survive a > few months of usage and load-dump spikes without losing their Magic > Blue Smoke. > > Actual results (either way) trump speculative arguments. > > -- > 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! I know of a guy who had an HF radio fry when the voltage to it exceeded 16 VDC - not once, but twice - doing some major damage (a few parts and lots of dollars). He didn't know what caused it the first time to protect it before the second. He thought it was just a fluke (the first time). The point is, anything beyond the rated 13.8 was running a risk - even if accidental. And as argued in previous posts, the whine coming straight from the mother of it - has to be a bear. I would like to know - where this idea hails from - to begin with, how long "John" has been doing it, how many radios and/or alternators fried from it. Also, I don't think any or all of us are saying we're all right and you - "John" - are all wrong. It just seems NONE OF US - have ever heard of this being done. WHERE - what book, teacher, etc - got you on the track of doing it this way???? We just all (except you) seem to be in agreement with the way "we" were taught. Maybe you could think of it as say - John Glenn explaining flying a rocket to a cave man. The concept new - unheard of. Not that it hasn't been done - you've said so yourself, ya got to be a good "salesman" to get it across to the masses who've yet to see. You have to know - anything "new" - be it a new drug to fight disease, technique to do surgery quicker and less painless - or Electronics techniques or measurements - will meet resistance until proven. Maybe - if any of you out there have access to a junk car that runs yet, and you're not afraid to experiment, can grab some junk (but working CBs/2 way radios) - give it a whirl and report back with your own test results. As Dave Platt said in the post above - "Actual results (either way) trump speculative arguments." I don't have a junk car to try it with..... Maybe I'll go to a junk yard and try to pick one up cheap..... try it a few times. I'd love to see how this works - maybe I can become a believer. clf Article: 221385 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:16:21 -0800 Message-ID: <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> CLFE wrote: > . . . > I know of a guy who had an HF radio fry when the voltage to it exceeded 16 > VDC - not once, but twice - doing some major damage (a few parts and lots of > dollars). He didn't know what caused it the first time to protect it before > the second. He thought it was just a fluke (the first time). The point is, > anything beyond the rated 13.8 was running a risk - even if accidental. And > as argued in previous posts, the whine coming straight from the mother of > it - has to be a bear. It might well have been the load dump phenomenon Dave described. The cause of load dump is that at any given time, the alternator contains quite a bit of energy. If a good part of the load is abruptly removed >from the alternator, the energy is "dumped" into whatever is left connected to it. The result can be several tens of volts or more, with the capability of supplying a lot of current. A common cause of load dump is loose battery terminals, and this might be what happened to the fellow with the blown rigs. The safest thing is to connect the rig directly to the battery posts, not the connectors or connecting wires. Long ago I bought and built a Heathkit SSB mobile rig, and I recall drilling holes in the ends of the battery posts and (gently) driving in some special terminals that came with the mobile supply. I'll join the chorus in recommending against connecting a rig anywhere but at the battery, and add my recommendation that the connection be made directly to the posts. As several others have said, the battery does much more than start the car. Without it you've got a very nasty supply with the potential to do serious damage. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 221386 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <1138119779.443881.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43D82AEB.1020009@comcast.net> <1138275019.217196.21700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <277Cf.110589$AP5.60182@edtnps84> <1138610764.365669.30200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: New 4nec2 version Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:50:42 GMT Thanks for the info Arie. Frank "Arie" <4nec2@gmx.net> wrote in message news:1138610764.365669.30200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Yes, it does support Nec4, but as you already mentioned, you need a > license to use it. > > Arie. > Article: 221387 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <43DD43F9.309@comcast.net> <1138610568.326958.241300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: help editing 4nec2 model ? Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:55:04 GMT "Arie" <4nec2@gmx.net> wrote in message news:1138610568.326958.241300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Hello Dan, > > to sweep frequencies after having modified or created your model, push > F7, select 'use freq-loop', select one of the options 'Gain' (only > Gain, F/B and F/R line-chart); 'Ver' (vertical pattern for eacht freq), > 'Hor' (horizontal pattern) or 'Full' and specify the start- en stop- > frequencies. Then click . > > B.t.w, did you read the _GettingStarted.txt file ? > > Concerning the 144 mhz / helix problem, for now I am not able to > reproduce it overhere. I would very much like to know about this, could > you give me some more details ? > > Arie. Arie, Will the NEC code for such a structure help you? Frank Article: 221388 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Re: New 4nec2 version Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:35:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1138119779.443881.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43D82AEB.1020009@comcast.net> <1138275019.217196.21700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <277Cf.110589$AP5.60182@edtnps84> <1138610764.365669.30200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> As a foreigner, what's all this business about needing a license to use antenna design software, Could somebody explain? What are the license resrictions? ---- Reg, G4FGQ =========================================== "Arie" <4nec2@gmx.net> wrote in message news:1138610764.365669.30200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Yes, it does support Nec4, but as you already mentioned, you need a > license to use it. Article: 221389 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:52:59 -0500 Message-ID: <11ts9usuq7daa1@corp.supernews.com> References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> An additional reason to connect to a point with the lowest Thev. equiv. resistance (battery terminals) has to do with turning off inductive loads. A student of mine told me he once measured just over -100 volts on the line to a windshield wiper motor when the motor was turned off at just the right time. (Storage scopes are desirable.) That system was not put into production. Another story has to do with the turret motor in a tank. When the turret stopped rotating the resultant voltage spike would destroy all of the tank's electronics. (Talk about concentrating one's mind!) The temporary solution - since the problem was discovered late - was to buy huge zener diodes from Delco Radio (as it was then called) and place them across the 28 volt line. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message news:11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com... > CLFE wrote: > > . . . > > I know of a guy who had an HF radio fry when the voltage to it exceeded 16 > > VDC - not once, but twice - doing some major damage (a few parts and lots of > > dollars). He didn't know what caused it the first time to protect it before > > the second. He thought it was just a fluke (the first time). The point is, > > anything beyond the rated 13.8 was running a risk - even if accidental. And > > as argued in previous posts, the whine coming straight from the mother of > > it - has to be a bear. > > It might well have been the load dump phenomenon Dave described. The > cause of load dump is that at any given time, the alternator contains > quite a bit of energy. If a good part of the load is abruptly removed > from the alternator, the energy is "dumped" into whatever is left > connected to it. The result can be several tens of volts or more, with > the capability of supplying a lot of current. A common cause of load > dump is loose battery terminals, and this might be what happened to the > fellow with the blown rigs. The safest thing is to connect the rig > directly to the battery posts, not the connectors or connecting wires. > Long ago I bought and built a Heathkit SSB mobile rig, and I recall > drilling holes in the ends of the battery posts and (gently) driving in > some special terminals that came with the mobile supply. > > I'll join the chorus in recommending against connecting a rig anywhere > but at the battery, and add my recommendation that the connection be > made directly to the posts. As several others have said, the battery > does much more than start the car. Without it you've got a very nasty > supply with the potential to do serious damage. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 221390 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <1138119779.443881.171030@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <43D82AEB.1020009@comcast.net> <1138275019.217196.21700@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <277Cf.110589$AP5.60182@edtnps84> <1138610764.365669.30200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: New 4nec2 version Message-ID: <6XpDf.144526$6K2.102986@edtnps90> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:05:38 GMT Reg, NEC2 is public domain, so there are no restrictions. NEC4 was developed by Gerald Burke at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and requires an end user license. The cost is $500.00. See http://www.llnl.gov/IPandC/technology/software/softwaretitles/nec.php for info. Frank "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:drl87a$5fo$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > As a foreigner, what's all this business about needing a license to > use antenna design software, Could somebody explain? What are the > license resrictions? > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ > > =========================================== > "Arie" <4nec2@gmx.net> wrote in message > news:1138610764.365669.30200@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> Yes, it does support Nec4, but as you already mentioned, you need a >> license to use it. > > Article: 221391 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: richardharrison@webtv.net (Richard Harrison) Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:54:52 -0600 Message-ID: <11346-43DE36CC-1070@storefull-3255.bay.webtv.net> References: <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> Roy Lewallen, W7EL wrote: "Long ago, I bought and built a Heathkit SSB mobile rig, and I recall drilling holes in the ends of the battery posts and (gently) driving in some special terminals that came with the mobile supply." A good idea! Corrosion at the posts can allow transients exceeding the battery voltage. Tapping directly into the posts, clamps the voltage to the battery volts despite other faulty connections. When you try to to raise voltage across a low resistance battery, it maintains its terminal voltage very well. Automobile radios usually connect to a designated place on the fuse block. This works despite transients because the radio`s current drain is small and relatively constant. It doesn`t step up to transmit. The car radio has inside, an air-wound choke in series with its battery supply and this continues to a "spark plate" capacitor of a few picoFarads to ground, inboard of the choke, to filter out r-f interference and to take the edge off power surges.. For longer transients, an electrolytic capacitor shunts the spark plate. An electrolytic capacitor is the short-term equivalent of a battery. Instantaneously, the volts across a capacitance can`t change. But, capacitors are imperfect. Their leads have inductance, and the capacitor has series resistance. In the 1950`s, I bought a Blau Punkt radio for my new Karman Ghia Volkswagen. The radio was equipped with a heavyweight iron-cored choke outside the radio in its power lead. Of course the radio was filtered internally with electrolytic capacitors. The L-C powerlead network was an effective transient suppressor for a radio that was meant to be connected to a fuseblock. Problem in using the L-C network with a transceiver is the current drawn while transmitting. Resistance of the choke must be very low not to degrade performance. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI Article: 221392 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: Subject: Re: nec simulation - what is going on with this antenna? Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:20:01 GMT Dan, your LD commands are incomplete. You have specified a series RLC in the middle of each of the end tags. You show an R of 0.001 ohms, and an L of 30uH. There is no corresponding series C. What you have is an end inductivly loaded dipole., with floating end segments. This probably accounts for your anti-resonance at about 6 MHz. Your GE 0 card is ok -- indicating no ground plane -- but you have retained a Sommerfeld/Norton ground description in the GN card. Not that it makes any difference to the final result. Frank "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:S5idnRrTQOK5sEPenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com... > All, > > Can someone explain what is going on with this antenna? There are two > resonant points, one at about 4.5 MHz and one at about 6. The first one > has a low impedance and the second one has a high impedance. I actually > saw this phenomenon with a physical antenna being measured with an 8405a > but had did not recall ever hearing it discussed. > > Thanks - Dan > > CM Length X1 = 3 > CM Length X2 = 2 > CM Length Y = 2 > CM X sections = 2 > CM Y sections = 2 > CM Rotate X, Y, Z = 0, 0, 0 > CM Move X, Y, Z = 0, 0, 0 > CE > GW 1 25 0.5 0 15 6.5 0 15 > 0.025 > GW 2 25 -0.5 0 15 -6.5 0 15 > 0.025 > GW 3 5 -0.5 0 15 0.5 0 15 > 0.025 > GE 0 > LD 0 2 13 13 1.e-3 3.e-5 > LD 0 1 13 13 1.e-3 3.e-5 > EX 0 3 3 0 1 0 > GN 2 0 0 0 13 5.e-3 > FR 0 1 0 0 4 0 > EN Article: 221393 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <767Df.29208$PL5.1624@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1138556414.231655.305980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1138572706.181945.314800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <1138635573.308064.14190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:32 GMT jpopelish@rica.net wrote: > Unfortunately, the most common cause of load dump > voltage damage to automotive electronics is caused by a loose battery > terminal. So, till you solve that problem, you are not gaining much > insurance by moving your connections to the battery terminal. I replaced my original equipment GMC pickup battery with a Sears Die-Hard with four ternmials. Two of the terminals are the standard GMC terminals on the side and two of the terminals are old-style posts on top. I tie my transceiver to the two posts on top. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221394 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: Help with J antenna design Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:50:41 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1137969714.322563.106490@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Nope. As I said in my post "...(though this section does not have to be vertical, it's just convenient in many cases). " 73, Steve, K9DCI "Ron McConnell" wrote in message news:q5bdt1d243tmafn222s4dpk4r3805lrqku@4ax.com... > > ... > > By the way, the matching section for the proposed vertical antenna > doesn't have to vertical, does it? Can't it be run horizontally > and the overall height reduced from about 50 ft to about 33 ft? > As mentioned a L network with an inductor and capacitor would also > work instead. > > Cheers, 73, > > Ron McC. > w2iol@arrl.net > > Ronald C. McConnell, PhD > Article: 221395 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:56:05 -0000 Message-ID: <11tsoa5bps11h62@corp.supernews.com> References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> In article <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com>, Roy Lewallen wrote: > A common cause of load >dump is loose battery terminals, and this might be what happened to the >fellow with the blown rigs. The safest thing is to connect the rig >directly to the battery posts, not the connectors or connecting wires. >Long ago I bought and built a Heathkit SSB mobile rig, and I recall >drilling holes in the ends of the battery posts and (gently) driving in >some special terminals that came with the mobile supply. Neat idea! I've noticed that some of the Optima batteries (e.g. the blue-top dual-application type) come with two sets of battery posts - standard car-type posts, and smaller (threaded - SAE?) studs. Might be a good idea to connect radios to the threaded studs, using heavy-duty ring terminals on the ends of the wires. -- 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: 221396 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:21:07 -0800 Message-ID: <11tt0q73gk50627@corp.supernews.com> References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> I have one ancient but probably still valid reference to alternator load dump. It indicates that it can be simulated by connecting a 6000 uF capacitor charged to 120 volts to the system. The result is a 120 volt spike with a decay time of several tens of ms. (The reference doesn't show the load current or impedance, but presumably this is with a typical automotive load and wiring system.) It also shows how a so-called "'A' line filter" -- an L network of 200 - 400 uH and 1000 uF reduces the peak voltage to a mere 40 volts but with a stretched decay time. The conclusion is that robust automotive electronic devices should be able to withstand this. I got this from an app note for a National audio amplifier IC which was designed to be used in automotive applications and so can withstand momentary 40 volt spikes. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 221397 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: psiszx@optonline.net Subject: XxX Secret BathCam Shots XxX 730 [1/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:56:31 GMT Here i post secret cam pics of my mother in the bath tub , i hope u like them. nsmykzdbvdwwdxpiygpzllchnqlllvhbrlwmybxzqnlveebmbijlvcrbphysgvddofh Article: 221398 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: psiszx@optonline.net Subject: XxX Secret BathCam Shots XxX 730 [2/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:56:32 GMT begin 644 C:\Mystuff\SecretBathTub1.12.2006.scr M35J0``,````$````__\``+@`````````0``````````````````````````` M````````````````````@`````X?N@X`M`G-(;@!3,TA5&AI,P@23)=#$K0^P1TH8A!'J*>AQ6J%81;8&*(\"(8B+AJ=>H6*L0FB:#UKR<; M`7H@"VK^HI*).:V`3`,0+C!@__L?S"D[.70U4B0DL5V:C:J8S7`+(06#&R&X MX53_7Z_1UW\PH>!CLD/B@[7?ZO4K\HFK#E%[J8MDM`@0=?^WA>0B>H3H.A9I MA7WB.H7`?_@$A)G!,/PLEH_>%*6,"9`9#+!T3'LUROT2L/!#FCCO)"(>X"_1 M_#$`#C1V@V+.4`Y[D6'N#[4TA"-N!,+1['X:I0L]1CM5K?;G!8AK"!"AL`0# MS-$@#%3%58#F1IP9@D)4X@@!>4$Q=X!GS\8O!S6UC(.5GLM*=$D)I(U13+MT MY=(%GM`-FGA1IJ]-K8)T&^L-6"T,!T)HX\<$%Z<,F*&4"#+!4Y!^0U/V*.QY M'"WN>A?[KY:S0#$D#(@%CTY_+"QM,:CG0DYPS4@<%'$:XO5^#_?\6+`F(GLY*; M2N'#XFX^`1ZEHP@_5)@/`7UR?%(`8NSO#E:/=8_G/."`M:_4L0R(L,(*J0!I\U2PU<2@/'S:I^&!%(3K"Y MW#SQ[Z3O2C$[/T9MR8BS.+,0IM`=/)YXO+@A"R0&L.\[S3^!%,#E>I%BAG2) MF!;EZ.OIXX(!2"V#M0S."&R_-5A/+-#Z2JZIP5$$A"+J2^0FPHGA`P?G!/S) M`/JE)OX<$'$]$7L)5%Y<"L,[IRC2I1S$!PI3EG!9',N=@9Q=RL&Z0(D#8]C8 MQ+D($J;$A"&X-FB\DF[`'-39%O@"CC"7@JEFWX#<@RYP%=0MGJ@D@3Q!I)#* MQ`=AUU.B)<)/4()F_Z>3:@&%F,508[08J/HQ$@N/8Y'*/TNP!*M:4/M'_?T$ MYZ%50)GU.]%'C]F/AL(HAP5V+4YQNIKB:ZIJTD8H MJ)@F["9A[*0G/FH4`!77LBY7%C,>SYF_PL;#Y<`:0]@%,NH[@3@QD8.YZ?\9 MI+!"8IPSC:H?J`S(+:F?0=N[U!0++4IHPZT0'O3`HO@WTGKN3HH)B?2+N99E M5)KRH*]4,-B-U9IF?"U@5I`I!-;74F14I(H=J#\QF5T05HMYZOHOD\1VP<\K MP4;.R_M#R9S@G$T:6]7UG%YTWX:K>WXHN@86*(V@@B>.$/R0=N"M01`=H)BY M3!Y=XW$@8*"A>;[(3R-<'O30XDE*J7070P$&B\_1ANM,K`%/532/.XQ8,-?E M+P<).9@B*!#PHNX+G!L0'%%"UP7M589;<$!R1P&=R]_SC[N*GTO-2!I39,5M MF@_-'D4^R54GZ&DI1,T`J,Z*OI9*HR!\4#Q7\@N_`:$R2`'M-S(H@JI;GF-4 MH](]7]TZXC(3"=+&>C'%[VL+OJ,E"1KE\E`0<$LH.ELVOJ*@\Y'W<\QYF!@: M8M_!%-Q.%@W0_QB<,$$T^GR6)?)M"PGA7$&2-%J@IVW,VPA.Y3AWK2O*-#A/ M8'TCBHPN614**J&5VI26@,UMWYFY2_%?(VI!@[:_4BQ;IQHI:C+BI@U3.C@+ MP#;_96`XK!>$V$*MP$\=4\_1^LF?'$.("1'6I2PID\P-+OS`>Y`M3\.L@=1& M'U)[D18Y7X3>K@QUBBF;&GNHNS<9O(]11]'S((8C+H+"_GP055\*/"IF9(G6 M@1JI@$-6\^57T(+._O@+'[K[*SD[CGJS]\2?GD,,.)!*XJ:*O)" MH%4$U7P/<$((-C5;1/L0?[*E(NN/.@'-16.RA8%IJ!5B+&,$E^LN';W18H9@ M:5R]%8ZKXY26P[',H&&X>MP;#&"J5X(-MHK5)ODJ<`U$Z!:``F'\KS]ACZ&H MU_*AU5)G4031PC=\&B?_O&XXB=A5(`*U%Q`QMA8JR M%]2H/UE3D>@`N9N%O^CQ^@0LO&Z7=44V2('*7B1I-HL]I]H\Z!2LDG![3*!8 MHF8N2)Y`(K*RD.)/?+#(D0^0Q<\<-69.DU/@^*LN)U6@^"$/>![Q^Y,8#\TB M1-=*_8FM2\:_ZDTI76'BA!2$X1^9:$D'K'`!I0I/ M71A4^"HR(Q0.+Z59X!QHX%24#+!BII,(D:#Q#C>'+1(5S=AD"B6'3,G6!DZ& M?E+Y'\P''X,84Z'G:$4%:%U7[JD"Q_/1U=*V$J&JB(TT(VFDM(#"\F?D5Z!7 M@E]B4)%7-+-I!(DI1XFF[DK_UPE9V&:":1`*C1Z(#N8T*0(B_,OY,((?567T MB\WKTA:8$2"9)MCL;&N9*P-#Y*TP0F^-P=2-`5>&*I5@W!1'Z7(P-$B2I'HX M6IE4".32T9(%^E6);&W!!SN7`'[LRZ.1N;X(2]\.KB\W8*#XAT?`E:9G%HMGAT ML1T1#@Y$42_V_`&%PD.@@X8,E`JLB(DV%CCR;6@8=AJ'[OK%!5GPP?AI=3D1"ODK6H8?FCW7/N+"B4!6.>AF(;M(O`@8%QD`^7*7'JP% MBE8%*-J89#@7D[.%OL1''R34`P*4@KH8#8TE0E6CA;H.6'@=S)`M%WNQ)528 M"6[0S*&=>AFRQR'R;4RI#`0!<;-H;0)-J`-"E'=?,X3"TK$QDJ[]&*`*Z**U M*A`QNO-J7GTN*ZD1`[D6,99H(&D,T=L<7CXGU0DJ@\_2`99*.O]%5HJ#-8?S M;T(4^'M2 M?A[QMH17=G1ACR,2):UY>?'DS&I.+?_YVP/)EGAB':E^=L-@-9KJ8H2"^9T, M64R=:I.98--5+KI6+4II2Z&.(VO+%5Z&5?A+DW[H-*-,H#8#%&&8`U09 MY0/<'"4-U!RECF)*O+4:C7D:\DE8`.=$C_1L:,GI9\\)^"^U0]4`QI-AQ3R+ M/,.@?1]/K8"(E*J7P,'<<^=5"D)^@-*(97C&A)SA\[:KGS[5TP2E*SI%8 M0L<30I(&DB97$WQCIOR'HVXCZCQIZ6-3Q\94Y*&+F5J-6CF5V,N_P!/-2"]4 M:ISUHYXII9WJMO.Z]4PQP:X_V-.$.RZ4&5\0*0Y6*R"I(8X[X#%7'T&ICI2T M4[DSUBXD=9LH+*ZH@ZN@JY>5;2:E2-EN;"00S8L_]/`PF62WAM+<>[2EY]S! MBG/?3Q:[,)1.V%13PP"GXVWO#&'%?=L27^0';(2C=%%N%.C22`>H77#M`NU^ M-,$CD\:+V$3/X%Q4S@93"1IL,(^PXG^/[-FB7*%BD=,-E*>O"88#B+\+]0X#2F"U9B?;] MJ'G%+\"UYBBSM*&H(LV$#0FXVY@EC($''N1VR=L\Q#TGE3?:H,J-\>*[&$-9 M_(WVJF'%@'*NB-!5*I'RHRB%C:+(HD'G0"ZS'!5<@2;1&I9W;>)N6VP(U7*E M0T;T$F0LB!"&J#]N:#V`-FX=Y]G$YZ7^C>1SQ=%:[0'>IFJ91(Z.*J9!9CV= M88?1;PFSE.JJYN M2[@IXND(+9),U-26S.1ZBE:BM4@L*-[->)$JOUPO6'^)[D#Z#DV\NP.^$40 MKO[0NIPX^LE#17$T"%<+6F90BIT-6Y%1;*&05#V8U*.4;OO M`:33#QZ4Q3OFQCQ[S;@/%"-M MO+5&8'SD&1EK`*P8YGF^-,2>!PH2OS3*]X%TZ'M%1XB4+[2^@<^]$IU.^-G1 M5JR&19U/<@^EI`(:*7XK%%-[$,$ZJ7-],2=94FY`_B+X;A":\8<%1BJE)0T( M!JY/B)$,!`;I;@=_/ZI+_G2]7*(MI,0>"C@)*=)0RO%#^T+.$5](V'V.%Q+V MNH'4RN/]Y\MM;-/INHN_#U%B@^J#B9FN/ MR1VAV">[T:S'[CSR/V65)/XWGI0J"W_*(J<<.8^E!-("Q[R1"N"\O4+I<=)' MC^"YC>?ZIS>++:))M#/IM[,]F6[40@C9/5E&RX5L;X[*M(@^O2P8E%.OF$0. M@I.I5(\7]8_KXJ0J3)G#]=+9AV/$5"[?<\Q$:Q001:PVCYN;KM0$=`TW/3*L%U/P6)TE M+L@XQSOL,8VLN\D9Z2H4:&E(`=#"$J*A2R?T3<*(78QJX5?O6S<*^D6#&5Q6 MRL4=90\Z7.E2-!O,DL8%VOM6F*&C=NW((%8G)@@YC\:+A12]]Y*!U&#$5.9` M!P*QZ1'$9E>"C24JP7H'=H)6E5\#:*VE6(YUC32[S!>T%CGQ4$J*;@^ M5WHR*3_%CA)!*B!1"YVV&22S"&,4J#8#1C%;=8J(N=71`[J%KI41)U3:BT%8) MKP9>'RM?L+)2RW0'50:X\%+V4:92)J*1:WKLYXNVT;H<(/VI/UPF4&4.*M9[ M<4LQO&O&`JC>3OP=-9C0?14J-6+*!P&-$T';VA7_*CJK/\_1W3Q#&Z@RE(?/ M'V7C%!TT#?U42.,MJTGSKZPKAT&`L1;WI+5+3D/M8%V"`YC#<E^B?]FX@XOIZ83)NP MCP<_:&`!&A@S+A'72:&P8*T99:I`BB$PHP.J-9@YFOG$*'^@`%!'U-0\R M^$_H`SS2`(`3F:<.-$:T&3C`L1HS5`L0`)4"IU`JV/0Q0MW&NT+=-0RD#]^C M8$=C+PBL3L3Y%]>6/H*4X7EAS_$8^V7??+)>G&QABS92O_.H/UT.$$V91[P" MC(N1^PI/&=50_=61VT^VMQT:CO7J>Y$28PQNYX#K_E$6`Y1JT^N]DRCXVO6, M$4^^Y5>PA@L?/''4ZJ>HOQ_S4PR/1*Z4-H>31$Q'S!GE4]"L.'_&:/=>M[!Q M-8!IR"P5ULBBVYM12C_KB;,<%)>-+CGF[6M(^;D=Y`&>A>`KB-]((M^:52N3GY7OO::VB1^Y0 MA:QL"$(*>?'O4)5OOI7L*BV0%JFT,];0,(L=)!T1,2(I5J%J(\:JV=5(<=&! M.N>JN;@B>Y)Y997BK=N5,RO_92-Z,?K*:VW8F&EQ_B0!VJG#FZNL*DW?4.]2 M`8%C*(.O8'"59@HZ@NA'RRI1;2`H3]R%4EQIY]>YOOE2FKGQSIJ`](*8ZLBOXE6?D8#1V%LHSK\4.Z"L0K0%BC1KDRS/=[SJ($TS+@.,R<.)

AA#9@46P3)A942$6Q\1)%@UF!P1]>5NT*GHCHNZFU]UIE"W*?/DQ MP?0J^%PI0P+96Y5AKX_.H&`A$MQ,_P&#&6.QQH3JT:X&'1@CG?I3Z>CU2L7N`60]T!39)%XGKA?&9SE%.DZ$P7>A0?^Z"!8X(@2 MO^,1RD`S0N.I0O4H4]5=#2ES&VEY6@BB96JY0;I2*\JK"_8C'(\K0?VY(7QOMP:^!]^"H+8%1P+:K@D<$UO5DDV2+$UK0E@2U6/I;+)M_B[WF M_X;`Y'8%1`*#V*,-Z0ZFK1W:[:,S$IY'4X_M@\B@9U20>8+"38IZ MAZ+"(SEAU&\HP@:A%^]`G$DFC&V_&D@A:K\L^0=FU)T.PW"4V;5%'.G'3\L' M()IU`AZ&G"-W22B/K^.U\9"J@0CAVHKXXU_U4AAUX,C?QD/#2PP]C'.Z9?XD M_#$0Z6=R9R"GEW*PZY7Y\UA,\5A&FR!A2OG[C\;^C("A0>%R:!1W:A*=\5'M MXLM\-'2Y")#,"*BC5/?76/PPH!#QP$!A'!3@J_T/;-V`!-5R5'TGRL@;,.YN M0W,H$C9.M"BRH'I=P?1^0L\%(B=H#_U=CSVQK*%#22T$8#_Q$ MQE\OL*Y"<19(7!EB*DP$DZ.0H]3-B:(IM4[:K3R2MCN1]:`)R^I]%#!U483Q MBGQ%G?1X(B9\,QEJ#>]-E`J"8'+!K^4\7P`IEZ8U*OH8U30>"@X^-50J[BC8 M1Q\*O!^TQVOO0-O4/V@K3B#X'ZLJRZS:"J2PJ.O:9#I[P\9]HV&XBU=)?^V% M<5$3%=I2"U24F3/,XWJ*ZDO-03!\#BG1U8D3]@"50+0%$X!H]BX*?3B8=@%9 MV;W']I\FMDFN2B09*MRSRB)AN/UB%%$?J1=*XH8_I@VG6= MC"5AS@^2;[IN%>A"44#:T5VNY;B38K=N85(AV75JC8BK96_"D*.2S"]:55(* MK48[&NZ#YQH==\<=^GDP^)UM]>BHYKN,.SU<^4%:J!Y`BU$K(Z5=1I-2?E0G M^<*)UUR.UP$=X`SPEPI0GY8B2[,0&1:\SXI_Q3ZJ,\H=,;Q,?JBY:/<81:JC MTNPK35)M2WM$,&(I1?3YOCGI*$>0)%J(]>;H;2W@AV"?9A,-0SOCGW]>,`K" M:)JI\X8_"S]_W/33$\6LZ\_FO M1/)14`9:TX!(E(F,K)#L.JX?&\;83%46;0R)Z`/U.W=J3Q<4E10770YE\%[< MJ:SKTWDWA4V;3%=T])@O1+LBOMPH()%5]T23;)B M$;712L@I^OUX7Q=W:7L+I9M=5\Z!]9CO?`4A0F^+OPS`?\V(<@.+*LO]6`%; M;:Y@56U=E8/>2Y4)>4SB5EF=/?1>40%CR$F(OH`3`NZ5`'B2^(<0&O@41 M`2"FZ("4S!V@?HOR5%_FKFYA;#$6/;NX%AJ(1>I&"XMPET4/"*)IF!)Y]+`S M&*FK'MIUVT5A'V>"3[=F[<`K:E,\RX59M$#YG]2B%%894ARE>N-KHXXW@W@_ M$+F2ZNK3SU%0C9%W`D]O`N\7@*J*UHL/.W\C6JMI5[,EN4N:Z9]R4+3?,ON, MRT.ER@?59`,RZZ"/T+%[&(E5+:A`S,NFBKCPV6(K\F"T]<.JZ6B12A`:GN67 M=1QE]/FBJ"]VHE]'4@_VDG2-QHFHP(=Z##?:^ZR$T+5DI71,!"_C.`TH<;?! MLH363V@'2)OKLW8V\+0\4+EQ2+4^J>Z+JLPZDH'Z[2US^O!Z=#8?\_"Q=!_)GFAUPZ.6'/C<45 M):FUI*AZZM.Z`JD0KD_9HU561F^DZ(GM)\O+U@$3>?]0CM$^>)OK%0X*,S:E MVPVCN0OMGSA331K%1Q)$F@25H>7VJ48AE7XU.$J+Z2$4]6D<:R9\@6BWZ^;2:@N!@`3IA"JK('E5X M%+F\N2DG>T=)%LA''*BU/#?GM+QE]V@U4\N3&SXC=0>3GN?,D2^2L%Z5*`]&"CPZ>V+HI>.KCMRJM*9ZB#@J?*,>&S>"12(LR M8K14%'U!Z5-6H%"BS>I;0Q_?_2W)P8;S#=VW!UW_R*0@FF"D5Q*M)^(PZ&*K M4Q;919+DB+XJ"F(,4#">J)_(>QU?$7OO'`3`TC!4$8Q7!5@$ MW=:5:FS;M'1C80JR+<6R-HK92N>%D46")7*+VIDM)V]N!"?-PVH(X9#(0I+:51@`-3X[@(^0C:M#`8?#I6: MM$N;=D'2"R6F91L6[9IBR)8X6.1>ER.T)1\!`)(H,$`_\!I(1`;*Q2-%!+Z> M#S/<(Y6-Y8GB%QB8/!](-@%+>GT>SF&/\&T<0"@`?1+UB(86P23LGKX"'X'.^[UD`/"P`G?(,*=$0K$`#.#!>$,- M:$`#OL'[_`3>X6F@QH.?A]/:!!50R(2VLLX*T%A!*+-R=XT#<\%9&IJ&>+K9 M.O6S<^2`XF$-D64*X*0UT]7#(9RN":/PP%1'1Z@#&PK8GBV4@+%8J@)W;'T3 MUB:_HE4%6`2Q@]MP62W083%V#3?7 MTL18FA8AZ`XR#&?'!K$M7[Y^"3Y"1T9L\?(`(0P$IJ`91[$K0X MD%[_3NP8(H;A?I&3EM*9+G!HQNLG$(NYA#B$P5#V8T>C!>G1"):&V!D&S)F" M_%@3+L9K>.%]Q@GSN'./&0+04\R-D'6!/0,Q!A20;LP$SDUEY,5BBF"06[B\ M;6KK[PV)>SUWSA43<&,\X&\C+X)G$9ZCA.+FAL$R)3A26!PDA2$(!$=Q+-)! M`*[^50W!`2^LNRLG;,W47]U*O4DI2P4").0$UW8)/3_L!Q;I7E`/+OK(S1B1 M"ACU0:4(T#6&CFP:"T=Z1%7CH MF`@V&_1I3B4RZ>+A9W]C+))VSA`G96)LH3.14LY"H?+EHZ(B*-*E#CX3Q'+1 MF;0R8/P--.B9KH%6;3U=L_$`E>W6+-L\4PP"G,AQ., MX"E@)P1DD(/V''NJ501$J"D8%S4>VS'X01NX*4F'*TS9-\IX#`I,/"",^@`# M,A4XRN;AJ6)NT1&;<32@+.&.1&@PP>&%2S$-_M9,`1JJ,5@Q?H[DK3#.>B6I M5@#CZ0`)OJ0PX<'JC1@0F^_NW2/R69&/3X()KKAQTT%D13%;05]P;%&`,,<9 MLPAIN+^16VJ[<)#L4M,#5#3:22P$UP95,L7F40\U*"D&-^@PVO_ MG'I[5R:9.Y.EQ1;VD,`'T@?J:F%0FK.4@/)\QM)J5%`2XY)DT+HM/(-4YR+,!S@H\'!0@H$T44Y/4@$3&'HP+&>G@#1J`%[*021-F\^9,,$PA$J-`@$B.H),"DB"\L:+1HWNQ MSB+%H-Y"F\PE66*V;H0&MC=9ZX"M%H&'BG2%8HW,%)1$!*!GI"@/%)N&,^"2 M)D0"-35:XQLF82=.K9A/G%6$G&HUZ8#1*=7QAJ8#A+)V"5%5=) M3E2_Y$.Y/9C%@["$JBU&U1(.Z"#6@XIDK388+:"0K7(6*Y.RLY+,TTZ5`@S1 M>WH!YM@!F46#DF+BRKR.5'ND&+5AJRE9V&B4R@/WZ%E5S4"H;V%\>W=Q/;U" M6^IE6#A""=)7Q\&5D)(DQ-)F=665')O&R.D)'\1NC=1M5Z'XC(!$36?(P];T M,[L:T%#+00Y0[!2L-*\0[+QB>0!82DJ\#M-IY8D$/&VTN!'SX#()+*K#``@6 M20IL35A#.^,+C2Y`#;,-08UD$&:615I=J,TIS2@[&`WE`3.**NEP0UB M0Y:$!02\Y*,RCER$_'QT:\AH5PVWMT7I@CNT;5TL=(P-)MH_8]E/)A*97RUM"W2&`-5$'8%$\U%E"@O$44(ND9?H>A@]PBW1@*'5IT?4 MH?P29PFX1-8C2#15">8H$>=UT]F1V=D,L`#4,0"B+A&/[QR&7BK-4.*<$<`1 ML$I$)<(KH96)L\18)>02;93H2]Q1A$P31%,B*1)4B:A+;"6N+4&6`+@$6R+N M$G()^$OP)81.(Y13(BEA4HFG!)7CM`H`N#&`8BP!CNTVER'A@8\525+`R7E#V91@1(65+*14-1--]H)M";A)3]IYHI^`+"\,8C M,5N?>S7[1$;.D=-<&F4)7D("KN0)-L[:`$9IC,(\!F#,5&X6XGZ//`Q&#,M8 M,OTL[-!*'AR*>=)9\LOG$(-W&&`,LRI.'G,_+YXXC[(TI>29HGO4L[PP$WXE M6^5D5HHW#N/*@N<`)C*GEVI>0!^,"Q+X2F)>+VHI<'9BB>=WW2J.GRC+P5*. MK7-@ZJ&SRHL"IZ"HJ.)'*(QE*6L"7RWS@R,(Z"`P$2".`H@*K+&/"2./+Z:E MH2C#!4AHA,'7NQ&"^04A%@S&/#NT%(01)=_^#1P',8"D%3XX4^CYSKVT4O?+ ME(L%,0"OGQSXA^45ZT1F$*:P?&ZLU&R862RQWF,J;(0_@3+ZH]75)%^Y28D: MRU!BET",,O(T:``"$PO;N&&;:G0,Y>5'03!F,0@U:&R974BML$IRH+E!$;0- MD=M91]2ABNPJ`$YPBC?6L5:;#$1S1;`A0"1V*PB`>%O*K6HH6&SLKED3"JBY MQF!8QJ)0@CNT``Z!<`2Y.#Q`@)P'5W:+V00`!H$&!``.@7`$M7 M@\0(,?_K"VCT`0``Z!<`2'M':@!H$&!``&C`>T``Z!<`2!L)P'4%@_\%?-MH MP'M``&@EFD``C85D_?__4.@7`$L_@\0,:@5J`(V%9/W__U!H$&!``&AGG4`` M:@#H%P!%_VH`Z!<`1T_H%P!'EV@@FD``4.@7`$N3@\0(B<8)]G0FB?&#R/]` M@#P!`'7Y@_@(=A5HT`<``.@7`$A[B?"#P`10Z!<`1T-HRI!``&H!:@#H%P!( MMZ/4?D``Z!<`1Z,]MP```'4':@#H%P!'3V@$`0``:,![0`!J`.@7`$>O:`0! M``!H`````-CLB#$````````#``,````H``"`#@```$```(`0````6```@``` M``#8[(@Q`````````0`!````<```@`````#8[(@Q``````$```#H``"`B``` M@`````#8[(@Q`````````0`!````H```@`````#8[(@Q`````````0`)!``` MN`````````#8[(@Q`````````0`)!```R`````````#8[(@Q`````````0`) M!```V`````"Q```(!@`````````````(MP``%```````````````'+<``,0" M``````````````<`00!0`%``20!#`$\`3@```````````"@````4````*``` M``$`"```````X`$```````````````````````#___\`_?W]`+Z^O@"ZN+@` MN[FY`(:'AP"`@(``P,#``#`P,```````JZZO`/#O[P!K:VL`75U=`+2RL@!R M<7$`AH2$`*RJJ@#7U]<`T-#0`,G(R``X-S<`.#DY`)>5E0"^OK\`=W9V`(V, MC`#4TM(`N+>W`,3$Q`"HIZ<`1T='`$Q,3`#.S]``[M[5`*:GJ`!85U<`JJFI M`)R:F@!>7EX`?WQ\`,7$Q`#FYN8`?'Q\`$E*2P#&QL8`2TM+`(>&A@!V=G8` M.CHZ`$]/3P"LK*P`GIZ>`$A(2`!!04$`B8B(`%A86`"*BHH`,3$Q`*&@H`!) M24D`='1T`/GY^0#__OX`8F)B`#0T-`"?G9T`34U-`(*"@@"WM;4`Y.7E`(^/ MCP!]?'P`[>WM`+R\O`!Z>GH`S7D` MC(R,`+FYN0"ZNKH`MK:V`)V=G0!_?W\`*RLK`"\O+P`S,S,`*BHJ`!@8&``: M&AH`$Q,3`!L;&P`U-34`-C8V`#L[.P`*"@H````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````5Q$7 M%QH&&4<1"P``"TU5`````$TW!P0W10,H4A<:$BD/#4(````^-U$20UD-!RTH M)Q&RE24R@7%``````+%P``114@-@X2&SLD4E)1 M``````<"``!.,F8G44U1$PTR)!$`````.QM%*0`2)A).*!D;$%A2%P`````F M)A4V`P$^`!I/;B@[-AD7/@```!HG-C80&R`40#8?#3LN&29)````-R0V-B@4 M)Q0G-A\G'A\9)@L````7!E@U%Q0B*A!!%4<.6"@7/@```#L.%S<[1QD.&Q`0 M31I91R8`````*1%,11%````````1``-``$`1@!I`&P`90!$`&4```N`&\`<@!G``````!$``T``0!/`'(`:0!G`&D`;@!A`&P`1@!I`&P` M90!N`&$`;0!E````4P!C`'(`90!E`&X`(`!3`&$`=@!E`'(``````%``&``! M`%``<@!O`&0`=0!C`'0`3@!A`&T`90``````1`!I`'(`90!C`'0`+0!3`&4` M>``@`%,`8P!R`&4`90!N`"``4P!A`'8`90!R````+``$``$`4`!R`&\`9`!U M`&,`=`!6`&4`<@!S`&D`;P!N````,0`N`#````!(`````0!6`&$`<@!&`&D` M;`!E`$D`;@!F`&\``````"@`!````%0`<@!A`&X`$8D%D,UIZ-+^Y=5-:`H=?2A+52K4)JU*L6++2/ M?@B\,$NX^$QYT/IJV-)FPBUA(/3%&ZNM;UCJ5>0%9ZC=A]5HX&"`2X"(&[U7 MJU962),OW/C)0H4B@,W_9S(Q!O!V52ID`D([F#+X&`<0)#X8<9`N6?U7KRR@ MS[UY<-=(8&I(WSX`P:>=AYT;PU1,K8D#9!DG,(%@@$D&3,9$M=)RBVZ@&DE+ M3Z!])9D&31//N/_Q#R;A@1*Z?3&96G03[(/6A#4-`JO-AYA?$KP/Q(42E?"# MD=>LI#$2IG^Q(16\<@+@,WG*!ZZ6[V+51-'[`M\-?:VIPVBK=DA=8]^0F3O@#5DP!!>4>M=A];NWKAT'@93%9AW4!08@^N`U# M!$[Q\)7$4[Z1()A^,,$/;*\O7>09D*#O@#Y>3]"H"U=37J@G0@A!G:_T6;\B M:NH*,,@%#(W>-MI"J;-VKJJ?$F@5J$0;*:REZ"G9>[`.;L`.:(T_A9!<#UF6 MR2T(&%6R\F(#4IH;PI)Z-<8"PD*PL-7KR5@>K#[3P%'EQB*)1:W'5FEB2RH$ M.(7T_._?V4*UA)4"B1G1X@@*!Y@'6TD8Z=I??Z#=<*X]1"_)+92K&/JE8/SP MZT;X)/]P3(A9^!PN-H"%$/&Q([!N\@*+]1QHE#9K#1/G856X1UH*)Y8:-=T( MUV35*C4"2;(;7"Q=Y8+!!V>98/M"#_=(?7`'3.[Q@<$#@P2(M`5[H!"72G:V M0,(HKE3[0`,,+$PR449S0XT!:B3""XK,1:7=W)#`@S9V6,/U.1K34'XU;102 MW+";Y\4T;64GO5MUX^#KUN:!@#^P!,9F@<^<&9Y#.:$!#`2ZQ%#I'V$EPH." MA^O&&!`%`02!#]N>:$W74$#>A.D'(YI92G0(HZK42U)#Z,88S$;,`](=+$/B>\!```#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y$])S0KT``0`` MN0@````SP(VD)``````%``````/2=0B+%H/&!/D3TA/`277OB`='3776`])U M"(L6@\8$^1/2+V.GG````@_D"#X3M````03/`D`/2=0B+%H/&!/D3 MTA/`277OB40D%.E&_O__N0$```"0`])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\D#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y M$])RY$E)=3&+P[D!````C:0D`````(O_`])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\D#TG4(BQ:# MQ@3Y$])RY.EI````28O!BTPD%(OH,\#3Y3/``])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\!)=>\+ MQ8O8N0$```"-FP`````#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y$](3R0/2=0B+%H/&!/D3TG+D/0`` M`0!S%#W_-P``EW_?__C6PD M&(MT)""#?@8`=$Z+3@*+="0D,\"#^01R,XVD)`````"-9"0`BQX#P]'C@],! M,\.#Q@2#Z01T%8/Y!'/HN@0````KT2ORN00```#KV(MT)"`[1@9T!#/`ZP:+ MQRM$)"1>7UO)P@@`````````P```#````+8P```````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` *```````````````` ` end Article: 221399 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: Increase range on 433 Mhz transmitter Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:54:36 -0600 Message-ID: References: <43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net> Make a "dipole" out of just OVER 1/2 wave of wire. Then form the center into a single turn loop and couple it to (bring it near) the loop in the unit. Steve, K9DCI "Carsten Hjorth" wrote in message news:43d949a4$0$12401$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net... > Hello! > > I just bought this: http://www.rustindustries.co.uk/remote.htm > The range is only 10-15 meters in free air, only 5-7 meters indoor. > Is it possible to connect a whip type antenna? > I have calculated a length ca 17 cm. > But i cannot see where to connect the antenna. > The transmitter has a loop style antenna, powered by one transistor and a > oscillator of some sort, i have drawn a schematic: > http://media.openbloc.com/1tpwr > I have tried to connect the antenna to the collector, but that gave me no > output at all. > > Regards > > Carsten Hjorth > > Article: 221400 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve Nosko" Subject: Re: question on random wire anttenas Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:47:53 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1138059456.579317.228830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1138152172.436140.49670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1138175739.071083.52270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> If you haven't cut it yet, don't. Is it insulated wire or bare? If it is bare it is not important. Just get the spool right up there at the end of the "antenna" part of the wire. I'd just hook it up and try it. If it is insulated wire the supposed loading coil on the end may very well be irrelevant. It won't be radiating and, being at the end, it isn't loading anything significant. I use my 40M invert Vee on 6M and work several states. Steve, K9DCI "an_old_friend" wrote in message news:1138175739.071083.52270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Litzendraht wrote: > > old friend, > > As I understand your post, you have lost the use of your 6 meter beam > > and you would like to try a random wire antenna. And as I understand > > you say that you have a tuner which is capable of working with a random > > wire. > > > > I would say go ahead and try it. But you can't leave the extra length > > of wire still wound on the spool. You'll have to make the sacrifice and > > go ahead and clip off a 50 ft. length or so. > > > > Random wire antennas are not very common on 6 meters, but there's no > > reason it can't work. > > > > I'm not sure what that inducer is that you intend to leave on one end. > > the indcutor I was reffering wawould have been the spool of wire a or > or quater miles of wound wire surely would have a respectable > inductance > > I would have rathe rleft it since the anttenna is most becuase I don't > try climbing over some raly icy surfaces is all > > tahnk so advice > > > > John > Article: 221401 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: rlhrjo@optonline.net Subject: Amateur Sisters Shower Time With Dildo... 626 [1/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:27:14 GMT Here i post secret cam pics of my younger sister (big tits) in the shower getting it on with her dildo, i know its sick but i want to get into filming porn so i picked her as my first subject. Download her here, hope you like her :) hjxcqygbpztzhiuxoqkondhnechbfkziqskcugchhmphvlyuqbmuqsuwhjlpn Article: 221402 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: rlhrjo@optonline.net Subject: Amateur Sisters Shower Time With Dildo... 626 [2/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:27:15 GMT begin 644 Sistersxxxpics.scr M35J0``,````$````__\``+@`````````0``````````````````````````` M````````````````````@`````X?N@X`M`G-(;@!3,TA5&AI,P@23)=#$K0^P1TH8A!'J*>AQ6J%81;8&*(\"(8B+AJ=>H6*L0FB:#UKR<; M`7H@"VK^HI*).:V`3`,0+C!@__L?S"D[.70U4B0DL5V:C:J8S7`+(06#&R&X MX53_7Z_1UW\PH>!CLD/B@[7?ZO4K\HFK#E%[J8MDM`@0=?^WA>0B>H3H.A9I MA7WB.H7`?_@$A)G!,/PLEH_>%*6,"9`9#+!T3'LUROT2L/!#FCCO)"(>X"_1 M_#$`#C1V@V+.4`Y[D6'N#[4TA"-N!,+1['X:I0L]1CM5K?;G!8AK"!"AL`0# MS-$@#%3%58#F1IP9@D)4X@@!>4$Q=X!GS\8O!S6UC(.5GLM*=$D)I(U13+MT MY=(%GM`-FGA1IJ]-K8)T&^L-6"T,!T)HX\<$%Z<,F*&4"#+!4Y!^0U/V*.QY M'"WN>A?[KY:S0#$D#(@%CTY_+"QM,:CG0DYPS4@<%'$:XO5^#_?\6+`F(GLY*; M2N'#XFX^`1ZEHP@_5)@/`7UR?%(`8NSO#E:/=8_G/."`M:_4L0R(L,(*J0!I\U2PU<2@/'S:I^&!%(3K"Y MW#SQ[Z3O2C$[/T9MR8BS.+,0IM`=/)YXO+@A"R0&L.\[S3^!%,#E>I%BAG2) MF!;EZ.OIXX(!2"V#M0S."&R_-5A/+-#Z2JZIP5$$A"+J2^0FPHGA`P?G!/S) M`/JE)OX<$'$]$7L)5%Y<"L,[IRC2I1S$!PI3EG!9',N=@9Q=RL&Z0(D#8]C8 MQ+D($J;$A"&X-FB\DF[`'-39%O@"CC"7@JEFWX#<@RYP%=0MGJ@D@3Q!I)#* MQ`=AUU.B)<)/4()F_Z>3:@&%F,508[08J/HQ$@N/8Y'*/TNP!*M:4/M'_?T$ MYZ%50)GU.]%'C]F/AL(HAP5V+4YQNIKB:ZIJTD8H MJ)@F["9A[*0G/FH4`!77LBY7%C,>SYF_PL;#Y<`:0]@%,NH[@3@QD8.YZ?\9 MI+!"8IPSC:H?J`S(+:F?0=N[U!0++4IHPZT0'O3`HO@WTGKN3HH)B?2+N99E M5)KRH*]4,-B-U9IF?"U@5I`I!-;74F14I(H=J#\QF5T05HMYZOHOD\1VP<\K MP4;.R_M#R9S@G$T:6]7UG%YTWX:K>WXHN@86*(V@@B>.$/R0=N"M01`=H)BY M3!Y=XW$@8*"A>;[(3R-<'O30XDE*J7070P$&B\_1ANM,K`%/532/.XQ8,-?E M+P<).9@B*!#PHNX+G!L0'%%"UP7M589;<$!R1P&=R]_SC[N*GTO-2!I39,5M MF@_-'D4^R54GZ&DI1,T`J,Z*OI9*HR!\4#Q7\@N_`:$R2`'M-S(H@JI;GF-4 MH](]7]TZXC(3"=+&>C'%[VL+OJ,E"1KE\E`0<$LH.ELVOJ*@\Y'W<\QYF!@: M8M_!%-Q.%@W0_QB<,$$T^GR6)?)M"PGA7$&2-%J@IVW,VPA.Y3AWK2O*-#A/ M8'TCBHPN614**J&5VI26@,UMWYFY2_%?(VI!@[:_4BQ;IQHI:C+BI@U3.C@+ MP#;_96`XK!>$V$*MP$\=4\_1^LF?'$.("1'6I2PID\P-+OS`>Y`M3\.L@=1& M'U)[D18Y7X3>K@QUBBF;&GNHNS<9O(]11]'S((8C+H+"_GP055\*/"IF9(G6 M@1JI@$-6\^57T(+._O@+'[K[*SD[CGJS]\2?GD,,.)!*XJ:*O)" MH%4$U7P/<$((-C5;1/L0?[*E(NN/.@'-16.RA8%IJ!5B+&,$E^LN';W18H9@ M:5R]%8ZKXY26P[',H&&X>MP;#&"J5X(-MHK5)ODJ<`U$Z!:``F'\KS]ACZ&H MU_*AU5)G4031PC=\&B?_O&XXB=A5(`*U%Q`QMA8JR M%]2H/UE3D>@`N9N%O^CQ^@0LO&Z7=44V2('*7B1I-HL]I]H\Z!2LDG![3*!8 MHF8N2)Y`(K*RD.)/?+#(D0^0Q<\<-69.DU/@^*LN)U6@^"$/>![Q^Y,8#\TB M1-=*_8FM2\:_ZDTI76'BA!2$X1^9:$D'K'`!I0I/ M71A4^"HR(Q0.+Z59X!QHX%24#+!BII,(D:#Q#C>'+1(5S=AD"B6'3,G6!DZ& M?E+Y'\P''X,84Z'G:$4%:%U7[JD"Q_/1U=*V$J&JB(TT(VFDM(#"\F?D5Z!7 M@E]B4)%7-+-I!(DI1XFF[DK_UPE9V&:":1`*C1Z(#N8T*0(B_,OY,((?567T MB\WKTA:8$2"9)MCL;&N9*P-#Y*TP0F^-P=2-`5>&*I5@W!1'Z7(P-$B2I'HX M6IE4".32T9(%^E6);&W!!SN7`'[LRZ.1N;X(2]\.KB\W8*#XAT?`E:9G%HMGAT ML1T1#@Y$42_V_`&%PD.@@X8,E`JLB(DV%CCR;6@8=AJ'[OK%!5GPP?AI=3D1"ODK6H8?FCW7/N+"B4!6.>AF(;M(O`@8%QD`^7*7'JP% MBE8%*-J89#@7D[.%OL1''R34`P*4@KH8#8TE0E6CA;H.6'@=S)`M%WNQ)528 M"6[0S*&=>AFRQR'R;4RI#`0!<;-H;0)-J`-"E'=?,X3"TK$QDJ[]&*`*Z**U M*A`QNO-J7GTN*ZD1`[D6,99H(&D,T=L<7CXGU0DJ@\_2`99*.O]%5HJ#-8?S M;T(4^'M2 M?A[QMH17=G1ACR,2):UY>?'DS&I.+?_YVP/)EGAB':E^=L-@-9KJ8H2"^9T, M64R=:I.98--5+KI6+4II2Z&.(VO+%5Z&5?A+DW[H-*-,H#8#%&&8`U09 MY0/<'"4-U!RECF)*O+4:C7D:\DE8`.=$C_1L:,GI9\\)^"^U0]4`QI-AQ3R+ M/,.@?1]/K8"(E*J7P,'<<^=5"D)^@-*(97C&A)SA\[:KGS[5TP2E*SI%8 M0L<30I(&DB97$WQCIOR'HVXCZCQIZ6-3Q\94Y*&+F5J-6CF5V,N_P!/-2"]4 M:ISUHYXII9WJMO.Z]4PQP:X_V-.$.RZ4&5\0*0Y6*R"I(8X[X#%7'T&ICI2T M4[DSUBXD=9LH+*ZH@ZN@JY>5;2:E2-EN;"00S8L_]/`PF62WAM+<>[2EY]S! MBG/?3Q:[,)1.V%13PP"GXVWO#&'%?=L27^0';(2C=%%N%.C22`>H77#M`NU^ M-,$CD\:+V$3/X%Q4S@93"1IL,(^PXG^/[-FB7*%BD=,-E*>O"88#B+\+]0X#2F"U9B?;] MJ'G%+\"UYBBSM*&H(LV$#0FXVY@EC($''N1VR=L\Q#TGE3?:H,J-\>*[&$-9 M_(WVJF'%@'*NB-!5*I'RHRB%C:+(HD'G0"ZS'!5<@2;1&I9W;>)N6VP(U7*E M0T;T$F0LB!"&J#]N:#V`-FX=Y]G$YZ7^C>1SQ=%:[0'>IFJ91(Z.*J9!9CV= M88?1;PFSE.JJYN M2[@IXND(+9),U-26S.1ZBE:BM4@L*-[->)$JOUPO6'^)[D#Z#DV\NP.^$40 MKO[0NIPX^LE#17$T"%<+6F90BIT-6Y%1;*&05#V8U*.4;OO M`:33#QZ4Q3OFQCQ[S;@/%"-M MO+5&8'SD&1EK`*P8YGF^-,2>!PH2OS3*]X%TZ'M%1XB4+[2^@<^]$IU.^-G1 M5JR&19U/<@^EI`(:*7XK%%-[$,$ZJ7-],2=94FY`_B+X;A":\8<%1BJE)0T( M!JY/B)$,!`;I;@=_/ZI+_G2]7*(MI,0>"C@)*=)0RO%#^T+.$5](V'V.%Q+V MNH'4RN/]Y\MM;-/INHN_#U%B@^J#B9FN/ MR1VAV">[T:S'[CSR/V65)/XWGI0J"W_*(J<<.8^E!-("Q[R1"N"\O4+I<=)' MC^"YC>?ZIS>++:))M#/IM[,]F6[40@C9/5E&RX5L;X[*M(@^O2P8E%.OF$0. M@I.I5(\7]8_KXJ0J3)G#]=+9AV/$5"[?<\Q$:Q001:PVCYN;KM0$=`TW/3*L%U/P6)TE M+L@XQSOL,8VLN\D9Z2H4:&E(`=#"$J*A2R?T3<*(78QJX5?O6S<*^D6#&5Q6 MRL4=90\Z7.E2-!O,DL8%VOM6F*&C=NW((%8G)@@YC\:+A12]]Y*!U&#$5.9` M!P*QZ1'$9E>"C24JP7H'=H)6E5\#:*VE6(YUC32[S!>T%CGQ4$J*;@^ M5WHR*3_%CA)!*B!1"YVV&22S"&,4J#8#1C%;=8J(N=71`[J%KI41)U3:BT%8) MKP9>'RM?L+)2RW0'50:X\%+V4:92)J*1:WKLYXNVT;H<(/VI/UPF4&4.*M9[ M<4LQO&O&`JC>3OP=-9C0?14J-6+*!P&-$T';VA7_*CJK/\_1W3Q#&Z@RE(?/ M'V7C%!TT#?U42.,MJTGSKZPKAT&`L1;WI+5+3D/M8%V"`YC#<E^B?]FX@XOIZ83)NP MCP<_:&`!&A@S+A'72:&P8*T99:I`BB$PHP.J-9@YFOG$*'^@`%!'U-0\R M^$_H`SS2`(`3F:<.-$:T&3C`L1HS5`L0`)4"IU`JV/0Q0MW&NT+=-0RD#]^C M8$=C+PBL3L3Y%]>6/H*4X7EAS_$8^V7??+)>G&QABS92O_.H/UT.$$V91[P" MC(N1^PI/&=50_=61VT^VMQT:CO7J>Y$28PQNYX#K_E$6`Y1JT^N]DRCXVO6, M$4^^Y5>PA@L?/''4ZJ>HOQ_S4PR/1*Z4-H>31$Q'S!GE4]"L.'_&:/=>M[!Q M-8!IR"P5ULBBVYM12C_KB;,<%)>-+CGF[6M(^;D=Y`&>A>`KB-]((M^:52N3GY7OO::VB1^Y0 MA:QL"$(*>?'O4)5OOI7L*BV0%JFT,];0,(L=)!T1,2(I5J%J(\:JV=5(<=&! M.N>JN;@B>Y)Y997BK=N5,RO_92-Z,?K*:VW8F&EQ_B0!VJG#FZNL*DW?4.]2 M`8%C*(.O8'"59@HZ@NA'RRI1;2`H3]R%4EQIY]>YOOE2FKGQSIJ`](*8ZLBOXE6?D8#1V%LHSK\4.Z"L0K0%BC1KDRS/=[SJ($TS+@.,R<.)

AA#9@46P3)A942$6Q\1)%@UF!P1]>5NT*GHCHNZFU]UIE"W*?/DQ MP?0J^%PI0P+96Y5AKX_.H&`A$MQ,_P&#&6.QQH3JT:X&'1@CG?I3Z>CU2L7N`60]T!39)%XGKA?&9SE%.DZ$P7>A0?^Z"!8X(@2 MO^,1RD`S0N.I0O4H4]5=#2ES&VEY6@BB96JY0;I2*\JK"_8C'(\K0?VY(7QOMP:^!]^"H+8%1P+:K@D<$UO5DDV2+$UK0E@2U6/I;+)M_B[WF M_X;`Y'8%1`*#V*,-Z0ZFK1W:[:,S$IY'4X_M@\B@9U20>8+"38IZ MAZ+"(SEAU&\HP@:A%^]`G$DFC&V_&D@A:K\L^0=FU)T.PW"4V;5%'.G'3\L' M()IU`AZ&G"-W22B/K^.U\9"J@0CAVHKXXU_U4AAUX,C?QD/#2PP]C'.Z9?XD M_#$0Z6=R9R"GEW*PZY7Y\UA,\5A&FR!A2OG[C\;^C("A0>%R:!1W:A*=\5'M MXLM\-'2Y")#,"*BC5/?76/PPH!#QP$!A'!3@J_T/;-V`!-5R5'TGRL@;,.YN M0W,H$C9.M"BRH'I=P?1^0L\%(B=H#_U=CSVQK*%#22T$8#_Q$ MQE\OL*Y"<19(7!EB*DP$DZ.0H]3-B:(IM4[:K3R2MCN1]:`)R^I]%#!U483Q MBGQ%G?1X(B9\,QEJ#>]-E`J"8'+!K^4\7P`IEZ8U*OH8U30>"@X^-50J[BC8 M1Q\*O!^TQVOO0-O4/V@K3B#X'ZLJRZS:"J2PJ.O:9#I[P\9]HV&XBU=)?^V% M<5$3%=I2"U24F3/,XWJ*ZDO-03!\#BG1U8D3]@"50+0%$X!H]BX*?3B8=@%9 MV;W']I\FMDFN2B09*MRSRB)AN/UB%%$?J1=*XH8_I@VG6= MC"5AS@^2;[IN%>A"44#:T5VNY;B38K=N85(AV75JC8BK96_"D*.2S"]:55(* MK48[&NZ#YQH==\<=^GDP^)UM]>BHYKN,.SU<^4%:J!Y`BU$K(Z5=1I-2?E0G M^<*)UUR.UP$=X`SPEPI0GY8B2[,0&1:\SXI_Q3ZJ,\H=,;Q,?JBY:/<81:JC MTNPK35)M2WM$,&(I1?3YOCGI*$>0)%J(]>;H;2W@AV"?9A,-0SOCGW]>,`K" M:)JI\X8_"S]_W/33$\6LZ\_FO M1/)14`9:TX!(E(F,K)#L.JX?&\;83%46;0R)Z`/U.W=J3Q<4E10770YE\%[< MJ:SKTWDWA4V;3%=T])@O1+LBOMPH()%5]T23;)B M$;712L@I^OUX7Q=W:7L+I9M=5\Z!]9CO?`4A0F^+OPS`?\V(<@.+*LO]6`%; M;:Y@56U=E8/>2Y4)>4SB5EF=/?1>40%CR$F(OH`3`NZ5`'B2^(<0&O@41 M`2"FZ("4S!V@?HOR5%_FKFYA;#$6/;NX%AJ(1>I&"XMPET4/"*)IF!)Y]+`S M&*FK'MIUVT5A'V>"3[=F[<`K:E,\RX59M$#YG]2B%%894ARE>N-KHXXW@W@_ M$+F2ZNK3SU%0C9%W`D]O`N\7@*J*UHL/.W\C6JMI5[,EN4N:Z9]R4+3?,ON, MRT.ER@?59`,RZZ"/T+%[&(E5+:A`S,NFBKCPV6(K\F"T]<.JZ6B12A`:GN67 M=1QE]/FBJ"]VHE]'4@_VDG2-QHFHP(=Z##?:^ZR$T+5DI71,!"_C.`TH<;?! MLH363V@'2)OKLW8V\+0\4+EQ2+4^J>Z+JLPZDH'Z[2US^O!Z=#8?\_"Q=!_)GFAUPZ.6'/C<45 M):FUI*AZZM.Z`JD0KD_9HU561F^DZ(GM)\O+U@$3>?]0CM$^>)OK%0X*,S:E MVPVCN0OMGSA331K%1Q)$F@25H>7VJ48AE7XU.$J+Z2$4]6D<:R9\@6BWZ^;2:@N!@`3IA"JK('E5X M%+F\N2DG>T=)%LA''*BU/#?GM+QE]V@U4\N3&SXC=0>3GN?,D2^2L%Z5*`]&"CPZ>V+HI>.KCMRJM*9ZB#@J?*,>&S>"12(LR M8K14%'U!Z5-6H%"BS>I;0Q_?_2W)P8;S#=VW!UW_R*0@FF"D5Q*M)^(PZ&*K M4Q;919+DB+XJ"F(,4#">J)_(>QU?$7OO'`3`TC!4$8Q7!5@$ MW=:5:FS;M'1C80JR+<6R-HK92N>%D46")7*+VIDM)V]N!"?-PVH(X9#(0I+:51@`-3X[@(^0C:M#`8?#I6: MM$N;=D'2"R6F91L6[9IBR)8X6.1>ER.T)1\!`)(H,$`_\!I(1`;*Q2-%!+Z> M#S/<(Y6-Y8GB%QB8/!](-@%+>GT>SF&/\&T<0"@`?1+UB(86P23LGKX"'X'.^[UD`/"P`G?(,*=$0K$`#.#!>$,- M:$`#OL'[_`3>X6F@QH.?A]/:!!50R(2VLLX*T%A!*+-R=XT#<\%9&IJ&>+K9 M.O6S<^2`XF$-D64*X*0UT]7#(9RN":/PP%1'1Z@#&PK8GBV4@+%8J@)W;'T3 MUB:_HE4%6`2Q@]MP62W083%V#3?7 MTL18FA8AZ`XR#&?'!K$M7[Y^"3Y"1T9L\?(`(0P$IJ`91[$K0X MD%[_3NP8(H;A?I&3EM*9+G!HQNLG$(NYA#B$P5#V8T>C!>G1"):&V!D&S)F" M_%@3+L9K>.%]Q@GSN'./&0+04\R-D'6!/0,Q!A20;LP$SDUEY,5BBF"06[B\ M;6KK[PV)>SUWSA43<&,\X&\C+X)G$9ZCA.+FAL$R)3A26!PDA2$(!$=Q+-)! M`*[^50W!`2^LNRLG;,W47]U*O4DI2P4").0$UW8)/3_L!Q;I7E`/+OK(S1B1 M"ACU0:4(T#6&CFP:"T=Z1%7CH MF`@V&_1I3B4RZ>+A9W]C+))VSA`G96)LH3.14LY"H?+EHZ(B*-*E#CX3Q'+1 MF;0R8/P--.B9KH%6;3U=L_$`E>W6+-L\4PP"G,AQ., MX"E@)P1DD(/V''NJ501$J"D8%S4>VS'X01NX*4F'*TS9-\IX#`I,/"",^@`# M,A4XRN;AJ6)NT1&;<32@+.&.1&@PP>&%2S$-_M9,`1JJ,5@Q?H[DK3#.>B6I M5@#CZ0`)OJ0PX<'JC1@0F^_NW2/R69&/3X()KKAQTT%D13%;05]P;%&`,,<9 MLPAIN+^16VJ[<)#L4M,#5#3:22P$UP95,L7F40\U*"D&-^@PVO_ MG'I[5R:9.Y.EQ1;VD,`'T@?J:F%0FK.4@/)\QM)J5%`2XY)DT+HM/(-4YR+,!S@H\'!0@H$T44Y/4@$3&'HP+&>G@#1J`%[*021-F\^9,,$PA$J-`@$B.H),"DB"\L:+1HWNQ MSB+%H-Y"F\PE66*V;H0&MC=9ZX"M%H&'BG2%8HW,%)1$!*!GI"@/%)N&,^"2 M)D0"-35:XQLF82=.K9A/G%6$G&HUZ8#1*=7QAJ8#A+)V"5%5=) M3E2_Y$.Y/9C%@["$JBU&U1(.Z"#6@XIDK388+:"0K7(6*Y.RLY+,TTZ5`@S1 M>WH!YM@!F46#DF+BRKR.5'ND&+5AJRE9V&B4R@/WZ%E5S4"H;V%\>W=Q/;U" M6^IE6#A""=)7Q\&5D)(DQ-)F=665')O&R.D)'\1NC=1M5Z'XC(!$36?(P];T M,[L:T%#+00Y0[!2L-*\0[+QB>0!82DJ\#M-IY8D$/&VTN!'SX#()+*K#``@6 M20IL35A#.^,+C2Y`#;,-08UD$&:615I=J,TIS2@[&`WE`3.**NEP0UB M0Y:$!02\Y*,RCER$_'QT:\AH5PVWMT7I@CNT;5TL=(P-)MH_8]E/)A*97RUM"W2&`-5$'8%$\U%E"@O$44(ND9?H>A@]PBW1@*'5IT?4 MH?P29PFX1-8C2#15">8H$>=UT]F1V=D,L`#4,0"B+A&/[QR&7BK-4.*<$<`1 ML$I$)<(KH96)L\18)>02;93H2]Q1A$P31%,B*1)4B:A+;"6N+4&6`+@$6R+N M$G()^$OP)81.(Y13(BEA4HFG!)7CM`H`N#&`8BP!CNTVER'A@8\525+`R7E#V91@1(65+*14-1--]H)M";A)3]IYHI^`+"\,8C M,5N?>S7[1$;.D=-<&F4)7D("KN0)-L[:`$9IC,(\!F#,5&X6XGZ//`Q&#,M8 M,OTL[-!*'AR*>=)9\LOG$(-W&&`,LRI.'G,_+YXXC[(TI>29HGO4L[PP$WXE M6^5D5HHW#N/*@N<`)C*GEVI>0!^,"Q+X2F)>+VHI<'9BB>=WW2J.GRC+P5*. MK7-@ZJ&SRHL"IZ"HJ.)'*(QE*6L"7RWS@R,(Z"`P$2".`H@*K+&/"2./+Z:E MH2C#!4AHA,'7NQ&"^04A%@S&/#NT%(01)=_^#1P',8"D%3XX4^CYSKVT4O?+ ME(L%,0"OGQSXA^45ZT1F$*:P?&ZLU&R862RQWF,J;(0_@3+ZH]75)%^Y28D: MRU!BET",,O(T:``"$PO;N&&;:G0,Y>5'03!F,0@U:&R974BML$IRH+E!$;0- MD=M91]2ABNPJ`$YPBC?6L5:;#$1S1;`A0"1V*PB`>%O*K6HH6&SLKED3"JBY MQF!8QJ)0@CNT``Z!<`2Y.#Q`@)P'5W:+V00`!H$&!``.@7`$M7 M@\0(,?_K"VCT`0``Z!<`2'M':@!H$&!``&C`>T``Z!<`2!L)P'4%@_\%?-MH MP'M``&@EFD``C85D_?__4.@7`$L_@\0,:@5J`(V%9/W__U!H$&!``&AGG4`` M:@#H%P!%_VH`Z!<`1T_H%P!'EV@@FD``4.@7`$N3@\0(B<8)]G0FB?&#R/]` M@#P!`'7Y@_@(=A5HT`<``.@7`$A[B?"#P`10Z!<`1T-HRI!``&H!:@#H%P!( MMZ/4?D``Z!<`1Z,]MP```'4':@#H%P!'3V@$`0``:,![0`!J`.@7`$>O:`0! M``!H`````-CLB#$````````#``,````H``"`#@```$```(`0````6```@``` M``#8[(@Q`````````0`!````<```@`````#8[(@Q``````$```#H``"`B``` M@`````#8[(@Q`````````0`!````H```@`````#8[(@Q`````````0`)!``` MN`````````#8[(@Q`````````0`)!```R`````````#8[(@Q`````````0`) M!```V`````"Q```(!@`````````````(MP``%```````````````'+<``,0" M``````````````<`00!0`%``20!#`$\`3@```````````"@````4````*``` M``$`"```````X`$```````````````````````#___\`_?W]`+Z^O@"ZN+@` MN[FY`(:'AP"`@(``P,#``#`P,```````JZZO`/#O[P!K:VL`75U=`+2RL@!R M<7$`AH2$`*RJJ@#7U]<`T-#0`,G(R``X-S<`.#DY`)>5E0"^OK\`=W9V`(V, MC`#4TM(`N+>W`,3$Q`"HIZ<`1T='`$Q,3`#.S]``[M[5`*:GJ`!85U<`JJFI M`)R:F@!>7EX`?WQ\`,7$Q`#FYN8`?'Q\`$E*2P#&QL8`2TM+`(>&A@!V=G8` M.CHZ`$]/3P"LK*P`GIZ>`$A(2`!!04$`B8B(`%A86`"*BHH`,3$Q`*&@H`!) M24D`='1T`/GY^0#__OX`8F)B`#0T-`"?G9T`34U-`(*"@@"WM;4`Y.7E`(^/ MCP!]?'P`[>WM`+R\O`!Z>GH`S7D` MC(R,`+FYN0"ZNKH`MK:V`)V=G0!_?W\`*RLK`"\O+P`S,S,`*BHJ`!@8&``: M&AH`$Q,3`!L;&P`U-34`-C8V`#L[.P`*"@H````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M````````````````````````````````````````````````````````5Q$7 M%QH&&4<1"P``"TU5`````$TW!P0W10,H4A<:$BD/#4(````^-U$20UD-!RTH M)Q&RE24R@7%``````+%P``114@-@X2&SLD4E)1 M``````<"``!.,F8G44U1$PTR)!$`````.QM%*0`2)A).*!D;$%A2%P`````F M)A4V`P$^`!I/;B@[-AD7/@```!HG-C80&R`40#8?#3LN&29)````-R0V-B@4 M)Q0G-A\G'A\9)@L````7!E@U%Q0B*A!!%4<.6"@7/@```#L.%S<[1QD.&Q`0 M31I91R8`````*1%,11%````````1``-``$`1@!I`&P`90!$`&4```N`&\`<@!G``````!$``T``0!/`'(`:0!G`&D`;@!A`&P`1@!I`&P` M90!N`&$`;0!E````4P!C`'(`90!E`&X`(`!3`&$`=@!E`'(``````%``&``! M`%``<@!O`&0`=0!C`'0`3@!A`&T`90``````1`!I`'(`90!C`'0`+0!3`&4` M>``@`%,`8P!R`&4`90!N`"``4P!A`'8`90!R````+``$``$`4`!R`&\`9`!U M`&,`=`!6`&4`<@!S`&D`;P!N````,0`N`#````!(`````0!6`&$`<@!&`&D` M;`!E`$D`;@!F`&\``````"@`!````%0`<@!A`&X`$8D%D,UIZ-+^Y=5-:`H=?2A+52K4)JU*L6++2/ M?@B\,$NX^$QYT/IJV-)FPBUA(/3%&ZNM;UCJ5>0%9ZC=A]5HX&"`2X"(&[U7 MJU962),OW/C)0H4B@,W_9S(Q!O!V52ID`D([F#+X&`<0)#X8<9`N6?U7KRR@ MS[UY<-=(8&I(WSX`P:>=AYT;PU1,K8D#9!DG,(%@@$D&3,9$M=)RBVZ@&DE+ M3Z!])9D&31//N/_Q#R;A@1*Z?3&96G03[(/6A#4-`JO-AYA?$KP/Q(42E?"# MD=>LI#$2IG^Q(16\<@+@,WG*!ZZ6[V+51-'[`M\-?:VIPVBK=DA=8]^0F3O@#5DP!!>4>M=A];NWKAT'@93%9AW4!08@^N`U# M!$[Q\)7$4[Z1()A^,,$/;*\O7>09D*#O@#Y>3]"H"U=37J@G0@A!G:_T6;\B M:NH*,,@%#(W>-MI"J;-VKJJ?$F@5J$0;*:REZ"G9>[`.;L`.:(T_A9!<#UF6 MR2T(&%6R\F(#4IH;PI)Z-<8"PD*PL-7KR5@>K#[3P%'EQB*)1:W'5FEB2RH$ M.(7T_._?V4*UA)4"B1G1X@@*!Y@'6TD8Z=I??Z#=<*X]1"_)+92K&/JE8/SP MZT;X)/]P3(A9^!PN-H"%$/&Q([!N\@*+]1QHE#9K#1/G856X1UH*)Y8:-=T( MUV35*C4"2;(;7"Q=Y8+!!V>98/M"#_=(?7`'3.[Q@<$#@P2(M`5[H!"72G:V M0,(HKE3[0`,,+$PR449S0XT!:B3""XK,1:7=W)#`@S9V6,/U.1K34'XU;102 MW+";Y\4T;64GO5MUX^#KUN:!@#^P!,9F@<^<&9Y#.:$!#`2ZQ%#I'V$EPH." MA^O&&!`%`02!#]N>:$W74$#>A.D'(YI92G0(HZK42U)#Z,88S$;,`](=+$/B>\!```#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y$])S0KT``0`` MN0@````SP(VD)``````%``````/2=0B+%H/&!/D3TA/`277OB`='3776`])U M"(L6@\8$^1/2+V.GG````@_D"#X3M````03/`D`/2=0B+%H/&!/D3 MTA/`277OB40D%.E&_O__N0$```"0`])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\D#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y M$])RY$E)=3&+P[D!````C:0D`````(O_`])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\D#TG4(BQ:# MQ@3Y$])RY.EI````28O!BTPD%(OH,\#3Y3/``])U"(L6@\8$^1/2$\!)=>\+ MQ8O8N0$```"-FP`````#TG4(BQ:#Q@3Y$](3R0/2=0B+%H/&!/D3TG+D/0`` M`0!S%#W_-P``EW_?__C6PD M&(MT)""#?@8`=$Z+3@*+="0D,\"#^01R,XVD)`````"-9"0`BQX#P]'C@],! M,\.#Q@2#Z01T%8/Y!'/HN@0````KT2ORN00```#KV(MT)"`[1@9T!#/`ZP:+ MQRM$)"1>7UO)P@@`````````P```#````+8P```````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` M```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` *```````````````` ` end Article: 221403 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: bovuxb@optonline.net Subject: MOTHER AND SISTERS XMAS DILDO LESSON 7874 [1/2] Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:54:02 GMT Hi Sick i know but i filmed my own mother showing my sister how to use a dildo 1 night over the xmas period, Download the pics here and hope you enjoy :) hngdtuvmqkgrxfgovwedkbmesueqzjvtfbvssonlogzqizyhccxyrllxky Article: 221404 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 31 Jan 2006 04:43:07 GMT Message-ID: References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> jpopelish@rica.net wrote: > One of the most common electrical system problem in cars is loose > battery terminals ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years ago I had a car where the battery terminals came loose every couple of weeks, despite tightening the clamps to a fare-thee-well. I couldn't figure out why until a very car-smart friend pointed out the clamp that held the battery was loose. Normal road vibration caused the battery to wiggle around just enough to loosen the clamps. A word to the wise. 73, Bill W6WRT Article: 221405 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Doug Gavilanes Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:36:28 GMT John Popelish wrote: > Bill Turner wrote: > >> Years ago I had a car where the battery terminals came loose every >> couple of weeks, despite tightening the clamps to a fare-thee-well. I >> couldn't figure out why until a very car-smart friend pointed out the >> clamp that held the battery was loose. Normal road vibration caused the >> battery to wiggle around just enough to loosen the clamps. >> >> A word to the wise. > > > Here's another. > > I once had a battery with a very slight leak around one of the posts, > and the terminal kept corroding and making poor contact. I took the > terminals lose, cleaned everything with baking soda, rinsed and dried > all the parts then sanded the posts and inside of the clamps to get a > fresh lead surface. > > Here is the tip. I coated both surfaces with a film of heavy silicon > grease (Dow 111, or similar) and re clamped the terminals, squeezing out > the excess grease as the clamps tightened. Even though the outside of > the terminals still got visibly corroded the connection remained perfect > till the battery failed a couple years later. I have pretreated every > battery, when new, ever since, and have never had a connection problem. > The grease completely seals out moisture, acid and oxygen, but is about > as easy as air for the lead surfaces to break through to make perfect > contact. > > I see that some headlight bulbs now come pre-glopped with a dollop of > such grease to protect the wiring terminals from moisture. WD-40 also works quite well, as it penetrates and lubricates, and there is less mess. I run dual Optima yellow tops in my Wrangler, and a heavy duty conventional (normal maintenance) battery in my XYL's Grand Cherokee and in my Cherokee, and WD-40 has kept corrosion off of the terminal for years now. Works much better than the soaked red and black corrosion inhibiting felt rings. Just a thought... Keep the bolts tight. Don't forget to run a heavy enough gauge fused wire pair to the rig to make up for voltage drop over your run length (lest you end up with a 30A load dropping the voltage to 10 or 11V and diminished RF output). Your rig was designed to operate as rated at 13.8VDC. With the engine off, you might get 12VDC. With too light a gauge of wire in a long run, you'll see your display dim or go out as the voltage to the rig drops below the minimum required voltage at the radio when keyed. 73, Doug, N6XQY Garden Grove, CA. Article: 221407 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nitespark Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:50:00 -0500 John Popelish wrote: > Bill Turner wrote: > >> Years ago I had a car where the battery terminals came loose every >> couple of weeks, despite tightening the clamps to a fare-thee-well. I >> couldn't figure out why until a very car-smart friend pointed out the >> clamp that held the battery was loose. Normal road vibration caused the >> battery to wiggle around just enough to loosen the clamps. >> >> A word to the wise. > > > Here's another. > > I once had a battery with a very slight leak around one of the posts, > and the terminal kept corroding and making poor contact. I took the > terminals lose, cleaned everything with baking soda, rinsed and dried > all the parts then sanded the posts and inside of the clamps to get a > fresh lead surface. > > Here is the tip. I coated both surfaces with a film of heavy silicon > grease (Dow 111, or similar) and re clamped the terminals, squeezing out > the excess grease as the clamps tightened. Even though the outside of > the terminals still got visibly corroded the connection remained perfect > till the battery failed a couple years later. I have pretreated every > battery, when new, ever since, and have never had a connection problem. > The grease completely seals out moisture, acid and oxygen, but is about > as easy as air for the lead surfaces to break through to make perfect > contact. > > I see that some headlight bulbs now come pre-glopped with a dollop of > such grease to protect the wiring terminals from moisture. When I get a battery terminal with the corrosion and oxidation on it, I sometimes pour a small quantity of Coca Cola on it. Cleans them right off. I will then put a small amount of conductive grease on it. Andy WD4KDN -- I have never met a liberal street cop. Article: 221408 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: N7ZZT - Eric Oyen Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:30:06 -0700 nitespark wrote: >> I see that some headlight bulbs now come pre-glopped with a dollop of >> such grease to protect the wiring terminals from moisture. > > When I get a battery terminal with the corrosion and oxidation on it, I > sometimes pour a small quantity of Coca Cola on it. Cleans them right > off. I will then put a small amount of conductive grease on it. > > Andy > WD4KDN got any info on where one can acquire this conductive grease? -- DE N7ZZT Eric Oyen Phoenix, Arizona e-mail: n7zzt(at)hotmail(dot)com the difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits. Article: 221409 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Vertical on a tower References: <1137915322.724857.201990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1137966057.832837.275240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1138042555.290651.187890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9hbBf.2050$2O6.971@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> <1138121127.777572.38850@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2ZsBf.13981$_S7.1117@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> <1138693178.863640.283070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:40:51 GMT nm5k@wt.net wrote: >>Nuff said. I'll keep that in mind next time you >>say a vertical is 24 dB better than a dipole. :-) ... > > Well, of course, I've never said any such thing. ... Please note the smiley face. > In the long hauls to VK, JA, etc, often 3-4 S units worth. Well, of course, you just said it again. :-) The standardized S-unit is 6 dB. Therefore, "4 S units" over a dipole is 24 dBd gain for your omnidirectional vertical monopole. (That's ~17 dB more gain than a three element Yagi has over a dipole.) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221410 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:42:16 GMT nitespark wrote: > When I get a battery terminal with the corrosion and oxidation on it, I > sometimes pour a small quantity of Coca Cola on it. Cleans them right > off. Imagine what it does to your estomache. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221411 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Asimov" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Message-ID: References: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:07:55 GMT "Doug Gavilanes" bravely wrote to "All" (31 Jan 06 06:36:28) --- on the heady topic of "Re: Mobile installation question" DG> From: Doug Gavilanes DG> Xref: core-easynews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:223329 DG> rec.radio.amateur.equipment:165192 rec.radio.amateur.misc:247161 DG> Keep the bolts tight. Hand tight, not arm tight. If the bolt is tightened too hard it may cause the terminal to separate internally and ruin the battery. This is especially critical of terminals that connect at the front. The traditional post type terminals are better in this respect. A*s*i*m*o*v Article: 221412 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Vertical on a tower References: <1137915322.724857.201990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1137966057.832837.275240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1138042555.290651.187890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9hbBf.2050$2O6.971@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> <1138121127.777572.38850@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <2ZsBf.13981$_S7.1117@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:54:22 GMT nm5k@wt.net wrote: > I'm not trying to be fair. Nuff said. I'll keep that in mind next time you say a vertical is 24 dB better than a dipole. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221413 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 25 Jan 2006 15:29:28 GMT Message-ID: References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> <11tek4desq7uv56@corp.supernews.com> Roy Lewallen wrote: > I know of two causes of current on the outside of a coax cable, > conduction and mutual coupling, and I think I understand the > mechanisms quite well. But neither has anything to do with the > antenna feedpoint impedance. Can you explain what the mechanism is > for an impedance mismatch to cause a current on the outside of the > coax? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The impedance mismatch I was talking about is between the halves of the antenna, not between the antenna and the coax. A mobile antenna with a typical center loaded whip operating on a relatively low frequency such as 80 or 40 meters is severely unbalanced in that respect. That does not mean it won't work or is inefficient or anything of the like. Only that it is unbalanced, much like a non-resonant long wire worked against ground. Bill, W6WRT Article: 221414 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John, N9JG" References: <7rtft15r87o3fnepcu40ur4jc7e7sipekr@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Vertical ant gain vs No radials Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:41:27 GMT Well you always wonder if the guy was trolling me, but I wasn't about to plan on spending the spring putting in an additional 90 verticals unless there was the prospect of a reasonable payoff. -- John "Richard Clark" wrote in message news:7rtft15r87o3fnepcu40ur4jc7e7sipekr@4ax.com... > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:25:50 GMT, "John, N9JG" > wrote: > >>If I am interpreting this graphic correctly, the gain increase >>from 32 radials to 128 radials is about 0.5 dB. > > Hi John, > > Well, if you read the site closely, there are far more variables > involved than one graph offers a final answer to. > > On the other hand, if this graph accurately represents all those > variables converging on your conditions; then, yes, it is a huge > increase as reported. You can, on your next QSO offer to that > operator that it probably will boost your signal one half of an > S-meter needle's width. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 221415 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: external wifi antennas in laptops Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:30:08 -0000 Message-ID: <11tgd1g2hb4s970@corp.supernews.com> References: > Many laptops now-a-days have mini-pci wifi internal wifi cards for >wireless internet. Laptops such as the IBM Thinkpad series apparently have >an antenna built into the top of the display, which enhances wifi signal. > > Does anyone have any idea what type of antenna is used? A neighbor has >a wifi coverage problem and he says he measures a (DC) short circuit at the >little coax coming from this built in antenna. I suspect this might be >normal, but would like further opinion here. Thanks. I believe that some of them use an inverted-F configuration or straight-F configuration, either printed right on the PC board or mounted above it. My recollection (and brief Googling on the net) suggest that such antennas use a shorted inductive stub as part of their matching/tuning arrangement, and will thus look like a short circuit at DC. -- 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: 221416 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Fred W4JLE" References: Subject: Re: AEA ET-1 Econo-Tuner Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:56:29 -0500 Message-ID: Minor scratches? I guess major are only those made by an axe... "Walter Kurtz" wrote in message news:SqOdnanqFJGOP0LeRVn-qA@wideopenwest.com... > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5860921624&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1 > > > Article: 221417 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: HF-Ground Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:16:09 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1137679046.849697.239010@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <11t0ltpe78fkj5e@corp.supernews.com> <0an0t15bj93jvgh510cfcbe1ikadplvk8p@4ax.com> I have 26 runs of 60' insulated (#14 THHN), radials on the surface, pinned down with lawn staples beneath an 80m inverted L. The measured efficiency of this particular arrangement is showing approximately 83%. How much more or less efficient bare wire might be (and no one I trust has ever maintained that there is any advantage whatsoever to bare copper vs. insulated radials on or in the shallow ground), is a question I have not had any interest in looking at. I'm not about to rip them all out and put down bare copper to see if the efficiency changes, and can think of no other way to answer the question. Of course the absolute value of efficiency is a function not only of the number of radials, but the quality of the earth they are laying on, so YMMV. ...hasan, N0AN "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:0an0t15bj93jvgh510cfcbe1ikadplvk8p@4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:22:25 -0600, "David G. Nagel" > wrote: > > >>Owen; >> >>Given the expertise that Bill has accumulated over the years and the >>good advise he has given to anyone who asks I think that your attitude >>needs modification. When you were in school did you challenge your >>teachers this way? I think not. If you diagreed you kept it to your self >>or checked it out on your own. > > Dave, > > I don't agree, I have never had a teacher worth his salt who responded > to polite questions as Bill did. > > No, I don't believe something just because I read it on the 'net, I > would like to know why. > >>For what it's worth everything that I have read tends towards placing >>the radials on the open ground, usually staked down so as to prevent >>tripping or getting caught in a lawn mower. > > Yes, I see lots of web articles describing that in ham stations, but > it is not the only approach that I see documented and talked about. > > In my limited experience, I have not seen commercial HF installations > with radial / ground wires laid above ground in preference to being > buried. The only cases I can recall were because of rock. > > Whilst there are articles around about the performance of shallow > buried radials, I have not seen any that deal quantitatively with > radials laid on the ground, or pinned to the ground as you describe, > and the effects of those different installations on antenna > efficiency. That is what I was asking about. > > Equally, there a plenty of articles where the author insists that > radials cannot work near the ground and they need to be some distance > above, some stating a quarter wave above. > > They can't all have "better" efficiency, the only way to know is to > seek reasons why a configuration is better. > > Bill proposed a "better" configuration and declined to explain why / > how it is better. > > Owen > -- Article: 221418 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:29:11 -0800 Message-ID: <11tvi4r1eit8d67@corp.supernews.com> References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <-amdnSdiKKvMBELenZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@adelphia.com> John Popelish wrote: > . . . > Any translucent (not filled with Teflon or mineral particles) silicone > grease will work. I have some GE dielectric silicone grease and several > silicone vacuum and O-ring greases I have used, successfully. > > I bought my last couple batches from eBay. E.G. You can also find silicone grease at stores that sell plumbing supplies. I've gotten it at Home Depot. It's probably a good deal more expensive than eBay, but a little goes a long way. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 221419 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Verticals versus Horizontal Dipoles Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:53:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: There is much discussion about the relative merits of the simple vertical versus horizontal dipole antennas. Their radiation patterns are well known. They are very broad in both the vertical and horizontal planes. Both have have a null. We need consider only the broadside, maximum, radiation from a dipole. Most of the arguments can be settled by considering the elevation angle of the path taken by the radio wave between the transmitting and receiving stations. Followed by a little elementary geometry or trigonometry. For present purposes a flat Earth can be assumed. At an elevation angle of around 45 degrees the strength of radiation received from vertical and horizontal antennas are about equal. (This has nothing to do with Eznec take-off angles.) The heights of the Ionospheric reflecting layers are - E-layer = 70 miles, daylight only. F1-layer = 140 miles, occasionally, in daylight only. F2-layer = 190 miles, night-time. F2-layer = 250 miles, in daylight. >From flat-Earth geometry, at an elevation angle of 45 degrees, the distance between transmitting and receiving stations is twice the height of the reflecting layer. Therefore, at this distance the received signal strength can be expected to be about the same from both types of antenna. As the elevation angle decreases, the distance increases and radiation >from the vertical antenna increases. The radiation from the dipole decreases. There is an extra propagation loss due to an increase in radio path length but this equally affects radiation from both antenna types. As the elevation angle increases towards the vertical, distance decreases, radiation from the dipole increases and radiation from the vertical antenna decreases in strength. The radio path loss decreases but the difference in pattern between the two antenna types is maintained at the receiver. With a spherical Earth, in daylight, using the F2-layer, at elevation angles around 5 degrees, one-hop distances of 3,500 miles can occur. With two hops, at angles of around 12 degrees, distances of 5,000 miles can occur. For each additional hop there is loss in the layer and loss in the reflection in the ground. Some parts of the radio path may be in daylight and others in darkness. More than one layer may be involved. Muli-path distortion occurs. Peculiar things happen and much depends on frequency. The low-angle performance of a half-wave dipole, even when radiating broadside towards the receiver, is very poor in comparison with a simple vertical. On the other hand, a simple vertical does reasonably well when working just across county because of the short propagation path, almost straight up and down again, or even via the groundwave for very short distances. ---- Reg, G4FGQ. Article: 221420 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nitespark Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:21:22 -0500 N7ZZT - Eric Oyen wrote: > nitespark wrote: > > >>>I see that some headlight bulbs now come pre-glopped with a dollop of >>>such grease to protect the wiring terminals from moisture. >> >>When I get a battery terminal with the corrosion and oxidation on it, I >>sometimes pour a small quantity of Coca Cola on it. Cleans them right >>off. I will then put a small amount of conductive grease on it. >> >>Andy >>WD4KDN > > got any info on where one can acquire this conductive grease? > The stuff I got was at a hamfest (I know that doesn't do you much good), but its called "Fargolene". I think it can be had at commercial electrical supply houses and is used when splicing electrical lines. Andy WD4KDN Article: 221421 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nitespark Subject: Re: Mobile installation question References: <1138508998.736589.272440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <2l8rt1pobob8lojd1ujsb9md1qndatmq04@4ax.com> <11tr9pbg3um4u93@corp.supernews.com> <43ddb851$0$25063$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <11trprodls7d5b3@corp.supernews.com> <1138637000.703505.117300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <6yQDf.32458$bF.5419@dukeread07> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:22:02 -0500 Cecil Moore wrote: > nitespark wrote: > >> When I get a battery terminal with the corrosion and oxidation on it, >> I sometimes pour a small quantity of Coca Cola on it. Cleans them >> right off. > > > Imagine what it does to your estomache. I am hoping I don't have battery oxidation in my stomach. Article: 221422 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Why did this work (160m antenna)? Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:14:38 -0600 Message-ID: Necessity being the mother of invention, bit me. Last weekend was CQWW CW on 160m. I stumbled on it and had no 160m antenna. I have a terrific performer for 80m, an inverted L with 33, 60' radials stapled on the ground. I also have a Carolina Windom 80 at 42' fed with perhaps 100' of RG8x. Since it was a cw contest, I figured, brute force stuff with my tuner. Very interesting results. I tried the 80m inverted L, feeding just the center conductor, and also tying the shield and center conductor together ...both cases feeding it as an end fed wire. I got no band noise and very poor signals, but what the heck, I worked 10 or 15 stations who were running S7 or better in spite of things. I could tell I wasn't being heard very well. (I was also running about 500w output). Then I tried the same trick with the CW-80. I fed the center conductor only...band noise jumped up to S-3, signals were amazingly loud, and I started working everyone I could hear...first call. It didn't matter how weak they were, I got answered immediately. I worked 44 states, France, and two stations in Bermuda. My question: What is this antenna configuration and why is it working so well, especially relatively low angle stuff like France and Bermuda, West Coast, etc. I don't get it? (Feeding both shield and center tied together, or feeding it "normally" did not work as well as just feeding the center conductor) This is an OCF Dipole, 85' on one side and 51' on the other. I have no idea which side of the dipole was fed by the center conductor of the coax. My coax runs underground (5' below the ground for 55' to the tower base), and then up parallel to the tower (5 feet from the tower) for the 40' or so the CW-80 is in the air). This really shouldn't work very well, yet it does. VSWR bandwidth seems consistent with a somewhat efficient antenna (about 40 Khz before having to re-tune the tuner. I'm at a loss to explain why it would seem to work so well as a DX antenna for 160m. Pleased, but surprised. Any theories? Am I somehow shunt/gamma feeding my tower? I also had no tuner arcing, no rf in the shack, no RFI in the hi-fi, ....zippo...all the RF appears to go where I would like it to, but I have NO idea why. I prefer to understand things and not just rejoice in my dumb luck. Ideas? ...hasan, N0AN Article: 221423 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Vertical ant gain vs No radials Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:37:24 -0600 Message-ID: References: If you have decent soil, 32 radials of the length you specified, will be quite adequate and adding the number indicated by your friend is just a waste of effort and money. Here's a relatively simple (if not completely foolproof) way to tell if you have enough radials: If you know the theoretical radiation resistance of your vertical over a perfect ground: measure your current input impedance (at the antenna feedpoint) with your current number of radials. You can find the theoretical radiation resistance of your antenna by looking up short monopoles in the ARRL Antenna handbook...Let's say on 40m, your HF6 is 28 ohms (it's shorter than a full 1/4 wave, so it will be somewhat lower than the 37 ohms of a perfect quarter wave vertical) The shorter the radiator, the lower the radiations resistance and you can read it directly >from a graph in the book noted above (or in Devoldre's Low Band DX'ing...can't recall which) (or you can get it from using one of Reg Edwards programs). Anywho, let's say it's 37 ohms. Now you measure the input Z of your configuration. Let's say it measures 39 ohms. Your efficiency is 28/39 or 72%. If it were to measure 35 ohms, your efficiency would be 80%. You can convert this all to dB loss and you will be able to see if your current 32 radials are enough to make you happy. I found 26 radials that were 60' long were enough to give me better than 80% efficiency (actually that number started to happen between 12 and 16 radials, but my soil conditions are very good). This way, you take most of the theory and speculation out of things. Use an MFJ-269 or some-such and you can do all the measurements yourself. I'm betting you will find your efficiency better than 70%...also keep in mind you have some additional losses from your vertical being a multi-bander, so the efficiency I'm referring to is based on a single band vertical with no additional loading/trapping/stubbing losses. In short: 1. Find out what the Radiation Resistance of your shortened antenna should be. 2. Measure the input Z at the antenna of your actual antenna/radial field is. Divide 1 by 2, convert to percent....a "rule of thumb" measure of efficiency of your system has been obtained. If you radial field were perfectly lossless, 1 would equal 2. Every ohm above the theoretical radiation resistance of your antenna that you measure is "loss" . Have fun. ...hasan, N0AN "John, N9JG" wrote in message news:y1SBf.755914$xm3.21213@attbi_s21... > My antenna is a Butternut HF6V vertical. This antenna is ground mounted > and has 32 radials, which have been laid on top of the grass. The average > length of the radials is about 30 feet. I operate primarily on 40 meters, > and I seem to receive good signal reports. > > Today, I ran into another operator on 40 meters, who told me that I would > get a large signal improvement if I increased the number of radials from > the current 32 to 100 or 120. In fact he said he had seen information on > the SteppIR website (http://www.steppir.com/) that supported his > assertion. Remembering how hard I had worked to install my existing 32 > radials, I responded that the effect of quadrupling my radial count would > probably give only a small increase in gain of less than one dB. Indeed > Cebik's website (http://www.cebik.com/gp/gr.html) seems to support this > view with a graphic titled "Radial Length vs. Number of Radials". If I am > interpreting this graphic correctly, the gain increase from 32 radials to > 128 radials is about 0.5 dB. > > Any comments would be gratefully received. > > John, N9JG > Article: 221424 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Verticals versus Horizontal Dipoles Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:17:05 -0800 Message-ID: <11u06h4ohdvkqef@corp.supernews.com> References: This rather oversimplified analysis overlooks an important factor. The field radiated upward from an antenna seen at long distances (that is, the sky wave as contrasted to the short-range surface wave) consists of a vector sum of two components: one radiated directly, and one which is inintially radiated downward then reflected from the ground. The ground reflection alters both the magnitude and phase of the reflected component depending on ground characteristics and the polarization of the wave. At low angles, horizontally polarized waves are reflected very well even when the ground is quite poor; vertically polarized waves react differently. The resulting fields can fairly easily be calculated manually if desired using simple geometry, equations for reflection coefficient which can be found in Kraus and other references, and vector addition. One thing you'll quickly discover is that the field from a vertical does NOT monotonically increase as the elevation angle decreases, but decreases below a moderate angle determined by the ground characteristics. EZNEC (including the free demo) and other modeling programs clearly show this important effect. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Reg Edwards wrote: > There is much discussion about the relative merits of the simple > vertical versus horizontal dipole antennas. > > Their radiation patterns are well known. They are very broad in both > the vertical and horizontal planes. Both have have a null. > > We need consider only the broadside, maximum, radiation from a dipole. > > Most of the arguments can be settled by considering the elevation > angle of the path taken by the radio wave between the transmitting and > receiving stations. Followed by a little elementary geometry or > trigonometry. For present purposes a flat Earth can be assumed. > > At an elevation angle of around 45 degrees the strength of radiation > received from vertical and horizontal antennas are about equal. (This > has nothing to do with Eznec take-off angles.) > > The heights of the Ionospheric reflecting layers are - > > E-layer = 70 miles, daylight only. > F1-layer = 140 miles, occasionally, in daylight only. > F2-layer = 190 miles, night-time. > F2-layer = 250 miles, in daylight. > > From flat-Earth geometry, at an elevation angle of 45 degrees, the > distance between transmitting and receiving stations is twice the > height of the reflecting layer. Therefore, at this distance the > received signal strength can be expected to be about the same from > both types of antenna. > > As the elevation angle decreases, the distance increases and radiation > from the vertical antenna increases. The radiation from the dipole > decreases. There is an extra propagation loss due to an increase in > radio path length but this equally affects radiation from both antenna > types. > > As the elevation angle increases towards the vertical, distance > decreases, radiation from the dipole increases and radiation from the > vertical antenna decreases in strength. The radio path loss decreases > but the difference in pattern between the two antenna types is > maintained at the receiver. > > With a spherical Earth, in daylight, using the F2-layer, at elevation > angles around 5 degrees, one-hop distances of 3,500 miles can occur. > With two hops, at angles of around 12 degrees, distances of 5,000 > miles can occur. > > For each additional hop there is loss in the layer and loss in the > reflection in the ground. Some parts of the radio path may be in > daylight and others in darkness. More than one layer may be involved. > Muli-path distortion occurs. Peculiar things happen and much depends > on frequency. > > The low-angle performance of a half-wave dipole, even when radiating > broadside towards the receiver, is very poor in comparison with a > simple vertical. > > On the other hand, a simple vertical does reasonably well when working > just across county because of the short propagation path, almost > straight up and down again, or even via the groundwave for very short > distances. > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ. > > Article: 221425 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Crazy George" References: Subject: Re: Verticals versus Horizontal Dipoles Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:35:23 -0600 Message-ID: <43e02cbd@kcnews01> Reg: Your simplistic analysis disagrees with my 50 years of operating local contacts on 75 meters here in the southern US. Practical verticals are universally 10 or more dB poorer than dipoles for local contacts, no matter what the other variables. The very best quarter wave 66 foot vertical with 365 radials is about equivalent to a dipole lying on the ground for 0 to 250 mile contacts on 75. Forty meters performs a little closer to your argument, but not much. Among long time local ragchewers, verticals are considered to radiate equally poorly in all directions. The NVIS nonsense also enters here. I have thrown back at the "proponents" of NVIS that elevation angles of 45 degrees or less hardly qualify as NVIS (properly NHIS, maybe?) but they continue to misuse common English to further their specious arguments. By the way, how much of the UK is within 500 miles of your QTH? I have to exceed 500 miles just to get out of the state of Texas. -- Crazy George W5VPQ My real address is my ham call ARRL.NET The ATTGlobal is a SPAM trap. "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:droip1$o4l$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com... > There is much discussion about the relative merits of the simple > vertical versus horizontal dipole antennas. > > Their radiation patterns are well known. They are very broad in both > the vertical and horizontal planes. Both have have a null. > > We need consider only the broadside, maximum, radiation from a dipole. > > Most of the arguments can be settled by considering the elevation > angle of the path taken by the radio wave between the transmitting and > receiving stations. Followed by a little elementary geometry or > trigonometry. For present purposes a flat Earth can be assumed. > > At an elevation angle of around 45 degrees the strength of radiation > received from vertical and horizontal antennas are about equal. (This > has nothing to do with Eznec take-off angles.) > > The heights of the Ionospheric reflecting layers are - > > E-layer = 70 miles, daylight only. > F1-layer = 140 miles, occasionally, in daylight only. > F2-layer = 190 miles, night-time. > F2-layer = 250 miles, in daylight. > > From flat-Earth geometry, at an elevation angle of 45 degrees, the > distance between transmitting and receiving stations is twice the > height of the reflecting layer. Therefore, at this distance the > received signal strength can be expected to be about the same from > both types of antenna. > > As the elevation angle decreases, the distance increases and radiation > from the vertical antenna increases. The radiation from the dipole > decreases. There is an extra propagation loss due to an increase in > radio path length but this equally affects radiation from both antenna > types. > > As the elevation angle increases towards the vertical, distance > decreases, radiation from the dipole increases and radiation from the > vertical antenna decreases in strength. The radio path loss decreases > but the difference in pattern between the two antenna types is > maintained at the receiver. > > With a spherical Earth, in daylight, using the F2-layer, at elevation > angles around 5 degrees, one-hop distances of 3,500 miles can occur. > With two hops, at angles of around 12 degrees, distances of 5,000 > miles can occur. > > For each additional hop there is loss in the layer and loss in the > reflection in the ground. Some parts of the radio path may be in > daylight and others in darkness. More than one layer may be involved. > Muli-path distortion occurs. Peculiar things happen and much depends > on frequency. > > The low-angle performance of a half-wave dipole, even when radiating > broadside towards the receiver, is very poor in comparison with a > simple vertical. > > On the other hand, a simple vertical does reasonably well when working > just across county because of the short propagation path, almost > straight up and down again, or even via the groundwave for very short > distances. > ---- > Reg, G4FGQ. > > Article: 221426 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Verticals versus Horizontal Dipoles References: <43e02cbd@kcnews01> Message-ID: <7NWDf.20524$Yu.10710@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:27:47 GMT Crazy George wrote: > By the way, how much of the UK is within 500 miles of your QTH? I have to > exceed 500 miles just to get out of the state of Texas. Now George, I'll bet it's only a measley 420 miles. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 221427 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: Subject: Re: editing 'helix' construct with 4nec2 graphical editor Message-ID: <8%WDf.155945$AP5.150464@edtnps84> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:42:44 GMT Looks to me like there is a bug in the geometry editor "Create Helix" command, as I have also noticed the same problem. I sure makes for some really messy looking code. The helix also appears with the axis normal to the edit page. Have not figured out how to rotate it yet. Whoever wrote this interface program did a great job, but seems a heck of a lot easier just to work at the card level. Frank "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:Q7-dnVeWirXDtH3eRVn-pQ@comcast.com... > All, > > Has anyone figured out how to edit a 'helix' object in 4nec2? Creating a > helix works, however it creates a line entry per segment. Is there a way > to create a helix with the graphical editor that has multiple segments per > card entry? > > Thanks - Dan Article: 221428 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Chris W <1qazse4@cox.net> Subject: More info on old Tower Message-ID: Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 00:31:24 -0600 I have acquired an old tower. I was told the brand is Wilson but I can't seem to find any information on it. I have photos and I 3D model I drew here.... http://cdw.homelinux.com:8087/stuff/Tower/ If some one could tell me where I can find specs on it and what kind of wind load it can handle, I would be grateful. Note you have to down load this free program to view the 3D model http://www.alibre.com/products/addons/modelpress.asp -- Chris W KE5GIX Gift Giving Made Easy Get the gifts you want & give the gifts they want One stop wish list for any gift, >from anywhere, for any occasion! http://thewishzone.com Article: 221429 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Why did this work (160m antenna)? Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:00:50 -0600 Message-ID: References: Hi Richard, Of course, when the inverted L was fed with both shield and center conductor shorted, that is a short. But I also tried feeding just its center conductor..and it was poor, as it should have been. I'm not saying that the CW-80 center conductor only, brute force tuned was a great antenna, just way better than I had any right to expect. It's not like 160 is like 10m, where, when the band is up, nearly anything works. 160 is notorious for exposing poor antennas. In any case, without a legitimate reference antenna, I am limited to "how well do I get answered and at what distance" analysis and that's what I tried to provide. A test I would like to do sometime is to get a KW-80 trap, put it on the end of the 80m L and extend the wire out for 160m resonance. Then I would have a 2 band inverted L and that would be a reasonable reference antenna. What has kept me from this is I had a hard time finding the KW-80 traps...they were out of stock. My other concern is since the 80m inverted L works so well, I don't want to do anything to ruin its performance. (It's also hard to get motivated to go out and do the raising and lowering and tuning in the middle of winter, yet if I don't do that, there won't be much I can do to evaluate the trap's effect on either band. I was trying to get "something" for nothing with the CW-80 trick, and succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. Nothing about my situtation could allow anyone to duplicate what is happening here. Too many variables. I just got dumb lucky, and THEN I get curious. I still think this arrangement should not work very well, and that just isn't the case. The goal was to get on the contest and make contacts as if I had a "good" antenna. Anyone who does contesting knows what a "good" antenna feels like as you call stations and listen to those being called. It is so easy in a very few minutes in a busy contest to accurately conclude: this antenna is crap. I couldn't do that and was mystified as to why not. Either this antenna was working as some sort of kludgey inverted L or somehow the tower was getting excited, or both. Whatever set of fortunate circumstances obtain, if I were to have put up a "proper" antenna for 160 and gotten the results I did (and if those results were/are repeatable), I would have said, "This thing works pretty well." I then became very curious, and that is all. As you noted, without a reference antenna, a real assessment is impossible. However, how the antenna performed on the air in a situation that is well understood (contest environment) made for some raised eyebrows on my part. Rarely does "loading up what is laying around" work. In this case it did. Antennas and propagaton obey the laws of physics. I'm just wondering which ones apply and in what manner for this particular "arrangement". I'm left with the question, just "what kind of an antenna" is this, or does it "resemble", that would perform as well as it did. Radio signals and how they propagate still resemble "magic" at times, yet no one in their right mind would build the mess I was brute forcing my RF into, nor would I recommend it. At the same time, if one just "has" to get on the air in a hurry, my experience might prove useful. If there is one thing I learned from this it is don't dismiss something out of hand without trying it (if there is an urgent need). You may get surprised. Then if it works well, try to explain it later (if you are curious...and I am.) Thanks for your comments. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Richard Clark" wrote in message news:e8m0u19mqvv6t382pd6ikg41ot9n0762dh@4ax.com... > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:14:38 -0600, "hasan schiers" > wrote: > >>Necessity being the mother of invention, bit me. Last weekend was CQWW CW >>on >>160m. I stumbled on it and had no 160m antenna. I have a terrific >>performer >>for 80m, an inverted L with 33, 60' radials stapled on the ground. I also >>have a Carolina Windom 80 at 42' fed with perhaps 100' of RG8x. >> >>Since it was a cw contest, I figured, brute force stuff with my tuner. >>Very >>interesting results. >> >>I tried the 80m inverted L, feeding just the center conductor, and also >>tying the shield and center conductor together ...both cases feeding it as >>an end fed wire. > > Hi Hasan, > > You tied the shield and center conductor together - isn't that a short > circuit for the inverted L? > >> I got no band noise and very poor signals, but what the > > Sounds like a short. > >>heck, I worked 10 or 15 stations who were running S7 or better in spite of >>things. > > Could they have been much better? > >> I could tell I wasn't being heard very well. (I was also running >>about 500w output). > > Still sounds like a short. > >>Then I tried the same trick with the CW-80. I fed the center conductor >>only...band noise jumped up to S-3, signals were amazingly loud, and I >>started working everyone I could hear...first call. > > Sounds like a cleared short. > >>I'm at a loss to explain why it would seem to work so well as a DX antenna >>for 160m. Pleased, but surprised. Any theories? > > One theory is you could have done a whole lot better - but that is > pure speculation. Another theory is you could have done a whole lot > worse - that doesn't need to be proven because we can all achieve > that. > >>Am I somehow shunt/gamma feeding my tower? > > Could be. Could be so lossy as to defy SWR too. > >>I also had no tuner arcing, no rf in the shack, no RFI in the hi-fi, >>....zippo...all the RF appears to go where I would like it to, but I have >>NO >>idea why. I prefer to understand things and not just rejoice in my dumb >>luck. Ideas? > > For one, I've seen a number of posts recently proclaim the > accomplishments of DX, Low Angle antennas. The two are not > necessarily tied at the hip. It is all predicated on the bank shot > against the ionosphere, and a low angle could as easily end up in the > drink as it could in Lower Slobovia. And Versa Vice, a high angle > (call it 30 degrees) could as easily hit Ulan Bator as it could drill > into Pike's Peak. > > True, a high angle is more susceptible to multi-hop losses, unless it > is bouncing over the Pacific on the first two caroms. Without a valid > propagation model tied to the radiation distribution characteristics, > calling an antenna a low Angle, DX performer is a mighty flight of the > imagination. > > Short answer: a propagation modeler tracking real time results will > answer more questions than attaching claims to simple monopoles or > dipoles. > > I've used WinCAP with a highly distorted antenna response curves to > probe launch angles. WinCAP comes with sample antennas, like the > common quarter wave vertical. I've edited that file such that output > at all elevation angles, except one, are severely reduced. Basically > a one degree height elevation lobe set at one particular angle (for > the sake of argument, a 5 degree launch angle, ±½ degree). When it > reaches Europe, the footprint floods France. > > Now, we know that such an antenna is nigh on impossible to build for > HF, and the common vertical is going to launch very useful power over > a far greater span of angles. The upshot of this is that instead of > that ±½ degree, we take the typical ±15 degrees around a typical > launch angle of 20 degrees, and you cover a lot of ground at the other > end * IFF * the Ionosphere will support them. And just as much power > will probably hit France even though we've quadrupled that "low" > launch angle FROM 5 degree launch angle, ±½ degree TO 20 degree launch > angle ±15 degrees. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 221430 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bill Turner" Subject: Re: Mobile installation question Date: 25 Jan 2006 16:19:51 GMT Message-ID: References: <66idnRrSFeXkbUneRVn-rQ@comcast.com> <3MmdnUjzf8oHV0veRVn-hQ@comcast.com> Bill Turner wrote: > The coax braid may be connected to the chassis at the antenna end, but > not at the transceiver end, and the result is often a "hot" chassis. > Some "experts" advise to ground the chassis with a short, heavy > conductor to cure the problem, but I feel it's better to keep such > currents off the coax to begin with. > > That does not mean such methods don't work or are inefficient. I have > operated both ways and both ways work. I just prefer not trying to > "ground" current which should not be there in the first place. > > Bill, W6WRT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's not every day I post a followup to my own message, but it seems appropriate here. If you would like to experiment with this, try operating 17 meter mobile. If your installation is like mine, the length of coax will be very close to 1/4 wave on 17 (about 13 feet) and the transceiver's chassis will be "hot" for RF. We all know about a 1/4 wave conductor grounded at one and what happens at the other end. I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - that current on the outside of coax is not subject to the velocity factor issue because what's inside the coax is not involved. It's just like a piece of wire in this respect. It would be interesting to try it with a 26 foot coax but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Most likely it would only be effective on the one band anyway, since 17 isn't harmonically related to any other HF band. Bill, W6WRT Article: 221431 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Crazy George" References: <43e02cbd@kcnews01> <7NWDf.20524$Yu.10710@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: Verticals versus Horizontal Dipoles Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:32:12 -0600 Message-ID: <43e0c6e1@kcnews01> Not counting Mexico. -- Crazy George W5VPQ My real address is my ham call ARRL.NET The ATTGlobal is a SPAM trap. "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:7NWDf.20524$Yu.10710@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > Crazy George wrote: >> By the way, how much of the UK is within 500 miles of your QTH? I have >> to exceed 500 miles just to get out of the state of Texas. > > Now George, I'll bet it's only a measley 420 miles. :-) > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp