Article: 225228 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: References: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:05:51 GMT On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:48:48 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:40:19 GMT, "Jerry Martes" > wrote: > >> I did measure the impedance across a loop of RG 223 with 4 tubes around >>the outside. The problem I come up with is my ignorance of *whats needed* >>for adequate decoupling of the balanced antenna from the outside of the >>coax. > >Hi Jerry, > >Just think of the antenna as the "source" and consider its >characteristic Z. Now consider the common mode circuit of the >transmission line and its Z. So often this is an unknown, and if we Richard, does Z mean the characteristic impedance of the line in the "differential" mode or "common" mode? Owen -- Article: 225229 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John Laczik Subject: HF antenna for yacht / boat Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:13:29 +0100 Message-ID: Any recommendations for a *simple* antenna that can be used on a yacht/boat to receive ~500 kHz, and to receive/transmit in the HF amateur and marine bands (1.5 MHz ~ 30 MHz)? Currently I am thinking about a length of wire between the stern and the top of the mast, fed via an ATU at the stern end. I can make the wire ~50' long. What is the optimum wire length? As long as possible? Thanks, John Article: 225230 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: HF antenna for yacht / boat From: chuck Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:26:34 -0400 Message-ID: <1150197385_52775@sp6iad.superfeed.net> References: Hello John, The best starting point is probably the installation guides available at www.icomamerica.com and www.sgcworld.com. Those two companies sell ssb radios and automatic antenna tuners. If your tuner is of a different make, you might search out information on it. From there, you can simply do google searches on any aspects not covered in those manuals. The ARRL has published a book on marine installations but I have not seen a copy yet. Good luck. Chuck John Laczik wrote: > Any recommendations for a *simple* antenna that can be used > on a yacht/boat to receive ~500 kHz, and to receive/transmit > in the HF amateur and marine bands (1.5 MHz ~ 30 MHz)? > > Currently I am thinking about a length of wire between the > stern and the top of the mast, fed via an ATU at the stern > end. I can make the wire ~50' long. What is the optimum > wire length? As long as possible? > > Thanks, > > John ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Article: 225231 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Message-ID: References: <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:37:58 GMT On 13 Jun 2006 01:37:57 -0700, w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >Cecil Moore wrote: >> When I lived in the Arizona, clear-sky wind-driven charged >> dust particles transferred lots of energy to my bare-wire >> G5RV. It caused arcing whether the outside braid was grounded >> or not. It only happened when the wind was blowing and >> the humidity was very low. > >But that effect is common no matter where we live. As I've said several >times, a high dipole here for 160m charges enough to knock you on your >rear on a calm sunny day if the coacial line is well insulated from >ground. > >It is not wise tol have a large high antenna that was well-insulated >from ground, since the accumulated charge can suddenly discharge >through a series capacitor and damage equipment. I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off electrical build up? bob k5qwg > >Utility companies must ground unused wires that run for miles to >prevent build up of charge, so that is not something that just occurs >in arid climates. > >> Do you agree that a charged particle will transfer energy >> to the bare wire in a dipole when it touches it? If not, >> why not? > >Of course it will IF it is at a different potential than the wire. > >> If the antenna were link coupled, do you agree that the >> above transferred energy will try to equalize between the >> two dipole elements? If not, why not? > >Of course it will. > >> Do you agree that the equalizing of the charges between >> elements would cause a current to flow through the link? >> If not, why not? > >Of course it will. > >I disagree wth your contention that the link, if the noise comes from >each particle hitting the antenna, will reduce noise. That's the part >that makes no sense. > >Maybe you can explain why the link (or folded element) would reduce >that noise. > >73 Tom Article: 225232 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149910151.859293.41560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:29:38 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: >> When I lived in the Arizona, clear-sky wind-driven charged >> dust particles transferred lots of energy to my bare-wire >> G5RV. It caused arcing whether the outside braid was grounded >> or not. It only happened when the wind was blowing and >> the humidity was very low. > > But that effect is common no matter where we live. As I've said several > times, a high dipole here for 160m charges enough to knock you on your > rear on a calm sunny day if the coaxial line is well insulated from > ground. During the "H Field Antennas" thread, you said the following: *************************************************************** > Reg Edwards wrote: >> Precipitation static, eg., from highly charged raindrops and fine snow >> or fine sand, impinging on the antenna wire, just causes an increase >> in receiver white noise level. It can be reduced but not removed by >> using a very thickly insulated antenna wire, like the inner conductor >> of a coaxial cable complete with its polyethylene jacket. >> ---- >> Reg. W8JI replied: > I've never seen a case of precitation static occuring that way. > > In every single case I've seen, whether on tall buildings, tall towers, > or antenna hear earth, it has always been corona discharges from the > antenna or objects near the antenna. ... 73 Tom **************************************************************** I have only noticed the charged particle arcing in Arizona when the wind was blowing and that is what I am reporting. > It is not wise to have a large high antenna that was well-insulated > from ground, since the accumulated charge can suddenly discharge > through a series capacitor and damage equipment. Where does the accumulated charge come from if not from charged particles? If the antenna is link coupled, the charge equalizes between the two dipole elements and, in my experience, doesn't arc. >> Do you agree that a charged particle will transfer energy >> to the bare wire in a dipole when it touches it? If not, >> why not? > > Of course it will IF it is at a different potential than the wire. > >> If the antenna were link coupled, do you agree that the >> above transferred energy will try to equalize between the >> two dipole elements? If not, why not? > > Of course it will. > >> Do you agree that the equalizing of the charges between >> elements would cause a current to flow through the link? >> If not, why not? > > Of course it will. Seems we are in agreement that charged particle RF noise can therefore be picked up by a receiver as Reg says above. It is only logical that it will be worse when the wind blows causing more charged particles to encounter the antenna wire. And, as shown below, it is only logical that a folded dipole would transfer less of that noise to the link than a non-folded dipole. > I disagree with your contention that the link, if the noise comes from > each particle hitting the antenna, will reduce noise. That's the part > that makes no sense. In my experience, it eliminated the arcing. Thus it eliminated the *AURAL* arcing noise that my ears were hearing. Why does that make no sense? I was very clear that my receiver was off and disconnected at the time and that I made no RF noise measurements. A short, or 4:1 voltage balun, or choke, or link across the connector eliminated the *AURAL* arcing noise. > Maybe you can explain why the link (or folded element) would reduce > that noise. Seems you confused my statements about aural noise with RF noise. I have previously said I didn't measure the RF noise. In any case, please see the pictures below to understand why a folded element redirects the charge equalization process away from the link. The process of equalizing the charge on the non-folded dipole elements causes RF noise across the link which is picked up by the S-meter on the receiver. I observed that many times in AZ and wish I had made some measurements. The S-meter reports a higher level of charged particle noise during high wind conditions and dry-air snowstorms. Please explain what it is about the following that you don't understand. 1. The equalizing of the element charges on a link coupled dipole will cause a current to flow through the link resulting in higher RF noise readings on the S-meter during high wind conditions when more charged particles are encountering the antenna wire. 2. Turning the dipole into a folded dipole (or loop) gives a preferred localized path for the equalization of the charge. Not nearly as much RF noise current flows through the remote link. Maybe a picture would help. Here's a non-folded dipole with a charge hitting it. In order to equalize charge with the other element, part of the charge must flow down the transmission line, through the link, and back up the transmission line to the other dipole element. Virtually all of the pulsed charge equalization process goes through the link. ---------CH----+ +--------------- | | / / | | link **************************************************************** +--------------------------------+ +--------CH----+ +---------------+ | | / / | | link Here's a folded dipole with a charge hitting it in the same relative place. What is the most efficient preferred path for equalizing the charge with the other element? Not down the transmission line and through the link but simply straight through the antenna wire. Hint: Charge would rather take the 50 foot path of least resistance than a 200 foot path of most resistance. Eureka! The folded dipole is less noisy during high wind conditions than is the non-folded dipole because most of the charge equalization takes place locally through the antenna wire and not remotely through the link. BTW, thanks for forcing me to think this through in detail. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225233 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:36:45 GMT Bob Miller wrote: > I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, > through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire > on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off > electrical build up? If there is a DC path to ground from *BOTH* sides of the dipole, the answer is yes. But, looking at the 989c schematic, I don't see a DC path to ground from one of the balanced line outputs. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225234 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:43:29 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Bob Miller wrote: >> I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, >> through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire >> on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off >> electrical build up? > > If there is a DC path to ground from *BOTH* sides of the > dipole, the answer is yes. But, looking at the 989c > schematic, I don't see a DC path to ground from one of > the balanced line outputs. I forgot to say that your high humidity probably provides a path to ground from the other tuner terminal. It was only during super low humidity conditions in the Arizona desert that I experienced the arcing process during high winds. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225235 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jerry Martes" References: Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:58:00 GMT "Richard Clark" wrote in message news:fins825cbte12e9cec7o5klv3al77vcguq@4ax.com... > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:40:19 GMT, "Jerry Martes" > wrote: > >> I did measure the impedance across a loop of RG 223 with 4 tubes around >>the outside. The problem I come up with is my ignorance of *whats >>needed* >>for adequate decoupling of the balanced antenna from the outside of the >>coax. > > Hi Jerry, > > Just think of the antenna as the "source" and consider its > characteristic Z. Now consider the common mode circuit of the > transmission line and its Z. So often this is an unknown, and if we > were always lucky, it would be a half wave multiple to present a very > high Z indeed. Thus 'twould be the end of the story. > > How high is high enough? I offer three values for choking: > 3 times antenna Z at a minimum; > 5 times is practical; > 10 times is lab grade. > > So, tell us what those 4 tubes measured? > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard I have been thinking of the "string of ferrites" as a method of presenting a high impedance to Conducted currents along the outside of the coax from the antenna down to the radio. It is clear that a "high impedance" may actually couple well to the outside of the coax if the length of coax is some special length that presents a high impedance up to where the choke is located, I think I could have saved time if I'd asked you more questions when I was doing the work of learning about baluns. I didnt keep any of the data I recorded with any of the coils and ferrites. It is easy to measure the Z of any high impedance circuit so I could easily measure choke impedance at 2 meters. Jerry Article: 225236 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Message-ID: <2cot82dpgpl61diuobmjka31ufjqurtdn5@4ax.com> References: <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:06:46 GMT On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:43:29 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Cecil Moore wrote: >> Bob Miller wrote: >>> I have a low, 30 feet or so, 80 meter dipole fed with ladderline, >>> through an mfj 989c tuner. Hot humid clime (Texas). Is the ground wire >>> on the back of the tuner, going to a ground rod, enough to bleed off >>> electrical build up? >> >> If there is a DC path to ground from *BOTH* sides of the >> dipole, the answer is yes. But, looking at the 989c >> schematic, I don't see a DC path to ground from one of >> the balanced line outputs. > >I forgot to say that your high humidity probably provides >a path to ground from the other tuner terminal. It was >only during super low humidity conditions in the Arizona >desert that I experienced the arcing process during >high winds. I can't recall seeing any gap-sparking here in the San Antonio area. When it's hot, it's usually pretty humid, too. bob k5qwg Article: 225237 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Richard Fry" References: <448d64a0$0$16401$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1150153471.710936.106120@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: hey W8JI Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:27:05 -0500 Message-ID: <448ee692_1@newsfeed.slurp.net> > As a matter of fact AM BC stations, despite their large ground > systems, abandoned the 5/8th wave many years ago. They > found in the real world use of 5/8th waves instead of extending > coverage they reduced coverage. ____________ The h-plane inverse field of a 5/8-wave AM BC vertical working against 120 buried radials each at least 1/4-wave long is calculated in theory and measured in practice as having the greatest possible field per unit of radiated power of any non-sectionalized radiator height, no matter what the earth conductivity at the antenna site. But the 5/8 wave BC vertical does have a discrete, high angle sidelobe that, at night, can interfere with its own groundwave over an annular zone starting a few hundred miles from the antenna. Very distant coverage is provided by low-angle skywave (less than about 30 degrees), and is not affected because the groundwave is gone at those distance ranges. But this is the reason that 24-hr, 50 kW AM BC stations use a radiator typically around 195 degrees. Its h-plane inverse field (the groundwave) is not quite as great as from a 5/8-wave, but it doesn't develop that high-angle lobe. It is popularly called an "antifade" radiator. RF (WJR staff engineer, 1960s) Article: 225238 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "AAA RF Products" Subject: FS: SMA Cable Assemblies, $9.90 each, made in USA Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:29:35 -0700 Any 10 SMA Male to SMA Male cable assemblies for $99.00 RG-58C/U or RG-223/U Mix & match any 10 Length available: 12", 18", 24", 30", 36", 48", 60", 72", 84", & 96" High quality & made in USA Please email sales@AAARFProducts.com or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) AAA RF Products 946 Calle Amanecer, suite E San Clemente, CA 92673 Article: 225239 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149910151.859293.41560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:29:36 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: Why didn't you respond to the pictures I drew for you? > 1.) You say the particles make the noise as each individual particle > hits the antenna. Yes, and you have agreed with all the steps leading up to that noise pulse flowing through the link. It is just simple physics. I notice you are not responding to any of the technical content of my posting are are continuing to deliberately obfuscate something I said earlier about aural arcing noise. > 2.) You say grounding the antenna eliminates that noise. Grounding the antenna eliminated the ***AURAL*** arcing noise that was keeping me awake at night and scorching my rug when the transceiver was powered down and disconnected from the antenna. How many times do I have to explain that to you? But I have no doubt that if the transceiver had been turned on, the arcing across the transceiver connector would have caused RF noise if not failure. And I also have no doubt that grounding both transmission line conductors would have eliminated the arcing and thus reduced the RF noise heard by the receiver. Your style of argument is making you look stupid. > There is an obvious conflict in those two ideas. Only in your mind, Tom. Please cease and desist with the obfuscation and try to follow your own advice from another newsgroup where you said nobody knows everything (presumably including you) and everyone is capable of learning something new (presumably including you). It's past time for you to learn about dry-air wind-driven charged-particle noise. Quantum Electrodynamics will tell you that even corona noise is caused by charged particles. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225240 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <2cot82dpgpl61diuobmjka31ufjqurtdn5@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:31:38 GMT Bob Miller wrote: > I can't recall seeing any gap-sparking here in the San Antonio area. > When it's hot, it's usually pretty humid, too. If you have an o'scope, please hang it across the transmission line wires during your next dust storm and report the results compared to a calm day. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225241 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: FS: SMA Cable Assemblies, $9.90 each, made in USA From: Larry References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:12:05 -0400 More spam on here every week....(sigh) Don't forget to send Cox Abuse the header: From: "AAA RF Products" Newsgroups: misc.industry.electronics.marketplace,rec.boats.electronics,rec.radio.ama teur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors Subject: FS: SMA Cable Assemblies, $9.90 each, made in USA Lines: 19 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:29:35 -0700 NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.58.167.76 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net X-Trace: fed1read11 1150216151 64.58.167.76 (Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:29:11 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:29:11 EDT Organization: Cox Communications Xref: usenetserver.com misc.industry.electronics.marketplace:126904 rec.boats.electronics:160756 rec.radio.amateur.antenna:326959 rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors:215070 "AAA RF Products" wrote in news:rJBjg.7953 $rS6.3286@fed1read11: > Any 10 SMA Male to SMA Male cable assemblies for $99.00 > > RG-58C/U or RG-223/U > > Mix & match any 10 > > Length available: 12", 18", 24", 30", 36", 48", 60", 72", 84", & 96" > > High quality & made in USA > > Please email sales@AAARFProducts.com > > or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) > > AAA RF Products > 946 Calle Amanecer, suite E > San Clemente, CA 92673 > > > Article: 225242 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:56:13 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > I must have missed it. :-) Sure you did even after I said it half a dozen times. :-) You have talked about my transmission line laying on the rug scorching it so you could not possibly have "missed it". > With any AURAL noise there is always a spark, and > that spark is accompanied by electrical noise or component damage. Yes, I have said *many* times that my transceiver's power was off and it was unplugged from the transmission line. You know the transmission line was laying on my rug because you have talked about that before. > My understanding was you said the HF noise in the receiver was caused > by the random particles actually striking the antenna. If so, grounding > makes no difference. I agree and never said otherwise. However, since you insist, below I indicate how grounding would have made a difference had I responded in a different way. > If you disagree, explain why. Let's say that I was stupid enough not to disconnect my transceiver when I heard the arcing at the coax input and instead turned the transceiver on. Let's say it didn't suffer failure. Would you agree that I would hear RF noise in the transceiver every time the coax connector arced? Would you agree that if I shorted the center conductor to ground that since the outer conductor was already grounded, the RF noise in the transceiver would decrease? > Why not act mature? It was you who once again regressed to your terrible-twos infantile omniscient stage and just couldn't resist misquoting me. Please don't do that again. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225243 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <448F0CEE.4020502@fuse.net> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:07:26 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149910151.859293.41560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Perhaps I'm not pedantic enough to enjoy the courtesy of your reply. If your rug is scorched...how much current is there? My simple question was: Is this a novel way to create a trickle charger? (When TCVR is d/c'd, of course) Anyone care to respond? Otherwise, I'll just lurk and observe the "drama" between you two. John AB8WH Article: 225244 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: Wide bandwidth ladder line J-pole for 6-Meters Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:09:55 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5ZWdnbe8ZP27NBHZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> "Chuck Olson" wrote in message news:Ts-dndx_b-BRkBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com... > Today I clipped out the connection I had made at the bottom of the radiator, > and the SWR bandwidth remained 2MHz as is was with the connection. The group > of SWR measurements moved up an average of 150 KHz from my readings with the > connection, but otherwise the performance of the "Slim Jim" configuration is > identical. The length of the gap may now serve as a tuning mechanism, which > wasn't a feature with the bottom connection, and the archives show some > builders made good use of that facility. Thanks for spotting the similarity, > Jeff. My 6M antenna will no doubt be better for it. > 73, Chuck Chuck, I searched on Slim-Jim. Let me see if I understand correctly. Slim-Jim is a twin-lead or ladder-line type J antenna with the *top* of the half-wave 9dual conductor) radiator ends connected. Yours has the bottom of the 1/2 wave ends connected. Am I to understand that the Slim-Jim configuration and yours have very similar SWR BW? This is good to know. Then I'd like clarification on your comment: "... If you analyze the operation of the very successful "Open Stub > J-Pole" that Arrow makes, you will find they use the 0.95 FV for both the > radiator and the stub,..." Can you be more specific about this. What is the electrical length of the stub for said analysis? I like that design, though there is controversy about it. 73, Steve, K9DCi Article: 225245 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Michael Coslo Subject: Re: Have any of you mailed this to your ARRL Division directors and Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:49:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: <448B2227.2090601@fuse.net> <4H6jg.28755$QP4.3723@fed1read12> Sal M. Onella wrote: > "Michael Coslo" wrote in message > news:e6jvip$1a4e$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... >> Sal M. Onella wrote: > > < snip > >>> I learn new tricks every day. Morse Code isn't one of them. >> >> The real issue is probably that HF privileges are probably just not that >> important to you. > > < snip > > > Thanks for explaining it so clearly. That just makes everything right. > > Hey, no prob. I don't use Morse code, probably never will, unless I get into keyboard Morse. But I did want the HF access, so I learned Morse code. It was that important to me. As for what is right, do you know that there are thousands, maybe millions of people who can't pass the writtens? How is it right that we have any testing at all when we discriminate against them? It isn't an insult to anyone to say that HF access isn't important enough to them that they will take the time and effort to learn Morse code. Ham radio doesn't have to be important to anyone - it's a hobby. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Article: 225246 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Michael Coslo Subject: Re: Buyer Beware - Cobra Ultralight Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:53:17 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1149770557.629987.141180@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <9luj82h4k68g3r71qm0c4qd3ijie9pk4ei@4ax.com> Owen Duffy wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:04:37 -0400, Michael Coslo > wrote: > > >> I'm modeling the thing in 4nec2 now. I get different results than both >> of you, so I need to go back to the drawing board..... > > The NEC deck for my models is linked from the article. You will need > to replace the $freq symbolic variable though with a number. Thanks Owen, I'll take a look after tonights club meeting. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Article: 225247 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: measurements at the antenna Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:37:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: "dansawyeror" wrote in message news:Y_OdnUi9xcVd2xHZnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@comcast.com... > Thank you all for your replys, they were all interesting. > > The first set of test measurements were taken on a 2-meter loaded vertical. Two > voltage readings were taken via a high impedance scope probe, one at the > feedpoint of the coax center connection, and the other from the connection of > the coax shield to the antenna ground. In this case the ground is a simple > raised metal 1/4 inch screen mesh about 10 square feet. > > The antenna was tuned to resonance. The relative voltage readings were the > center conductor was 2x the ground reading. I do not have a way to measure > current at the base at this time. > > However looking ahead, with power = iv would this imply about 2 times the energy > is being radiated from the vertical element as through the base? > > Thanks Dan - kb0qil > > dansawyeror wrote: > > Good morning, > > > > This question is: Taking measurements at the antenna and what they mean? > > > > The antenna is a loaded vertical over a set of untuned radials. The feed > > is 50 Ohm coax with a 1:1 isolation transformer at the antenna. I intend > > to run a separate coax for measurement purposes to the feed point, > > stimulate the antenna with a 10 mw signal at the operating frequency, > > and measure the voltage across the antenna feed and the ground connection. > > > > Will the voltages indicate the relative RF impedance of antenna > > (including loading coil) versus the ground? If the ground were near > > perfect the voltage at the feedpoint should be close to zero. These > > voltages should indicate the power disapation difference between the > > antenna and the ground. > > > > Thanks, > > Dan Dan, I'm echoing the others on this. Using scope probes for this kind of measurenet is a very touchy undertaking at the very best, even with the best quality equipment and much experience. Other methods of measuting RF are required and used by those who know. That's why they were developed. If you do this at 10M or below, then you have more chance of getting correct results. That being said, it is not clear what you are trying to measure since you say you are, in essence, measuring "ground". It is not clear just what you are doing. Unfortunately, from your description, the way you describe this, I feel you do not have enough technical background to understand the technical concepts well enough. You appear to have some knowledge, but not enough, in what appear to be basics, to do this. The way you describe your technique, you are not connecting the probe ground to anything. This makes no sense. RF measurements may seem like "black magic" but it takes nothing more than *really* understanding all the basics and all the stray effects really, really well. At least you seem to understand that "ground" is not the absolute zero reference that others seem to believe it is / can be / needs to be. A few comments in general: You *MUST* connect *BOTH* parts of the probe tip if you hope to get anything close to true results. Both these connections must have no effect on the measurement. The probe must be capable of measuring what you are attempting. There are high frequency 10x probes, but all the other sonsiderations are even more important because they will be even more susceptable to the side effects just because they *are* capable of making the measurements. The Shield / ground part of the scope probe and cable leading back to the scope is something which can have a significant effect on what you see on the scope face. The antenna can be inducing current into this and giving false readings. This is a major problem in measuting any high frequency signals. There must be no possibility of the scope cable picking up any signal. I have seen very misleading results when this technique is tried on digital circuits which have fast rise times and therefore high frequency components. Good luck & 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225248 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:55:03 -0500 Message-ID: References: <3fkr82hl0ugon8vrja2r6bt8dpj2c5cna9@4ax.com> "John Ferrell" wrote in message news:3fkr82hl0ugon8vrja2r6bt8dpj2c5cna9@4ax.com... > Neat. I especially like the Black Noise... Isn't the mute switch nothing more than a black noise generator? 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225249 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:53:13 -0500 Message-ID: References: OK here's my take, since all the other answer'ers answered without having enough info in the first place, in my opinion... Pink niose explanatino #12. What you call the "pink noise" that you see / hear in an FM receiver could be that which is designed into the receiver and therefore not normally removable. You could add preemphasis to "whiten" it up. The reason is that the receiver has "de-emphasis" built in to compensate for the pre-emphasis designed into the transmitters that it will receive, which, in turn, was put there to help enhance the low noise characteristics of the FM mode of transmission. This "de-empnasis" is nothing more than a filter which reduces the high frequency audio copmponents more than the low frewquencies, thus giving it the "pink" or low frequency enhanced characteristic. The term Pink coming from the color red which is the color of lower frequency visible light and we have simply retained that analogy when referring to noise. Narrow band receivers use a simple -6 dB per octave deemphasis across the whole audio band and wide band, broadcast receivers use something similar, but it doesn't extend across the whole audio band. So can you be more speciffic? When do you hear this noise? Why do you want to get rid of it? What are you listening to? 73, Steve, K9DCI "Boborato" wrote in message news:e6e4u3$jel$1@news.nivel5.cl... > Hi group. > > I wanna know how can I get the FM signal without that nasty 'pink' noise. > > I'm not using any kind of external antenna. > > Greetings!! > > Article: 225250 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <448F0CEE.4020502@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 20:15:35 GMT jawod wrote: > Perhaps I'm not pedantic enough to enjoy the courtesy of your reply. I just checked back to your last posting to this thread. Here's what it said: > Error! > newsgroup server responded: Bad article number > Perhaps the article has expired > <448CC167.7010009@fuse.net> (272761) That's rather difficult to reply to. > My simple question was: Is this a novel way to create a trickle charger? You could get some charge out of it but I just don't know how many joules per unit time. Perhaps someone out there in the desert could perform an experiment. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225251 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:07:31 -0500 Message-ID: References: "Jimmie D" wrote in message news:Bfjjg.10989$gv2.4052@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > "Boborato" wrote in message > news:e6e4u3$jel$1@news.nivel5.cl... > > Hi group. > > > > I wanna know how can I get the FM signal without that nasty 'pink' noise. > > > > I'm not using any kind of external antenna. > > > > Greetings!! > > > > Use an outside antenna > > Ahhhh! Right to the heart of it, Jimmy... 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225252 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: FM without 'pink noise' Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:06:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: "W3JDR" wrote in message news:YUBig.3630$%m5.685@trnddc04... >> Dave, > >> If you've never heard of 'pink' noise, then you're probably not a student of >> noise. >> >> In noise parlance, 'white' noise is the term that is usually used for >> non-bandlimited noise (ie, 'broadband noise'). "Pink' noise, on the other >> hand, is a term used to refer to bandlimited noise. In practice, anything >> that comes out of the audio channel of a communications receiver is really >> 'pink' noise, as the bandwidth is limited to a few KHz. On the other hand, >> the noise that is incident at the antenna or generated in the front-end is >> much broader in bandwidth and is more deserving of the term 'white' noise. >> Joe W3JDR >White noise is constant energy/Hz, pink is constant energy/octave. >tom K0TAR You're both right. The "classical" definition is Tom's. "White" is a constant energy density. "Pink" is 1/f, which gets to you the octave thing. In looser circles/ discussions, we often call noise which is not infinite in bandwidth or not "flat" in the bandwidth of discussion as "colored" and when the low frequency end has more than the high, "pink" often creeps into the vocabulary. "RED" noise would be what many broadcast FM stations seem to be transmitting now-a-days. 15-20 dB bass boost even on the mics. Really hard to listen to, but liked by the sub woofer crowd we all hear coming blocks away. 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225253 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "hasan schiers" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:33:22 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Here's something similar Cecil: I drove at 65 mph through a limited (about 1 mile wide) wind driven dust storm from an Iowa corn field during a drought. I was watching my S-meter on a 2m radio at the time (in the car). It slowly built up and eventually pinned (simultaneously, AM radio stations suffered the static build up and were blotted out. By the time I got through the mini-dust storm, the PIN diode antenna switching in the 2m radio had been destroyed. It was not raining. It was hot and dry, and you can imagine the dust particle count. I don't know the mechanics (as you people are disputing), but there was no doubt a significant build up and eventual discharge (I heard it on the AM radio) and the dust in the wind (thankyou Kansas), caused it, IMO. Another idiosyncratic report: 40m dipole up 30'. Middle of winter, very heavy wet snow. I could draw an arc off the end of the coax connector about an inch long. The rate of build/up and then discharge (how long it took between SNAPS) correlated very nicely with the rate of snowfall. The harder it snowed, the more rapidly the arc would happen, the more slowly it snowed, the longer in between arcing from the connector. Both of these, I would call "precip static"...one was dust, the other was snow. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out the mechanism. 73, ...hasan, N0AN "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:hTDjg.24031$VE1.20801@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: >> I must have missed it. > > :-) Sure you did even after I said it half a dozen times. :-) > You have talked about my transmission line laying on the > rug scorching it so you could not possibly have "missed it". > >> With any AURAL noise there is always a spark, and >> that spark is accompanied by electrical noise or component damage. > > Yes, I have said *many* times that my transceiver's power was > off and it was unplugged from the transmission line. You know > the transmission line was laying on my rug because you have > talked about that before. > >> My understanding was you said the HF noise in the receiver was caused >> by the random particles actually striking the antenna. If so, grounding >> makes no difference. > > I agree and never said otherwise. However, since you > insist, below I indicate how grounding would have made > a difference had I responded in a different way. > >> If you disagree, explain why. > > Let's say that I was stupid enough not to disconnect my > transceiver when I heard the arcing at the coax input and > instead turned the transceiver on. Let's say it didn't > suffer failure. > > Would you agree that I would hear RF noise in the transceiver > every time the coax connector arced? > > Would you agree that if I shorted the center conductor to > ground that since the outer conductor was already grounded, > the RF noise in the transceiver would decrease? > >> Why not act mature? > > It was you who once again regressed to your terrible-twos > infantile omniscient stage and just couldn't resist > misquoting me. Please don't do that again. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225254 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Eric the hair Oyen" References: <448B2227.2090601@fuse.net> <4H6jg.28755$QP4.3723@fed1read12> <1150233801.005719.10130@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Have any of you mailed this to your ARRL Division directors and SM's yet? Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:47:02 -0400 Message-ID: <448f24f3$0$3637$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "an_old_friend" wrote in message news:1150233801.005719.10130@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > I am a man not a mindless sheep > You and Eric have sex with men and sheep. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Article: 225255 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <5YGjg.50144$Lm5.24239@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 22:26:09 GMT hasan schiers wrote: > Both of these, I would call "precip static"...one was dust, the other was > snow. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out the mechanism. The behavior of charged particles has been understood for a century by most rational engineers and physicists. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225256 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: <8heu829nge0vngdo5cfl9d8m3q3i7m3ds5@4ax.com> References: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:06:20 GMT On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:51:43 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >As this discussion has been largely coaxial based, the outer >conductive surface of the coax is the primary imbalance to a dipole >through its "third wire" connection at the dipole feed point. It >appears as one of three wires to the abstract source established at >that feed point and it presents an ad-hoc Z load. The value of this >load is rarely determined, except when one deliberately attempts to >make their feed line 1/2 wave long (or some multiple). Of course, >that means 1/2 wave for the velocity factor of the outside conductive >path of the coax. This is often accomplished through cut and try >rather than modeling or measuring currents, but these too would be >good first pass approximations. Richard, There is a focus on evaluating baluns as a passive component in a bench test jig designed to characterise them by a simple equivalent circuit to show their imperfections in certain scenarios (eg impedance range, frequency range, common mode impedance with different balance points on the load and floating loads). Collectively, we seem to have done that to death. To date, I don't think anyone has discovered a practical balun that is close to ideal in all applications. Baluns (being any device that is designed to facilitate the transition >from un-unbalanced load (might be perfectly balanced, might not be) to an unbalanced transceiver (one terminal approximately grounded) seem to be usually employed to: - reduce common mode RF currents entering the shack where they may disrupt operation of equipment, and more recently may be a health concern; - reduce the feedline's participation in radiation or reception (pattern distortion, unwanted noise pickup, EMC / proximity to other equipment). It seems to me that NEC models are a worthwhile tool in developing insight into the effects that occur. I think NEC modelling of a coax fed, centre fed dipole at various heights as a centre fed conductor with generator at the centre of two wires, and the "third wire" to ground through some loss resistance is quite revealing. (The coax example is not to suggest that this phenomena is peculiar to coax feed alone.) You mention measuring currents. It seems that discussion on common mode currents has spawned a new market for clip on RF current probes. I even see suggestion that common mode current be continuously monitored in much the same way as VSWR is monitored at a spot adjacent to the tx. NEC modelling reveals that the currents on the "third wire" (common mode current) varies with position (no surprise there), and that depending on the topology, can be insignificantly low at some points while it is significantly high at other points. Measurement of common mode current at just a single point does not necessarily provide enough information to detect or assess a common mode current problem. Spot measurement is a superficial approach. So if there are maxima and minima in the common mode standing wave current on the feedline, the influence of chokes on current in all parts of the antenna system (hence pattern) and loss of chokes will depend on where they are located. That is not to suggest that it is all too complicated. I think there are good reasons to routinely deploy baluns of appropriate type an location, but they aren't a cut and dried idealised solution and further work may be required to identify and rectify residual problems. Owen -- Article: 225257 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149976606.648802.136670@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9aJig.94798$H71.24853@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:03:10 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: >> Would you agree that if I shorted the center conductor to >> ground that since the outer conductor was already grounded, >> the RF noise in the transceiver would decrease? > > Absolutely. So would the signals. S/N ratio would not change. There was nothing about signals being present in the previous discussion and this is the first time signals or S/N ratio have even been mentioned. Signals and/or S/N ratios are therefore irrelevant to the present discussion. W8JI previously wrote: > My understanding was you said the HF noise in the receiver was caused > by the random particles actually striking the antenna. If so, grounding > makes no difference. You just admitted above that shorting the transmission line to ground changes the noise level, i.e. indeed does make a difference. You have agreed with every leading question that I have asked you so it seems we are in agreement. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225258 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150234050.789190.210420@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:09:00 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Cecil then proposed, if I am not mistaken, that P-static was caused by > particles striking the antenna, each one making a noise as it > discharged into the antenna, and that noise could be reduced by > grounding the element at DC. That is really the only point I disageed > with. I'm glad you now agree with it. Grounding the feedline obviously reduces everything, including noise. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225259 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1149993717.760844.168170@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <448b88ac$0$76686$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:37:27 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > When you short ANY transmission line center to ground and the shield is > grounded, which is what you asked, ALL signal levels will decrease. > They will all go to zero if it is a perfect short. Glad you agree. Now would you agree that in a system with arcing, anything that eliminates the arcing and preserves the signal has reduced the noise? A path to ground will do exactly that. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225260 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <38Wig.44074$4L1.17246@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150058422.282361.78200@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:48:03 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Of course I agree when someone shorts the RF input connector of their > radio the noise will decrease! W8JI previously wrote: > So when you provide a DC path that does not short the antenna at radio > frequencies, it does nothing. In AZ, I provided a DC path (choke) that eliminated arcing and allowed me to make contacts. The elimination of arcing obviously improved my signal to noise ratio. You have stopped asserting that folding doesn't make for a quieter antenna system. Do you now understand why a folded dipole is less noisy than a non-folded dipole in a charged particle environment? Do you understand that the probable cause for high antennas having more particle noise is that the higher you go, the faster the wind blows? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225261 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC From: chuck Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:49:33 -0400 Message-ID: <1150292304_65647@sp6iad.superfeed.net> References: jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement of > radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I recall, > anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo Hey Jimbo, Here's a link: http://www2.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/exposure_regs.html ARRLWeb: The FCC's New RF-Exposure Regulations The criteria include both power and frequency, so powers below 100 watts at VHF and UHF may be subject to the regulation. Chuck ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Article: 225262 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:05:15 -0500 Message-ID: <12909dcs1jtbv67@corp.supernews.com> References: jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement of > radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I recall, > anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo Jim; Go to the ARRL web site. They have links there to the requirements for power measurement that you are looking for. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 225263 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Caveat Lector" References: <12909dcs1jtbv67@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC Message-ID: <3KVjg.178975$bm6.126047@fed1read04> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:15:12 -0700 > jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement of > radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I recall, > anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo Jim See URL: http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfexpose.html -- CL -- I doubt, therefore I might be ! From meb58optonline.net Wed Jun 14 22:24:29 EDT 2006 Article: 225264 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Mike Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: newbie UHF antenna question Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 5 Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 2f09e97e.news.astraweb.com X-Trace: DXC=b4?nJcnVf`mJ?XMfTm0i_cL?0kYOcDh@jETUgB5R3[1g?Nf References: Message-ID: Date: 14 Jun 2006 17:08:38 GMT > Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to > install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can > someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help > me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would > like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... > Not sure there is information that you want available here, but http://www.batlabs.com does have a lot of Morotola info. THe HT-1000 is discussed here: http://www.batlabs.com/visar.html Ed K7AAT Article: 225266 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "gravity" References: Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:09:43 -0500 Message-ID: <449042b6$0$79787$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> "Mike" wrote in message news:jcg09290feuu9dt7poubpt873k2e7kbps5@4ax.com... > Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to > install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can > someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help > me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would > like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... pretty easy. just buy a beam and some cable, or a vertical / cable setup >from a vendor. it's pretty much plug and play. if you want to build your own, there are some cool things you can do. cable *does* matter at UHF. most coax is very lossy. i'd suggest a stack of long boom Yagis on a 300 foot tower. ;- Gravity Article: 225267 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:27:59 GMT Mike wrote: > Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to > install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. http://www.diamondantenna.net -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225268 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question Message-ID: <4qq0929thgvlki52avsj8qqjs61l8ktf9n@4ax.com> References: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:05:13 GMT On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400, Mike wrote: >Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to >install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can >someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help >me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would >like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... If this is a business service radio, I'd imagine most Motorola or business radio dealers would have a "base station" type of antenna you could hook to the walkie talkie with the proper cable and connector. bob k5qwg Article: 225269 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Kevin Hastings" References: Subject: Re: 2 Meter QUAD - Balun / SWR question Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:05:16 GMT Thanks John - I may have thought the balun assembly was somehow involved. I'm new to the group and a fairly new amateur, and your respone was the only one that dealt with my question. What I thought was a relevant description was mis-read as "excess verbiage" I guess. I'll try trimming the loop, and hope also to cure the electronic thermostat problem which is fairly significant. 73 Kevin e"John Ferrell" wrote in message news:frou82lobemh1nuqkh2o95dqfr8m9mm0f3@4ax.com... > If the Swr is better below 145 than above the radiator must be over > length. You need to trim it or match it. If you are measuring through > lot of coax the match at the antenna is a lot worse than 3:1. > > Any kind of choke arrangement amounts to working on the wrong problem > to me. > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 19:17:44 GMT, "K. Hastings" > wrote: > > > John Ferrell W8CCW Article: 225270 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "dale.j. " Subject: Re: Antennas and the FCC References: Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:58:39 GMT In article , jimbo wrote: > A few years ago there was a flurry of activity regarding measurement > of radiation in the immediate area around the antenna/station. As I > recall, anything under 100 watts was exempt from the requirements. > > Can someone clarify the situation? > > Thanks, jimbo I'd suggest you comply with the rules. It's easy and more than likely you will pass muster. I used this site for my evaluation: http://n5xu.ae.utexas.edu/ I also made copies of my antenna specs and attached them to the report, then filed. -- Email: dalej2@mac.com Article: 225271 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Telamon Subject: Re: I bought a large capacitance hat for my vertical, but the antenna still gets wet when it rains. References: <1149714609.565540.160300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <448767E7.4040009@fuse.net> <1149774341.518961.129650@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1149939299.081665.138120@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <448d6fe1$0$23707$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.com> <2Rhjg.43959$fb2.30213@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <5Qijg.43979$fb2.36034@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <2pf6m3-kiv.ln1@remote.clifto.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:25:54 GMT In article , Cecil Moore wrote: > clifto wrote: > > Cecil Moore wrote: > >> Did you know that when Jesus prayed to God in > >> Aramaic, he probably prayed to "Allah"? > > > > I doubt it. The word Allah appears to be a conglomeration of "al elah", > > meaning "the god". > > A well educated friend told me that the Aramaic word > for "God" is "Allah". It would be nice to know if > he was wrong about that. > > Aren't Yahweh, Jehovah, and Allah all the same God-head? I know Clifto posted from rec.radio.shorwave but please drop the group >from the thread thanks. -- Telamon Ventura, California Article: 225272 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:40:34 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Yes, but there are fewer particles. > > > I don't think that is true. Dust is sucked high into > the air during the formation of a dust storm. I > have seen a wall of dust hundreds of feet high in > Arizona. It didn't look any denser closer to the > ground. In any case, it is not the number of > particles that matter but the average charge per > particle which increases with wind speed. How do you know that? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225273 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:00:42 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >> .....or doing some actual experiments like I have done. > > > I have been reporting actual experiences from when > I lived in the Arizona desert and I can guarantee > you that charged particles exist in the dry-air > desert wind. Where does the charge on an antenna > come from if not from charged particles? It probably comes from charged particles and the earth's electric field, but you won't know anything for sure unless you can come up with a mechanism for showing how dust particles get their charge in the first place. Then you have to measure it. In some old issue of Scientific American there's an article showing how to make a simple gadget to measure the electric charge on a raindrop (about .3 volt, average). I expect you could use the same idea to measure the charge on a dust particle during a dust storm. Then you'd have to calculate. That shouldn't be too hard for you to do, Cecil, you're an engineer. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225274 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question References: <4qq0929thgvlki52avsj8qqjs61l8ktf9n@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:12:05 GMT Ht 1000 handhelds (not to be confused with the Mt-1000/ht-600) uses a SMA connector to its rubber duck antenns. therefore, get a sma male to a BNC male, (or other standard fitting) for an adaptor! The MT1000, and HT 600 series has a adaptor available from motorola. As info, Jim NN7K Bob Miller wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400, Mike wrote: > > >>Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to >>install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can >>someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help >>me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would >>like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... > > > If this is a business service radio, I'd imagine most Motorola or > business radio dealers would have a "base station" type of antenna you > could hook to the walkie talkie with the proper cable and connector. > > bob > k5qwg Article: 225275 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question References: <4qq0929thgvlki52avsj8qqjs61l8ktf9n@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:26:29 GMT OOPS , tis a SMA FEMALE connector you want! (this also works for signal generator/wattmeter) to a ( BNC/or UHF) adaptor ! About $10 bux for high quality, but maybe cheaper for the nickel plated variety -- Jim Jim - NN7K wrote: > Ht 1000 handhelds (not to be confused with the Mt-1000/ht-600) uses a > SMA connector to its rubber > duck antenns. therefore, get a sma male to a BNC > male, (or other standard fitting) for an adaptor! > The MT1000, and HT 600 series has a adaptor available from motorola. As > info, Jim NN7K > > Bob Miller wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:04:22 -0400, Mike wrote: >> >> >>> Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to >>> install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can >>> someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help >>> me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would >>> like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... >> >> >> >> If this is a business service radio, I'd imagine most Motorola or >> business radio dealers would have a "base station" type of antenna you >> could hook to the walkie talkie with the proper cable and connector. >> >> bob >> k5qwg Article: 225276 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Hill" References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:38:53 -0500 "Morse or ReMorse" wrote in message news:7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > Modernizing ham radio: > > No more CW, easier to pass written exams. We Should change the > names: Tech, General & Extra too. No sense hanging with the > dinosaurs when there's no need to be proficient at anything > anymore: > > Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class > > Appliance Operator 3rd Class, No Class > > Now Ten twenty-seven to channel one nine to get a preview of the new > classes. I'm ten seven. Any one got a ten thirty-six hello. > > Sorry for the CB lingo, I'm just getting practiced up so I can understand > people when the CW test goes away. > > You really want modernization? > > > Remorse Don't be chickenshit. Be a man and put your name to it! Since you cross posted it to three million groups. BH Article: 225277 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "James Crow" References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:54:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4490a26c$0$3582$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> "Zombie Wolf" wrote in message news:FpGdneoOz8-3NA3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com... > Sure I want modernization. I dont have to put up with any of it. I havent > been on the air for at least ten years. I renewed the license, then put it > away. > The ham bands are gonna go away, and soon. They are gonna go the same way > that respect for your fellow amateur went, cooperation went, etc. The FCC > has a vested interest in shutting the ham bands down, since their funding > got cut years ago. BPL looked like a winning plan to shut it all down so > they could sell it off, but that flopped, since it also interfered with > other emergency services, like police and fire. so, the easiest way to > shut it down for good is to just hand it over to the cb crowd. They will > make a complete mess out of it, and they wont waste any time doing it, > either. > > Then the FCC can improve their funding, considerably. Just think, the > fines from the violations alone will come to millions. Did you really > think that the FCC was looking for "new innovations and inventions" coming > out of ham radio ? This is the digital age, guy. > In the meantime, enjoy these tirades from folks about the "fat-amateur". > Me, I pump iron every day, and could probably knock most of them on their > keester without even breaking a sweat, and im twice their age. The irony > of them opening their mouths has not escaped me, these new, modern > "sensitive" guys that are doing 99% of the ranting on this subject. It > begs the question: Just which pair of their mother's panties are they > wearing today ? Ham Radio started to suck about ten years ago, and it is > going to continue the downhill slide. Get tused to it. > > And before you start in on me, lemme tell ya fella, i was a cw operator, > and i also built most of my own stuff. It just ain't worth it any more. > Period. > > > "Morse or ReMorse" wrote in message > news:7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> Modernizing ham radio: >> >> No more CW, easier to pass written exams. We Should change the >> names: Tech, General & Extra too. No sense hanging with the >> dinosaurs when there's no need to be proficient at anything >> anymore: >> >> Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class >> >> Appliance Operator 3rd Class, No Class >> >> Now Ten twenty-seven to channel one nine to get a preview of the new >> classes. I'm ten seven. Any one got a ten thirty-six hello. >> >> Sorry for the CB lingo, I'm just getting practiced up so I can understand >> people when the CW test goes away. >> >> You really want modernization? >> >> >> Remorse > well said,sir. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Article: 225278 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 20:04:28 -0500 Message-ID: <1291cgtkguuhv43@corp.supernews.com> References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> "Zombie Wolf" wrote in message news:FpGdneoOz8-3NA3ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com... > Sure I want modernization. I dont have to put up with any of it. I havent > been on the air for at least ten years. I renewed the license, then put it > away. > The ham bands are gonna go away, and soon. They are gonna go the same way > that respect for your fellow amateur went, cooperation went, etc. The FCC > has a vested interest in shutting the ham bands down, since their funding > got cut years ago. BPL looked like a winning plan to shut it all down so > they could sell it off, but that flopped, since it also interfered with > other emergency services, like police and fire. so, the easiest way to > shut it down for good is to just hand it over to the cb crowd. They will > make a complete mess out of it, and they wont waste any time doing it, > either. > > Then the FCC can improve their funding, considerably. Just think, the > fines from the violations alone will come to millions. Did you really > think that the FCC was looking for "new innovations and inventions" coming > out of ham radio ? This is the digital age, guy. I doubt that the CBer would take over on all bands. One of the attractions of CB is the cost of equipment. The FCC will probably sell off the unused bandwidths to private organizations such as cell companies and repeaters for the service industry to name a few. They can then be done with all the headaches with ham/cb enforcement and concentrate on other, more lucrative areas, such as Janet Jackson's half time nipple exposure. Article: 225279 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "VE2CJW" Subject: Don't do what I did. Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:38:25 -0400 I thought I had a coax problem. Every time I tried to check the dc resistance of a length of coax not connected to anything, I always got a reading around 1.25 meg. This is not a short nor open line so I checked another length and got similar results, so I was really baffled. The odd thing is that both of these coaxes work perfectly when connected to an antenna. I finally found out what I was doing wrong. I was using probes that I had to hold with my fingers, so I was really measuring the dc resistance between my fingers. After watching my fingers, I get infinite dc resistance like I should. This one really baffled me for some time, I don't wish something like that to happen again. 73 Mike. Article: 225280 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <4f3kg.147932$F_3.68346@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:04:48 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > How do you know that? Simple physics. I don't believe in magic. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225281 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:14:27 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4490c283$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Morse or ReMorse wrote: > Modernizing ham radio: > > No more CW, easier to pass written exams. We Should change the > names: Tech, General & Extra too. No sense hanging with the > dinosaurs when there's no need to be proficient at anything > anymore: > > Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class > > Appliance Operator 3rd Class, No Class > > Now Ten twenty-seven to channel one nine to get a preview of the new > classes. I'm ten seven. Any one got a ten thirty-six hello. > > Sorry for the CB lingo, I'm just getting practiced up so I can understand > people when the CW test goes away. > > You really want modernization? > > > Remorse GOAT Which means GO Away Troll, for those that aren't up on the equivalent of morse code on newsgroups. tom K0TAR Article: 225282 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:16:30 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Of course if I viewed the world through a 80 meter dipole at 50 feet > with only dust to worry about and never talked to the fellow at NASA, > or if I never had multiple antennas on multiple tall towers or worked > on all those commercial systems, I might agree with Cecil. When the only tool one has is a corona hammer, all problems look like corona nails. Fortunately, I am familiar with both corona problems and dry-air wind-driven charged particle problems. > All the problems I saw related to corona. At least that's what you assumed. Just because all the cars parked in your driveway are white doesn't mean all the cars in the world are white. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225283 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <4f3kg.147932$F_3.68346@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 02:53:28 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> How do you know that? > > > Simple physics. I don't believe in magic. I thought simple physics was magic. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225284 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:00:00 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >> Of course if I viewed the world through a 80 meter dipole at 50 feet >> with only dust to worry about and never talked to the fellow at NASA, >> or if I never had multiple antennas on multiple tall towers or worked >> on all those commercial systems, I might agree with Cecil. > > > When the only tool one has is a corona hammer, all problems > look like corona nails. Fortunately, I am familiar with both > corona problems and dry-air wind-driven charged particle > problems. > >> All the problems I saw related to corona. > > > At least that's what you assumed. Just because all the cars > parked in your driveway are white doesn't mean all the cars > in the world are white. Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what most of the sources say. Tom says height makes all the difference. That would make a lot of sense given the way the earth's electric field is structured. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225285 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 03:18:30 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging the > antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what most > of the sources say. The argument is not what it is called. The argument is whether charged dry-air dust particles can transfer charge to bare-wire antennas. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225286 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <4490D314.3050001@fuse.net> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:25:08 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> Zombie Wolf wrote: > > > Are you tellin'us all the zombie troof? PS, I love ham radio all over again (missing for 30 years) I'm building an Elecraft K-2, having a great time. Monitoring the bands on a Grundig...sounds good to me. Not the same as 30 years ago, but then again, Frank Zappa is dead, too. John AB8WH Article: 225287 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:08:44 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging >> the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what >> most >> of the sources say. > > > The argument is not what it is called. The argument is whether > charged dry-air dust particles can transfer charge to bare-wire > antennas. Man, you guys really crack me up. I must admit I kinda enjoy reading your posts, though. \There must be some source citing experimental evidence of charged particles in a dust storm transferring their charges to a collector of some sort (antenna). I alluded earlier to a practical use of such collection... Cecil, you said you have no idea how many Joules were represented (or something along those lines). Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken? Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more charges transferred per unit time. If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs is only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work? What was the other issue: number of particles versus the charge per particle? Got me. As the particles are swept off the surface of the desert, would their charge (per particle) be distributed (as Gauss or some other )? I would think the # particles would be more important. If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded? perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence more charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this Voltage? I guess I can't part with my trickle charger idea. You guys have at it. Thanks for letting me butt in. John Article: 225288 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Modernization: Appliance Operator 1st Class, Appliance Operator 2nd Class, Appliance Op... Message-ID: References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <4490c283$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:37:35 -0400 On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:14:27 -0500, Tom Ring wrote: >Which means GO Away Troll, for those that aren't up on the equivalent of >morse code on newsgroups. I forget his call, he used to live in Neptune, NJ, but he ended his transmissions with "No lids, no kids, no space cadets". I guess that's a more colorful version of GOAT .... .. Article: 225289 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Sal M. Onella" References: <448B2227.2090601@fuse.net> <4H6jg.28755$QP4.3723@fed1read12> Subject: Re: Have any of you mailed this to your ARRL Division directors and SM's yet? Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:43:36 -0700 "Michael Coslo" wrote in message news:e6n4t5$16n4$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... > Sal M. Onella wrote: > > "Michael Coslo" wrote in message > > news:e6jvip$1a4e$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu... > >> Sal M. Onella wrote: > > > > < snip > > >>> I learn new tricks every day. Morse Code isn't one of them. > >> > >> The real issue is probably that HF privileges are probably just not that > >> important to you. > > > > < snip > > > > > Thanks for explaining it so clearly. That just makes everything right. > > > > > > > Hey, no prob. I WAS BEING SARCASTIC AND I THINK IT WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD > It isn't an insult to anyone to say that HF access isn't important > enough to them that they will take the time and effort to learn Morse > code. YES IT IS. I'VE WASTED HUNDREDS OF HOURS TRYING TO LEARN MORSE CODE AND I CAN'T DO IT. YOU'VE TRIVIALIZED ALL MY ANGER AND FRUSTRATION. YOU DISMISSED FIFTEEN YEARS OF FRUITLESS EFFORT IN TWO HURTFUL SENTENCES. YOU'RE NO HELP. Article: 225290 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:18:14 -0700 Message-ID: <1291rcqk2o9f2f9@corp.supernews.com> References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> jawod wrote: > . . . > Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's > needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken? Joules (energy) per unit time is power, not voltage. > > Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There > should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more charges > transferred per unit time. Charge per unit time is current. > If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs is > only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work? The joule is a unit of energy. Work is energy, so it can also be expressed in joules. > . . . > If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an > antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded? An antenna creates an electrostatic field if charged, but an electromagnetic field only if that charge is being accelerated, that is, if it carries current which changes with time. > perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume > would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence more > charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this Voltage? No, charge per unit time is current. >. . . It's impossible to contribute much to the understanding of complex phenomena without first gaining an understanding of the most basic principles. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 225291 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150076986.983597.21920@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150214436.872296.89110@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:44:51 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > > >>have been charged up to high voltages by natural means. You might want >>to read the articles, Cecil, before you speculate. It could only improve >>your mind. >>73, >>Tom Donaly, KA6RUH > > > .....or doing some actual experiments like I have done. > > 73 Tom > That would be even better, although I'm not sure it's legal in Texas. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225292 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 13:02:11 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging the > antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what most > of the sources say. It is my understanding that the air around a conductor must ionize for it to be defined as corona. Obviously, there is a time when charge is transferred to the antenna before ionization (corona) occurs. Corona is defined as a discharge function. The charging function must necessarily occur before corona. If the charge is not allowed to accumulate up to the ionization level, corona will not occur, by definition. Precipitation static occurs before the corona threshold is reached. For what it's worth, here's what the 2000 ARRL Handbook says: "Precipitation Static and Corona Discharge" "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge on contact with an antenna." "Electrical fields under thunderstorms are sufficient to place many objects such as trees, hair and antennas, into corona discharge." Although not stated explicitly, seems to me there is a strong implication that precipitation static is not strong enough to ionize the air, i.e. not strong enough to cause corona to exist. Indeed, the arcing at a coax connector or the DC grounding of an antenna may be enough to prevent ionization and corona during a precipitation static episode. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225293 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: OT: Needed: Kenwood TS-180 user manual Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:15:47 -0400 Needed: Kenwood TS-180 user manual Please let me know if someone has one they are willing to part with or scan for me. Thanks Buck N4PGW -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 225294 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 15:55:50 GMT jawod wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > >> Tom Donaly wrote: >> >>> Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging >>> the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's >>> what most >>> of the sources say. >> >> >> >> The argument is not what it is called. The argument is whether >> charged dry-air dust particles can transfer charge to bare-wire >> antennas. > > Man, you guys really crack me up. I must admit I kinda enjoy reading > your posts, though. > > \There must be some source citing experimental evidence of charged > particles in a dust storm transferring their charges to a collector of > some sort (antenna). I alluded earlier to a practical use of such > collection... > Cecil, you said you have no idea how many Joules were represented (or > something along those lines). > > Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's > needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken? > > Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There > should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more charges > transferred per unit time. > > If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs is > only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work? > > What was the other issue: number of particles versus the charge per > particle? Got me. > > As the particles are swept off the surface of the desert, would their > charge (per particle) be distributed (as Gauss or some other )? > > I would think the # particles would be more important. > > If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an > antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded? > perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume > would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence more > charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this Voltage? > > I guess I can't part with my trickle charger idea. > > You guys have at it. Thanks for letting me butt in. > > John There was once an article in the old Scientific American Amateur Scientist section about using the earth's electric field to power various static electric motors. Just build a motor from one of the simple designs on the web; using a weather balloon, run a wire up 300 feet or so (should give you 9000 volts or so on a clear day); attach your motor between the wire and ground, and, once the wire charges up, the motor turns. You won't get much work out of it, but it'll run a long time. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225295 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:14:23 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Whether it's dust, snow, or the atmospheric electric field charging >> the antenna, the noise is still corona discharge. At least that's what >> most >> of the sources say. > > > It is my understanding that the air around a conductor must > ionize for it to be defined as corona. Obviously, there is > a time when charge is transferred to the antenna before > ionization (corona) occurs. Corona is defined as a discharge > function. The charging function must necessarily occur before > corona. If the charge is not allowed to accumulate up to the > ionization level, corona will not occur, by definition. > Precipitation static occurs before the corona threshold is > reached. For what it's worth, here's what the 2000 ARRL > Handbook says: > > "Precipitation Static and Corona Discharge" > > "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise > that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including > snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes > or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge > on contact with an antenna." > > "Electrical fields under thunderstorms are sufficient to place > many objects such as trees, hair and antennas, into corona > discharge." > > Although not stated explicitly, seems to me there is a strong > implication that precipitation static is not strong enough to > ionize the air, i.e. not strong enough to cause corona to exist. > Indeed, the arcing at a coax connector or the DC grounding of > an antenna may be enough to prevent ionization and corona > during a precipitation static episode. Cecil, you can do a web search for "precipitation static," and "Saint Elmo's fire," to find out what most people think precipitation static is. Before I'd believe that each little raindrop makes a noise as it strikes the antenna, I'd want to see an experiment showing this. Most of the sources on the web, at least, don't mention it, but generally agree with Tom about the cause of the problem. You can read all that for yourself. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225296 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150222915.966151.269300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:40:42 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Cecil, you can do a web search for "precipitation static," and > "Saint Elmo's fire," to find out what most people think > precipitation static is. Before I'd believe that each little > raindrop makes a noise as it strikes the antenna, I'd want to > see an experiment showing this. It's only raindrops having a charge different from the antenna that make the noise and I have previously explained the mechanism of charge equalization between the two dipole elements through the link. Seems to me only magical thinking would result in each and every raindrop having a charge exactly equal to the antenna upon which it is falling. I'd like to see you come up with a proof for such an assertion. > Most of the sources on the > web, at least, don't mention it, but generally agree with > Tom about the cause of the problem. You can read all that > for yourself. I have read it for myself and *nothing* I have read agrees with W8JI. Corona doesn't exist until ionization takes place. Precipitation static and even arcing do not require any corona to exist. Here's a web page that explains the difference between arcing and corona discharge including a gray area called "brush discharges". http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/mrstatic.html Please notice that arcing at a coax connector doesn't require corona at all. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225297 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:42:40 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Cecil, you can do a web search for "precipitation static," and >> "Saint Elmo's fire," to find out what most people think >> precipitation static is. Before I'd believe that each little >> raindrop makes a noise as it strikes the antenna, I'd want to >> see an experiment showing this. > > > It's only raindrops having a charge different from > the antenna that make the noise and I have previously > explained the mechanism of charge equalization between > the two dipole elements through the link. > > Seems to me only magical thinking would result in each > and every raindrop having a charge exactly equal to the > antenna upon which it is falling. I'd like to see you > come up with a proof for such an assertion. > >> Most of the sources on the >> web, at least, don't mention it, but generally agree with >> Tom about the cause of the problem. You can read all that >> for yourself. > > > I have read it for myself and *nothing* I have read agrees > with W8JI. Corona doesn't exist until ionization takes > place. Precipitation static and even arcing do not require > any corona to exist. Here's a web page that explains the > difference between arcing and corona discharge including > a gray area called "brush discharges". > > http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/mrstatic.html > > Please notice that arcing at a coax connector doesn't require > corona at all. Cecil, show me your experiments. You can ratiocinate your head off and you still won't be any closer to the truth. Tell me how I can spray water drops on my antenna and make a noise in my receiver as each drop hits the antenna. Can you do it? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225298 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:47:31 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > show me your experiments. You can ratiocinate your head > off and you still won't be any closer to the truth. Tell me how I > can spray water drops on my antenna and make a noise in my > receiver as each drop hits the antenna. Can you do it? No, I think it is up to you to prove that each and every raindrop that falls has exactly the same charge as any antenna upon which it might fall. Which means that you must prove that all antennas being rained upon have identical unchanging charges. That is what would have to be true for you to be correct. Sorry Tom, please peddle your magical thinking to someone else. What do you think about the 2000 ARRL Handbook quote? "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes or even wind-blown dust, transferring a small electrical charge on contact with an antenna." The physics of charged particles has been understood for a century or so. I am not going to waste my time proving those known and accepted facts of physics. It is up to you and W8JI to prove a century of physics knowledge to be wrong. Good luck on proving that all static is caused by corona discharge even in the absence of the necessary ionization that defines the word "corona". -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225299 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Wide bandwidth ladder line J-pole for 6-Meters Message-ID: References: <5ZWdnbe8ZP27NBHZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:01:52 GMT On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:27:14 -0700, "Chuck Olson" wrote: > >"Steve N." wrote in message >news:e6n2i3$pf0$1@avnika.corp.mot.com... >> >> "Chuck Olson" wrote in message >> news:Ts-dndx_b-BRkBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com... >> > Today I clipped out the connection I had made at the bottom of the >> radiator, >> > and the SWR bandwidth remained 2MHz as is was with the connection. The >> group >> > of SWR measurements moved up an average of 150 KHz from my readings with >> the >> > connection, but otherwise the performance of the "Slim Jim" >configuration >> is >> > identical. The length of the gap may now serve as a tuning mechanism, >> which >> > wasn't a feature with the bottom connection, and the archives show some >> > builders made good use of that facility. Thanks for spotting the >> similarity, >> > Jeff. My 6M antenna will no doubt be better for it. >> > 73, Chuck >> >> >> Chuck, >> I searched on Slim-Jim. Let me see if I understand correctly. >> Slim-Jim is a twin-lead or ladder-line type J antenna with the *top* of >the >> half-wave (dual conductor) radiator ends connected. >> Yours has the bottom of the 1/2 wave ends connected. > >Yes, I conncted both top and bottom of the radiator to the previously >floating wire, and when I removed the bottom connection, the SWR bandwidth >remained as before, so the bottom connection does not appear to be >necessary. The top connection is very easy, and evidently that's all you >need, so no doubt about it - - it becomes a Slim-Jim. > >> Am I to understand that the Slim-Jim configuration and yours have very >> similar SWR BW? > >Yes. > >> This is good to know. >> >> Then I'd like clarification on your comment: >> "... If you analyze the operation of the very successful "Open Stub >> > J-Pole" that Arrow makes, you will find they use the 0.95 FV for both >the >> > radiator and the stub,..." >> >> Can you be more specific about this. What is the electrical length of the >> stub for said analysis? I like that design, though there is controversy >> about it. > >I'm old fashioned, so I use an HP17BII calculator which has a "solve" >function, and with the formula, LIN = 11811 / F(MHZ) / 4 x VF, given any two >of LIN, FMHZ, and FV, I can obtain the third for a 1/4 wave stub. > >We find on the Arrow site http://www.arrowantennas.com/j-pole.html the >longest element for operation at 146 MHz is 57.5", and the shorter element >that makes the 1/4-wave stub is 19.25". With FMHZ = 146 and LIN = 19.25" we >solve for VF of that shorter element and get 0.95 (which refers to the free >space 1/4-wave as 1.00). Subtracting the 19.25 from 57.5 we get the radiator >length of 38.25". Since that is a 1/2-wave length, we divide by 2 so we can >use the 1/4-wave formula, and solving for VF we again get 0.95. I hope this >helps. > >> >> 73, Steve, K9DCi >> >> > >Best regards, > >Chuck, W6PKP > My 2-meter ladderline j-pole is connected at the bottom of the apparatus only, forming the hook of the so-called "J". Yours is connected at the very top and very bottom, forming kind of a double "J"? bob k5qwg Article: 225300 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:05:08 GMT Richard Clark wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:42:40 GMT, "Tom Donaly" > wrote: > > >>You can ratiocinate your head >>off and you still won't be any closer to the truth. > > > Hi Tom, > > As Judge Judy would say, "Don't discharge on my leg and tell me its > corona even if you've been drinking beer." > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC In Cecil's case he'd claim it was Corona Extra. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225301 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:18:55 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> show me your experiments. You can ratiocinate your head >> off and you still won't be any closer to the truth. Tell me how I >> can spray water drops on my antenna and make a noise in my >> receiver as each drop hits the antenna. Can you do it? > > > No, I think it is up to you to prove that each and every > raindrop that falls has exactly the same charge as > any antenna upon which it might fall. Which means that > you must prove that all antennas being rained upon have > identical unchanging charges. That is what would have to > be true for you to be correct. Sorry Tom, please peddle > your magical thinking to someone else. What do you think > about the 2000 ARRL Handbook quote? > > "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise > that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including > snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes > or even wind-blown dust, transferring a small electrical charge > on contact with an antenna." > > The physics of charged particles has been understood for > a century or so. I am not going to waste my time proving > those known and accepted facts of physics. It is up to you > and W8JI to prove a century of physics knowledge to be > wrong. Good luck on proving that all static is caused by > corona discharge even in the absence of the necessary > ionization that defines the word "corona". You're the one who made the statements, Cecil, so you're the one who has to prove them. Just tell me how you sprayed charged water drops on your antenna and recorded the noise from your receiver when each one of them hit. If you can't do that, all appeals to a higher authority are meaningless. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225302 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: <_vjkg.44866$fb2.20464@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:35:06 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > You're the one who made the statements, Cecil, so you're the one > who has to prove them. Sorry, I'm just agreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook and all other references I can find on the subject. It is you who has to prove all those references wrong. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225303 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <1150401659.630033.154690@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:54:32 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > 1.) It isn't the noise made by the actual contact of particle to the > antenna that makes what is commonly called p-static noise. Assuming that "p-static" is precipitation static, you already agreed with the laws of physics that make your statement false. Any particle with a charge different from the antenna wire will cause particle noise even when the corona threshold is not even close. There's no way to stop a charged particle >from transferring its charge to a bare-wire antenna. There's no way to keep that charge from equalizing through the link coupling in a non-folded dipole. This is all easily proved using very small charges nowhere near the corona threshold. I agree that some cars are white. I just disagree with your assertion that all cars are white. I agree with the 2000 ARRL Handbook about precipitation static Vs corona static. > The 2000 ARRL Handbook says: >> "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise >> that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including >> snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes >> or even wind-blown dust, transferring a small electrical charge >> on contact with an antenna." I also agree with what they say about corona static which certainly exists and is what you are talking about. But corona static is not the only thing that exists, as you are asserting. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225304 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <_vjkg.44866$fb2.20464@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: <6Ylkg.24591$VE1.11667@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 23:21:38 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> You're the one who made the statements, Cecil, so you're the one >> who has to prove them. > > > Sorry, I'm just agreeing with the 2000 ARRL Handbook and > all other references I can find on the subject. It is you > who has to prove all those references wrong. Ha, ha! Nice joke, Cecil. I'll tell you what: if you can show that a group of students can tell whether it's raining or not solely by listening to the static on a radio with an outside antenna, I might begin to believe part of what you say. Otherwise, all your talk about carefully selected references is little more than a pathetically hollow attempt at self justification. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH (P.S. You'll have to figure out a way to get rid of any charge buildup in order to keep the corona noise at bay.) Article: 225305 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "DrDeath" Subject: Re: Rget help Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:53:25 -0500 Message-ID: <1293snn2gr0he5a@corp.supernews.com> References: <7W0kg.5842$lf4.5581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1291cgtkguuhv43@corp.supernews.com> <1150334610.003660.157380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1150335065.760099.218370@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <9tWdnRER2OHHVAzZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com> "Dave" wrote in message news:9tWdnRER2OHHVAzZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com... > an Old friend wrote: > >> hamm_burger_1@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>>DR DEATH WOULD ALSO BENEFIT FROM EASIER TESTING. THAT PESKY NO CODE >>>THEORY IS A MOTHERFUCKER FOR HIM. >> >> rumor has it he has a tech license but rarely uses it >> > > Does he wonder what 'OFF/ON' means? > I took the online practice test and passed without studying. I do not possess any license, as I have no desire to become a ham. And yes I know what OFF/ON means. I probably know more about theory than most of the trolls on this group. I certainly post on topic more often than most of you. But I can post on topic once a month and accomplish that. Article: 225306 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:44:54 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Cecil Moore wrote: > be true for you to be correct. Sorry Tom, please peddle > your magical thinking to someone else. What do you think > about the 2000 ARRL Handbook quote? > > "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise > that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including > snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes > or even wind-blown dust, transferring a small electrical charge > on contact with an antenna." > > The physics of charged particles has been understood for > a century or so. I am not going to waste my time proving > those known and accepted facts of physics. It is up to you > and W8JI to prove a century of physics knowledge to be > wrong. Good luck on proving that all static is caused by > corona discharge even in the absence of the necessary > ionization that defines the word "corona". It especially shows up in the 300 inches a year lake effect snowfalls in northern NY. You can hear it on 6 and 2 quite well. These were DC grounded yagi antennas on all elements, so no corona available here, thank you. Also, K1RQG, who is net control of the EMENet on 14345 Sat and Sun mornings, had it so bad from rain last weekend that he couldn't copy most of the participants for a few minutes. And in a heavy rainstorm, I have doubts that it had much to do with corona. tom K0TAR Article: 225307 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44920280.6000402@fuse.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:59:44 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <1291rcqk2o9f2f9@corp.supernews.com> Roy Lewallen wrote: > jawod wrote: > >> . . . >> Seems to me, that Joules per unit time is precisely the measure that's >> needed in this "analysis". Is this Voltage, or am I mistaken? > > > Joules (energy) per unit time is power, not voltage. > >> >> Compare the density of the dust cloud with the charge collected. There >> should be a correlation. What about velocity of the cloud: more >> charges transferred per unit time. > > > Charge per unit time is current. > >> If your rug was scorched, some "work" was done. My college physiscs >> is only a nightmare away: what is the relation of Joules to work? > > > The joule is a unit of energy. Work is energy, so it can also be > expressed in joules. Welcome to my nightmare. How many joules does it take to scorch a carpet? > >> . . . >> If a given volume of dust particles moves through the field of an >> antenna (it would have a field, wouldn't it? ... even if grounded? > > > An antenna creates an electrostatic field if charged, but an > electromagnetic field only if that charge is being accelerated, that is, > if it carries current which changes with time. > If the antenna is at ground potential and charged particles move across it, does it not induce a current inthe antenna? >> perhaps field is the wrong word), increasing velocity of the volume >> would mean more particles per unit time passing the antenna. Hence >> more charge transferred: more charge per unit time. Again, is this >> Voltage? > > > No, charge per unit time is current. OK, current. You just saved me the trouble of digging out my old physics book, thanks. > >. . . > > It's impossible to contribute much to the understanding of complex > phenomena without first gaining an understanding of the most basic > principles. > I couldn't care less about "contributing" to the diatribes on this ng that pretend to address "understanding" Like, I said, I just wanted to butt in. I'll continue to read the posts (for some strange reason). If I post, I trust that someone will always be there to correct my errors. Article: 225308 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:13:50 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> Tom Donaly wrote: > > > There was once an article in the old Scientific American Amateur > Scientist section about using the earth's electric field to > power various static electric motors. Just build a motor from > one of the simple designs on the web; using a weather balloon, > run a wire up 300 feet or so (should give you 9000 volts or > so on a clear day); attach your motor between the wire and ground, and, > once the wire charges up, the motor turns. You won't get much work > out of it, but it'll run a long time. > 73, > Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Thanks, Tom, for your reasonable response. So, I guess we're talking lots of voltage and very little current...makes sense. Wasn't Ben Franklin involved in working all this out? I'll ask another question that no doubt is off the mark: The Santa Ana winds in California are supposed to blow for long periods of time. Are there any measures of voltage, current, joules or cole slaw on antennas in this area? Do they experience the "noise"? Couldn't one connect a large capacitor circuit to store the charge and trickle it to a battery? (I just won't give up, eh?) Article: 225309 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: <0lokg.24642$VE1.6169@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:04:44 GMT jawod wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> >> >> There was once an article in the old Scientific American Amateur >> Scientist section about using the earth's electric field to >> power various static electric motors. Just build a motor from >> one of the simple designs on the web; using a weather balloon, >> run a wire up 300 feet or so (should give you 9000 volts or >> so on a clear day); attach your motor between the wire and ground, and, >> once the wire charges up, the motor turns. You won't get much work >> out of it, but it'll run a long time. >> 73, >> Tom Donaly, KA6RUH > > Thanks, Tom, for your reasonable response. So, I guess we're talking > lots of voltage and very little current...makes sense. > Wasn't Ben Franklin involved in working all this out? > > I'll ask another question that no doubt is off the mark: > > The Santa Ana winds in California are supposed to blow for long periods > of time. Are there any measures of voltage, current, joules or cole > slaw on antennas in this area? Do they experience the "noise"? Couldn't > one connect a large capacitor circuit to store the charge and trickle it > to a battery? > > (I just won't give up, eh?) You'll get a lot more energy out of the wind by just putting up a wind generator. There are many wind farms in California. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225310 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <2nokg.24643$VE1.19051@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 02:06:54 GMT Tom Ring wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > >> be true for you to be correct. Sorry Tom, please peddle >> your magical thinking to someone else. What do you think >> about the 2000 ARRL Handbook quote? >> >> "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise >> that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including >> snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes >> or even wind-blown dust, transferring a small electrical charge >> on contact with an antenna." >> >> The physics of charged particles has been understood for >> a century or so. I am not going to waste my time proving >> those known and accepted facts of physics. It is up to you >> and W8JI to prove a century of physics knowledge to be >> wrong. Good luck on proving that all static is caused by >> corona discharge even in the absence of the necessary >> ionization that defines the word "corona". > > > It especially shows up in the 300 inches a year lake effect snowfalls in > northern NY. You can hear it on 6 and 2 quite well. These were DC > grounded yagi antennas on all elements, so no corona available here, > thank you. > > Also, K1RQG, who is net control of the EMENet on 14345 Sat and Sun > mornings, had it so bad from rain last weekend that he couldn't copy > most of the participants for a few minutes. And in a heavy rainstorm, I > have doubts that it had much to do with corona. > > tom > K0TAR Grounding might make it worse. Can you see why? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225311 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:20:01 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44921551$0$6150$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> w8ji@akorn.net wrote: >>It especially shows up in the 300 inches a year lake effect snowfalls in >>northern NY. You can hear it on 6 and 2 quite well. These were DC >>grounded yagi antennas on all elements, so no corona available here, >>thank you. > > > What makes you think the charge gradient and corona goes away with a > grounded element? Because there is never lightning and lightning never > hits a grounded object? Where dod you get that idea? > > The earth is one terminal, the air and things in the air (like clouds) > have a charge difference. > So this is an inverse form of corona? Where it comes from the surrounding charged air and particles (whatever type they are)? Because it's not the form I'm familiar with where the end of the antenna has a high voltage on it. I am genuinely asking a question here. If this is the way that noise occurs, I'd like to know the physical method involved. It still sounds like it matches the description of what is commonly called precipitation static, and it still makes a lot of noise, unless you'd like me to disbelieve my lieing ears. tom K0TAR Article: 225312 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:23:22 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <2nokg.24643$VE1.19051@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: <4492161a$0$6150$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Tom Donaly wrote: > > > Grounding might make it worse. Can you see why? > 73, > Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Yes, but I still doubt it is corona. tom K0TAR Article: 225313 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <_vjkg.44866$fb2.20464@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <6Ylkg.24591$VE1.11667@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:18:44 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Ha, ha! Nice joke, Cecil. I'll tell you what: if you can show > that a group of students can tell whether it's raining or not solely > by listening to the static on a radio with an outside antenna, I > might begin to believe part of what you say. Otherwise, all your > talk about carefully selected references is little more than a > pathetically hollow attempt at self justification. For you to be right, Tom, every raindrop, every dust particle, and every snowflake in the world must have exactly the same charge as every antenna in the world. Please get real. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225314 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:22:08 GMT Tom Ring wrote: > It especially shows up in the 300 inches a year lake effect snowfalls in > northern NY. You can hear it on 6 and 2 quite well. These were DC > grounded yagi antennas on all elements, so no corona available here, > thank you. > > Also, K1RQG, who is net control of the EMENet on 14345 Sat and Sun > mornings, had it so bad from rain last weekend that he couldn't copy > most of the participants for a few minutes. And in a heavy rainstorm, I > have doubts that it had much to do with corona. Tom, methinks we are having our legs pulled. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225315 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:36:07 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Do we have more lightning, which is caused by a charge difference > between clouds and earth so severe it actually arcs for thousands of > feet, in heavy rain or on clear dry days? In Arizona, we have the worst precipitation static on clear dry days without a cloud in sight. You have just made my argument. > Do the leaders and streamers form on clear dry days, or when the > weather is nasty? If corona requires clouds, you have lost the argument. > I wonder how many people really understand there is a huge potential > difference between the air and earth even on a calm clear day, and > nasty weather can just make it worse. If it's not enough to cause ionization, it is NOT corona, by definition. The charge buildup before a corona discharge is NOT corona. If the charge doesn't result in ionization, it is not corona. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225316 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <2nokg.24643$VE1.19051@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:43:07 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Grounding might make it worse. Can you see why? Quoting the 2000 ARRL Handbook: "Electrical fields under thunderstorms are sufficient to place many objects such as trees, hair, and antennas, into corona discharge." Of course, corona discharge exists and grounding an antenna might make it worse. But corona discharge is not all that exists. And in the absence of clouds, corona discharge is not likely to exist. Some other mechanism is obviously responsible for clear-sky charged-particle static. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225317 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:57:02 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > The earth is one terminal, the air and things in the air (like clouds) > have a charge difference. But that charge difference is NOT corona unless ionization occurs. If the charge difference doesn't reach the ionization threshold, it's not corona, by definition. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225318 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Sal M. Onella" References: <1149714609.565540.160300@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <448767E7.4040009@fuse.net> <1149774341.518961.129650@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1149939299.081665.138120@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <128n7597b11m190@corp.supernews.com> <448C37E1.8060002@fuse.net> Subject: Re: I bought a large capacitance hat for my vertical, but the antenna still gets wet when it rains. Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:50:57 -0700 "clifto" wrote in message news:tue6m3-0iv.ln1@remote.clifto.com... > Incidental note: I've never understood how people who use "it's" as a > possessive never even think to use "hi's" (though some use "her's" and > "their's"). Yup, me too. I listen to "A Way With Words," a radio program on KPBS (available streaming at kpbs.org) whose host is language writer Richard Lederer ("Anguished English," "Get Thee To A Punnery," etc). Richard said that "it's" for "its" (possessive) was considered correct until near the end of the 19th century. I didn't know that. Article: 225319 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150232237.384008.195620@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:46:32 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > There was no precipitation unless it was plant pollen in the air. I > don't suffer from hay fever or asthma. Some 19th century doctors scoffed at the idea that there could be germs so small that they could see them. :-) Dust particles come in all sizes. Run some clear air through a HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filter and see what you get. There are always particles in the air. Sometimes they carry a charge. Air itself, is made up of particles. Quantum Electrodynamics tells us that charge transfer is impossible without particles. For Tom^2 to be correct, every dust particle that touches every antenna would have to carry the same identical charge as the antenna to keep charge from transferring. I would sure like to see them prove that assertion. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225320 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:11:46 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > >> The earth is one terminal, the air and things in the air (like clouds) >> have a charge difference. > > > But that charge difference is NOT corona unless ionization occurs. > If the charge difference doesn't reach the ionization threshold, > it's not corona, by definition. Cecil, I am not entering this debate one way or the other. I do have a question, however. How do you determine when the ionization threshold has been reached? 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 225321 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:20:44 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > > For Tom^2 to be correct, every dust particle that touches > every antenna would have to carry the same identical charge > as the antenna to keep charge from transferring. I would > sure like to see them prove that assertion. Cecil, More fractured physics. If every interaction between objects requires that somehow the charge is transferred to keep things "identical", how did those nasty dust particles get charged in the first place? I am not arguing about antenna noise. I am questioning your misuse of physics. There are no charge equalization laws. 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 225322 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:52:45 GMT Cecil, First things first. Ionization threshold has nothing to do with "voltage". It has everything to do with field strength. This topic has been studied extensively for centuries. Don't believe everything you find on the web, especially if it requires "glow-in-the-dark" or "thousands of volts" as a determinant for ionization. 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: > Gene Fuller wrote: > >> I am not entering this debate one way or the other. I do have a >> question, however. >> >> How do you determine when the ionization threshold has been reached? > > > Corona invariably causes a glow at night. I have witnessed > such a glow but not very often. I came across a calculation > of the ionization threshold in volts yesterday while on the > web. I don't remember the exact figure but it was in the > thousands of volts for average air conditions and varied > with the geometry of the conductor. > > But the point is that, by definition, it is not corona until > ionization occurs. A wire in the air during high wind conditions > can accumulate charge from the charged particles but until it > accumulates enough charge to cause ionization of the air, it > is NOT corona, by definition. > > W8JI is confusing cause and effect. The transfer of charge > from wind-driven charged particles can cause localized corona > but that's just an effect, NOT a cause. And if the antenna > wire is not allowed to reach the air ionization level, > charge may accumulate but corona will not occur. > > Under thunderclouds, corona often occurs. I wouldn't try > to speculate whether rain or snow noise is caused by > charged particles or corona. But I will certainly speculate > that in a state without a cloud in the sky, a charge can > be deposited on an antenna by charged particles. Article: 225323 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:12:16 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: >> W8JI is confusing cause and effect. > > ....and Cecil is confusing himself. Charged dust particles can *cause* corona but they don't necessarily cause corona. If the air is not ionized, corona is impossible. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225324 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1150465906.265488.200460@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:35:19 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > How many systems have you looked at Cecil where you were right next to > the antenna while this was going on? I don't know exactly how many. All it takes to prove you wrong is a single one. If you simply admit that at one time in the history of man, a charge accumulated on an antenna without the presence of corona, I will be satisfied. When you assert that 100% of all charged up antennas is caused by corona, it doesn't matter if you are right 99.99% of the time. Logically, you are 100% wrong if 0.01% of charged up antennas do not involve corona. When there is not a cloud over the entire state of Arizona, charged up antennas in the dry, dusty, windy Arizona desert are not caused by corona. > More than I have or many times less? I multiply 6 times 7 once and get 42. You multiply 6 times 7 ten times and get 56. Do you really think you are right? The laws of physics are not supposed to be the results of how many flawed experiments are run. Charged particles can exist in the absence of corona. Like the cave men did, rub some amber against some wool and then touch it to your dipole. That pop you hear is NOT corona. When a charged particle touches a reference bare antenna wire, it transfers part of its charge to the antenna. You have already agreed with that. The rest is simple physics. Exactly how do you prove that all charged up antennas are causing ionization? What instrument did you use to measure all that ionization? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225325 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:49:26 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Reg Edwards wrote: > >> There was no precipitation unless it was plant pollen in the air. I >> don't suffer from hay fever or asthma. > > > Some 19th century doctors scoffed at the idea that there > could be germs so small that they could see them. :-) > Dust particles come in all sizes. Run some clear air > through a HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filter > and see what you get. > > There are always particles in the air. Sometimes they > carry a charge. Air itself, is made up of particles. > Quantum Electrodynamics tells us that charge transfer is > impossible without particles. > > For Tom^2 to be correct, every dust particle that touches > every antenna would have to carry the same identical charge > as the antenna to keep charge from transferring. I would > sure like to see them prove that assertion. Cecil, if you're too chicken to do the experiment, just say so, I'll understand. Also, quit misrepresenting my ideas. That's an old Oakie debating trick that won't fly on this newsgroup. The first thing you have to prove is that a charged particle striking your antenna makes an audible noise in your receiver. Just because a charged particle strikes your antenna doesn't mean you can hear it. I have an idea. Borrow a big, old, awkward Texas kid from one of your neighbors. Wash his head and blow dry his hair to get all the moisture out. Now, have him stand out at your vertical and run a comb through his hair. After the comb is charged, have him touch it to the antenna while you listen to your radio inside the shack. See if you can hear an audible click whenever the comb discharges into the antenna. If you can hear something, it at least means that charged particles can make a noise. If you can't,you have to rethink your position. I know you go all gun shy and hysterical whenever someone mentions you do an experiment, but it wouldn't kill you to try _something_ in order to prove your point. You might learn something, too. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225326 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:58:17 GMT Gene Fuller wrote: > Ionization threshold has nothing to do with "voltage". It has everything > to do with field strength. Of course, static field strength implies energy which is proportional to volts squared. Here's a quote from: http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/mrstatic.html "A corona discharge is also called a silent discharge. It may be maintained as long as the breakdown *field strength* is exceeded in some region—that is, as long as the *voltage* of the electrode or the *charge density* of the charged insulator is high enough." Just before the field strength is high enough to cause ionization, the voltage between the electrodes can be measured. I don't see how ionization could occur at zero volts which you seem to imply is a possibility. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225327 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Skipp is back Subject: Re: fs: Kenwood kpt50 repeater radio programmer Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:22:27 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: Man, the below is an old post... anyway the used kpt-50 programmer is long gone/sold. I bought up a number of the last units Kenwood had at the time and have been slowly selling them off. The Epcom price for the kpt-50 is about $330 at last glance, I was selling them for about $245 list and applying various discounts to get the end price just about or just under $200... say about $195 per unit. The mentioned price is for a new (not used) programmer with the matching (and really handy) kpg software for use with a PC. Using the matching software with a pc is really the only way to go. You can save and retrive both base station and repeater station files, which include the frequencies and ctcss (PL) - dcs (DPL) codes to your computer hard drive (archived). Anyway, I'm still around and still a full line Kenwood Dealer. Please feel free to email me if you have any questions. Find me using the web page url just below. cheers, skipp www.radiowrench.com : gl4871 wrote: : [I would be willing to pay $140.00dollars for your kenwood kpt-50 : programer thank you Jerome : =Skipp has Kenwood stuff] Kenwood kpt-50 repeater and radio proThis : unit programs the Kenwood TK and TKR-720 / TKR-820 series repeater, : base and mobile radios. It will also do (some of the) other similar : Kenwood models. : This unit is probably my last one for sale. I sold them on Ebay : earlier : this year for various amounts up to $239 each. This is an original : kenwood unit and yes I'm an Authorized Kenwood Two-Way Radio Dealer - : Service Center and would be happy to supply any two-way radio - parts : needs you might have. Drop me a note if you have any Kenwood Two-Way : question. : This is a previously used unit, started life as my personal kpt50, lent : it : to "a friend" who had it over a year to program one "quick repeater : job". : Got it back just a short time ago. I will put a full new equipment : warranty on it and provide copies of all the proper programming : information. I had to use my last inventory unit in place of this unit : while it went on vacation with my friend. Now it's back and I have one : unit extra. : I used to program the tkr-820 (and 720) repeaters by hand using this : type : unit, but forget that... this unit has the normal rs-232 pc port : access : which allows you to do everything on your related laptop and save the : data : in regular archive files. Much nicer... I'll include a regular copy : of : the pc software with the unit, not bad. : Now the price, set below actual Dealer cost at $165 plus actual : shipping, : figure maybe $5 for USPS Priority Mail. : OK, that's about it. Drop me an Email if your are interested. If no : one : responds within a week or two, I'll toss it up on Ebay. Don't be : confused : by the "clone units" often listed on Ebay. Some of the associated : programming units don't work on all the models. I know because I : bought : one myself before I became a Kenwood Dealer some years ago. : This is an original Kenwood made KPT-50 programmer. : That's about it, remove the NOSPAMPLEASE from my email address if you : want : to drop me a related message. My ebay ID is over 700 actual... all : positive feedback so I hopefully must be doing something right. : Thank you for reading this post.i WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY $140.00 : DOLLARS FOR YOUR KENWOOD KPT-50 PROGRAMER. : skipp : skippNOSPAMPLEASE@pilot.ucdavis.edu : i WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY $140.00 DOLLARS FOR KENWOULD KPT50 : PROGRAMER.i WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY $140.00 DOLLARS FOR YOUR KENWOOD : PROGRAMER. YOU CAN EMAIL ME AT GL4871@ALLIANCECOM.NET THANK YOU JEROME : Remove the NOSPAMPLEASE else I'll never receive your message. : -- : gl4871 Article: 225328 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:32:49 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Cecil, if you're too chicken to do the experiment, just say so, > I'll understand. I did the experiment and posted how to do it. Here it is again: Bring one end of a dipole down close to the system ground rod. Charge up a capacitor to 12v. Discharge the cap between the end of the dipole and the ground rod. That pop you hear is NOT corona. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225329 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 15:37:27 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > The air always has ions in it. I hope you understand the difference between isolated ions existing in the air and the air being ionized into a conducting path. Isolated ions is not corona. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225330 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <6DAkg.31627$mF2.6511@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:03:14 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Gene Fuller wrote: >> Ionization threshold has nothing to do with "voltage". It has >> everything to do with field strength. > > Of course, static field strength implies energy which is > proportional to volts squared. Here's a quote from: > > http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/1999/novdec/mrstatic.html > > "A corona discharge is also called a silent discharge. It > may be maintained as long as the breakdown *field strength* > is exceeded in some region—that is, as long as the *voltage* > of the electrode or the *charge density* of the charged > insulator is high enough." > > Just before the field strength is high enough to cause > ionization, the voltage between the electrodes can be > measured. I don't see how ionization could occur at > zero volts which you seem to imply is a possibility. Cecil, > Of course, static field strength implies energy which is > proportional to volts squared. BZZZZT! More fractured physics. Here's a hint. Voltage is often poorly defined since it requires a reference. Very few physical phenomena depend on voltage as a primary parameter. > I don't see how ionization could occur at > zero volts which you seem to imply is a possibility. Huh?? Did I say that? 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 225331 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <1150472506.110656.119200@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:13:13 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > 10uF capacitor charged to 12 volts = dust particle Nope, 1uF cap charged to 12 volts = charge. One charged dust particle = charge. I've never said I have ever heard a single particle discharge. It was someone else who said that. I agree with the 2000 ARRL Handbook when they said it was "almost continuous". I have certainly heard that "hash-type noise" get worse with wind speed. I wish I had made S-meter measurements. "Precipitation static is an almost continuous hash-type noise that often accompanies various kinds of precipitation, including snowfall. Precipitation static is caused by rain drops, snowflakes or even *wind-blown dust*, transferring a small electrical charge on contact with an antenna." But what I am saying certainly makes a lot more sense than your implication that all particles have exactly the same charge as all antennas. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225332 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <6DAkg.31627$mF2.6511@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Message-ID: <8WAkg.45068$fb2.43923@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:23:32 GMT Gene Fuller wrote: > Voltage is often poorly defined since it requires a > reference. Yes, and the web page reference provided a well defined reference between two electrodes with known capacitance. There is *always* a relationship between electric field strength and voltage. I disagree that they are unrelated as you implied. >> I don't see how ionization could occur at >> zero volts which you seem to imply is a possibility. > > Huh?? Did I say that? No, but you implied it when you said "ionization threshold has *nothing* to do with voltage". Nothing is zero so you implied an ionization threshold is completely unrelated and independent of volts. Do you want to amend that statement? Maybe: "The relationship between field strength and voltage is sometimes difficult to determine."? -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225333 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:16:38 -0500 Message-ID: I have been told that the Force 12 C-3SS does not have much of a pattern on 6 meters. Today, however, on 6 meters, with a C-3SS, it appeared that I had good forward lobe, and maybe even some front to back. Has anyone modeled this antenna for 6 meter. If so I would love to see the pattern. Win, w0lz Article: 225334 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:00:59 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> Cecil, if you're too chicken to do the experiment, just say so, >> I'll understand. > > > I did the experiment and posted how to do it. > Here it is again: Bring one end of a dipole down close > to the system ground rod. Charge up a capacitor to 12v. > Discharge the cap between the end of the dipole and > the ground rod. That pop you hear is NOT corona. Most raindrops don't have a little plate and a wire to ground. In order to mimic a raindrop, Cecil, you'd have to leave the ground terminal of your capacitor floating. Do that and tell me what you hear. Anyway, you're still not addressing the real issue: can you tell whether or not it's raining solely by listening to the static noise on your antenna? 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225335 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:03:45 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Tom Donaly wrote: > >> The air always has ions in it. > > > I hope you understand the difference between isolated ions > existing in the air and the air being ionized into a > conducting path. Isolated ions is not corona. Nevertheless, air is in a constant state of conduction. It may only be picoamps per square meter but it still exists and it's what causes the earth to be a lousy capacitor. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225336 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <6DAkg.31627$mF2.6511@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <8WAkg.45068$fb2.43923@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:07:49 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Gene Fuller wrote: > >> Voltage is often poorly defined since it requires a reference. > > > Yes, and the web page reference provided a well defined > reference between two electrodes with known capacitance. > There is *always* a relationship between electric field > strength and voltage. I disagree that they are unrelated > as you implied. > >>> I don't see how ionization could occur at >>> zero volts which you seem to imply is a possibility. >> >> >> Huh?? Did I say that? > > > No, but you implied it when you said "ionization threshold > has *nothing* to do with voltage". Nothing is zero so you > implied an ionization threshold is completely unrelated and > independent of volts. Do you want to amend that statement? > Maybe: "The relationship between field strength and voltage > is sometimes difficult to determine."? If I remember right, your "Dr. Static" thought that you can't have a voltage without the presence of a conductor. You ought to read what these guys write before you quote them. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225337 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: newbie UHF antenna question Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:54:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: Ham or commercial? It makes a difference. 73, Steve "Mike" wrote in message news:jcg09290feuu9dt7poubpt873k2e7kbps5@4ax.com... > Hi...I have a mototola ht1000 uhf walkie talkie. I would like to > install an outdoor antenna on my house to increase my range. Can > someone please advise me to a site or any other info that could help > me out? It currently has a small rubber antenna on it that I would > like to improve on when Im home....Thank You..... Article: 225338 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: Wide bandwidth ladder line J-pole for 6-Meters Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:59:44 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5ZWdnbe8ZP27NBHZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> "Chuck Olson" wrote in message news:V5adnegPcuxKsBLZnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@comcast.com... > > "Steve N." wrote in message > news:e6n2i3$pf0$1@avnika.corp.mot.com... > > [...snip...] > > Then I'd like clarification on your comment: > > "... If you analyze the operation of the very successful "Open Stub > > > J-Pole" that Arrow makes, you will find they use the 0.95 FV for both > the > > > radiator and the stub,..." > > > > Can you be more specific about this. What is the electrical length of the > > stub for said analysis? I like that design, though there is controversy > > about it. > > I'm old fashioned, so I use an HP17BII calculator which has a "solve" > function, and with the formula, LIN = 11811 / F(MHZ) / 4 x VF, given any two > of LIN, FMHZ, and FV, I can obtain the third for a 1/4 wave stub. > > We find on the Arrow site http://www.arrowantennas.com/j-pole.html the > longest element for operation at 146 MHz is 57.5", and the shorter element > that makes the 1/4-wave stub is 19.25". With FMHZ = 146 and LIN = 19.25" we > solve for VF of that shorter element and get 0.95 (which refers to the free > space 1/4-wave as 1.00). Subtracting the 19.25 from 57.5 we get the radiator > length of 38.25". Since that is a 1/2-wave length, we divide by 2 so we can > use the 1/4-wave formula, and solving for VF we again get 0.95. I hope this > helps. > OK, then I believe you are assuming the short section is exactly 1/4 wave? That's what I was after. I'm not convinced this is the case, but it is a complex arrangement...matching 50 to an end fed half-wave. 73, Steve, K9DCI Article: 225339 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Steve N." Subject: Re: Wide bandwidth ladder line J-pole for 6-Meters Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:05:44 -0500 Message-ID: References: <5ZWdnbe8ZP27NBHZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com> "Bob Miller" wrote in message news:heb392hq0bff65fq5uuqaiequ52uhukp1n@4ax.com... > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:27:14 -0700, "Chuck Olson" > wrote: > > > > >"Steve N." wrote in message > >news:e6n2i3$pf0$1@avnika.corp.mot.com... > >> > >> "Chuck Olson" wrote in message > >> news:Ts-dndx_b-BRkBPZnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comcast.com... > >> > Today I clipped out the connection I had made at the bottom of the > >> radiator, > >> > and the SWR bandwidth remained 2MHz as is was with the connection. The > >> group > >> > of SWR measurements moved up an average of 150 KHz from my readings with > >> the > >> > connection, but otherwise the performance of the "Slim Jim" > >configuration > >> is > >> > identical. The length of the gap may now serve as a tuning mechanism, > >> which > >> > wasn't a feature with the bottom connection, and the archives show some > >> > builders made good use of that facility. Thanks for spotting the > >> similarity, > >> > Jeff. My 6M antenna will no doubt be better for it. > >> > 73, Chuck > >> > >> > >> Chuck, > >> I searched on Slim-Jim. Let me see if I understand correctly. > >> Slim-Jim is a twin-lead or ladder-line type J antenna with the *top* of > >the > >> half-wave (dual conductor) radiator ends connected. > >> Yours has the bottom of the 1/2 wave ends connected. > > > >Yes, I conncted both top and bottom of the radiator to the previously > >floating wire, and when I removed the bottom connection, the SWR bandwidth > >remained as before, so the bottom connection does not appear to be > >necessary. The top connection is very easy, and evidently that's all you > >need, so no doubt about it - - it becomes a Slim-Jim. > > > >> Am I to understand that the Slim-Jim configuration and yours have very > >> similar SWR BW? > > > >Yes. > > > >> This is good to know. > >> > >> Then I'd like clarification on your comment: > >> "... If you analyze the operation of the very successful "Open Stub > >> > J-Pole" that Arrow makes, you will find they use the 0.95 FV for both > >the > >> > radiator and the stub,..." > >> > >> Can you be more specific about this. What is the electrical length of the > >> stub for said analysis? I like that design, though there is controversy > >> about it. > > > >I'm old fashioned, so I use an HP17BII calculator which has a "solve" > >function, and with the formula, LIN = 11811 / F(MHZ) / 4 x VF, given any two > >of LIN, FMHZ, and FV, I can obtain the third for a 1/4 wave stub. > > > >We find on the Arrow site http://www.arrowantennas.com/j-pole.html the > >longest element for operation at 146 MHz is 57.5", and the shorter element > >that makes the 1/4-wave stub is 19.25". With FMHZ = 146 and LIN = 19.25" we > >solve for VF of that shorter element and get 0.95 (which refers to the free > >space 1/4-wave as 1.00). Subtracting the 19.25 from 57.5 we get the radiator > >length of 38.25". Since that is a 1/2-wave length, we divide by 2 so we can > >use the 1/4-wave formula, and solving for VF we again get 0.95. I hope this > >helps. > > > >> > >> 73, Steve, K9DCi > >> > >> > > > >Best regards, > > > >Chuck, W6PKP > > > > My 2-meter ladderline j-pole is connected at the bottom of the > apparatus only, forming the hook of the so-called "J". Yours is > connected at the very top and very bottom, forming kind of a double > "J"? > > bob > k5qwg Yea, there's another double back at the top if you connect it there. And it is easier at th etop with twin-lead. ... simply makes that upper half-wave a single parallel sonductor, instead of one with a floating conductor next to it. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't widen the bandwidth a bit by playing with the length of that floating wire. However, connecting it at either the top and/or botton seems to make a big improvement very easily. I'd have to think a bit as to why the floating wire reduces the bandwidth...or the converse if the wider bandth is simply a case of a "thicker" condustor simulated by the parallel wires. 73, Steve, k9DCI Article: 225340 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150243300.490992.305090@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:58:05 GMT Gene Fuller wrote: > If every interaction between objects requires that somehow the charge is > transferred to keep things "identical", how did those nasty dust > particles get charged in the first place? Huh? It is you who says the dust particles carry exactly the same charge as the antenna they are encountering. Otherwise, there is current flow in the antenna system which you deny. > I am not arguing about antenna noise. I am questioning your misuse of > physics. There are no charge equalization laws. Huh? Place a charge on a wire. Doesn't current flow in both directions until the charge is equalized throughout the conductor? Did my college professors lie to me? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225341 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:04:51 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Anyway, you're still not addressing the real > issue: can you tell whether or not it's raining solely by > listening to the static noise on your antenna? No, but in Queen Creek, AZ, I could look outside and not see a cloud in sight. I could look at the weather radar and see there wasn't a cloud over the entire state of Arizona. I probably could be convinced that static electricity during rain or snow was corona if I had not experienced the clear-sky charged-particle effect in Arizona. I suspect that neither you nor W8JI has ever experienced the clear-sky charged-particle effect and therefore deny its existence. I know better from my own personal experience as do others. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225342 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Kelley Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:05:52 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <1150472506.110656.119200@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > I've never said I have ever heard a single particle > discharge. It was someone else who said that. I agree > with the 2000 ARRL Handbook when they said it was > "almost continuous". I have certainly heard that > "hash-type noise" get worse with wind speed. I wish > I had made S-meter measurements. Were having a 'Santa Ana' wind today in So Cal. High ion concentration. S9+ noise levels on the HF bands. Happens almost every time we have a 'Santa Ana' condition. 73, ac6xg Article: 225343 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <7Xhkg.97539$H71.54619@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> <4491ff07$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150423351.033258.85960@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:15:31 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Nevertheless, air is in a constant state of conduction. Nevertheless, that is *NOT* corona. You will be glad to hear that Madisonville, TX is experiencing rather severe corona effects today. The knife switches that I use to vary the length of my transmission line are snap, cracklin', and poppin'. In this high humidity region of Texas, I am not sure that charged-particle static ever occurs. However, I am absolutely sure that it sometimes occurs in Queen Creek, AZ, where I lived for 11 years. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225344 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <1150472506.110656.119200@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:18:43 GMT Jim Kelley wrote: > > Cecil Moore wrote: >> I've never said I have ever heard a single particle >> discharge. It was someone else who said that. I agree >> with the 2000 ARRL Handbook when they said it was >> "almost continuous". I have certainly heard that >> "hash-type noise" get worse with wind speed. I wish >> I had made S-meter measurements. > > Were having a 'Santa Ana' wind today in So Cal. High ion concentration. > S9+ noise levels on the HF bands. Happens almost every time we have a > 'Santa Ana' condition. So Jim, would you say that's corona discharge or dry-air charged-particle problems? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225345 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <1150472506.110656.119200@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <4oEkg.51038$Lm5.8287@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:20:16 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: > Hot, dry air off the desert. Just like a clothes dryer. You guys are > suffering from static cling. "Nevertheless", unrelated to corona. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225346 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <1150472506.110656.119200@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:35:18 GMT Jim Kelley wrote: > Were having a 'Santa Ana' wind today in So Cal. High ion concentration. > S9+ noise levels on the HF bands. Happens almost every time we have a > 'Santa Ana' condition. Jim, I forgot to ask. Do you have a bare-wire dipole with no DC connection between the elements? If so, does the coax connector ever arc when you disconnect it from your system? The first time I encountered this phenomenon in Arizona, my G5RV coax connector was arcing while connected to my IC-745. I disconnected the coax from my transceiver and tossed it on the floor. It woke me up arcing and scorching my carpet. Shorting the coax conductors cured the arcing problem. It was a clear starry night with the wind blowing about 30 mph. I have a hard time diagnosing that as a corona problem. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225347 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Don't do what I did. From: Dave Oldridge References: <1150345273.427051.74190@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:28:51 GMT "K7ITM" wrote in news:1150345273.427051.74190@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > VE2CJW wrote: >> I thought I had a coax problem. Every time I tried to check the dc >> resistance of a length of coax not connected to anything, I always >> got a reading around 1.25 meg. This is not a short nor open line so I >> checked another length and got similar results, so I was really >> baffled. The odd thing is that both of these coaxes work perfectly >> when connected to an antenna. I finally found out what I was doing >> wrong. I was using probes that I had to hold with my fingers, so I >> was really measuring the dc resistance between my fingers. After >> watching my fingers, I get infinite dc resistance like I should. This >> one really baffled me for some time, I don't wish something like that >> to happen again. >> >> 73 Mike. > > Of course if it WAS a megohm shunt at the operating frequency, you > wouldn't even notice it. But yes, your advice goes equally for other > resistance checks. Don't expect to evaluate even a 10k resistor > accurately by holding the test leads on it with your fingers. I have > some voltmeter test leads with "grabber" hooks that I just love for > things like that--these particular ones have points that work like > regular probes too. > > If you really do want to check the coax's high resistance with your > fingers, charge up a 30 meter or so length to about a kilovolt, let it > rest with no applied voltage for several minutes, and see if it will > "zap" you when you touch across the conductors. If you're crazy > enough to try it, do NOT do it with two hands, because there's some > danger with the current going through your upper body... If the line > stays charged to, say, 9/10 of the original voltage for an hour, what > resistance is that? Well, it would be roughly a ten hour time > constant, and if it's 50-ohm line with solid polyethylene dielectric, > it will be about 3000pF capacitance, so the resistance would be about > 10^13 ohms. Don't be surprised if it's actually better than that, > even...I have a couple metalized polypropylene caps I charged up a few > years ago that I take out and measure every once in a while (very > carefully with a very high impedance volt meter), and they are showing > a self-discharge time constant in excess of 50 YEARS. I got in some trouble in high school by bringing in some 600volt 8 microfarad oil caps and discharging them loudly against the metal desk when (I thought) the teacher wasn't looking. I never did find out how long they would hold a charge, but they would load up to 500-600 volts and stay that way all day! -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 Article: 225348 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:34:41 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Gene Fuller wrote: >> If every interaction between objects requires that somehow the charge >> is transferred to keep things "identical", how did those nasty dust >> particles get charged in the first place? > > Huh? It is you who says the dust particles carry exactly the > same charge as the antenna they are encountering. Otherwise, > there is current flow in the antenna system which you deny. > >> I am not arguing about antenna noise. I am questioning your misuse of >> physics. There are no charge equalization laws. > > Huh? Place a charge on a wire. Doesn't current flow in > both directions until the charge is equalized throughout > the conductor? Did my college professors lie to me? Cecil, If your college professors actually said that, then yes, they lied. Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description of charge equalization. Simply grabbing random techno-factoids and assembling them into some sort of support for your case does not really help. (I said nothing about dust particles. I merely asked you how they got charged.) 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 225349 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150279600.497253.238450@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:55:39 GMT Gene Fuller wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > >> Gene Fuller wrote: >> >>> If every interaction between objects requires that somehow the charge >>> is transferred to keep things "identical", how did those nasty dust >>> particles get charged in the first place? >> >> >> Huh? It is you who says the dust particles carry exactly the >> same charge as the antenna they are encountering. Otherwise, >> there is current flow in the antenna system which you deny. >> >>> I am not arguing about antenna noise. I am questioning your misuse of >>> physics. There are no charge equalization laws. >> >> >> Huh? Place a charge on a wire. Doesn't current flow in >> both directions until the charge is equalized throughout >> the conductor? Did my college professors lie to me? > > > Cecil, > > If your college professors actually said that, then yes, they lied. > > Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find > discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, and > Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical description > of charge equalization. > > Simply grabbing random techno-factoids and assembling them into some > sort of support for your case does not really help. > > > (I said nothing about dust particles. I merely asked you how they got > charged.) > > 73, > Gene > W4SZ It isn't the charge that is equal, it's the potential. If there were a potential difference between two places on a conductor, there would be a current and then the conditions wouldn't be static. David K. Cheng addresses this in his book _Field and Wave Electromagnetics_. I think it's Cecil's memory that lied to him rather than his professors. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225350 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:11:02 GMT Richard Clark wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:03:45 GMT, "Tom Donaly" > wrote: > > >>Cecil Moore wrote: >> >> >>>Tom Donaly wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The air always has ions in it. >>> >>> >>>I hope you understand the difference between isolated ions >>>existing in the air and the air being ionized into a >>>conducting path. Isolated ions is not corona. >> >>Nevertheless, air is in a constant state of conduction. It may >>only be picoamps per square meter but it still exists and it's >>what causes the earth to be a lousy capacitor. > > > Hi Tom, > > To support your statement with more specific characteristics, from a > 1972 copy of "Astronautics and Aeronautics:" > > That capacitor can be described as roughly 3.54 F to the > atmosphere at an elevation of 50km; > > charged with a world-wide continuous 630 MW flow; > > with a potential difference (average) of 350 KV; > > and current (average) of 1800 A. > > Taking this current, from earth, on a basis of cm², the current is > then 90 aA about 1 pA/m² as you said the same article goes as high as > 2.5 pA/m². The difference is I used an homogenous earth model, the > author uses a real model with oceans and land with seasonal > variations. > > "...the equipotential planes remain remarkably > horizontal in spite of winds, thermals, drizzle, > and cloud cover." > > "few persons realize that when a person stands > in an open field on a clear day, his head has a > potential approximately 300V more positive than his feet > and .... The gradient averages about 180 V/m over land > in the summertime." > > "The gradient in the austauch or mixing layer varies more > than at high altitudes because thermal convection > in this region often lifts ions and particles from such > sources as pollution, dust, and fog, thus generating an electrical > convection current." > > This "austauch" layer, by observation of accompanying charts, appears > to be the first mile (actually 7000 feet) in elevation where > conductivity is flat at 200 micro-esu; > the electric field starts at 180 - 200 V/m, > to then vary downward to 60 V/m; > and Charges/cm³ goes from 0 to -2 in the first 2000 feet, > and rises to +18. > > The "austauch" layer may, in fact, be this first 2000 feet where the > charge density is negative. This accounts for the heavier positive > ion drift downward compared to the lighter negative ion rise into the > atmosphere. Be that as it may, the description is suitable for > antennas and high places. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC Hi Richard, that's pretty much the basis of my interpretation of Tom Rauch's experience with precipitation static. Some authors (Feynman for one)claim the earthly capacitor is constantly being recharged from lightning storms in the tropics. I don't understand dust storm electrodynamics, though, but since Saint Elmo's fire has been seen in dust storms it may still have something to do with the earth's electrical field added to whatever produces the potentials within the dust storm. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225351 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Copper tubing capacitors Message-ID: <43b692pn4a0v1je14kjkhb3046984i3qef@4ax.com> References: <1150493095.604886.118330@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:20:12 GMT On 16 Jun 2006 14:24:55 -0700, "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" wrote: >Two questions: It seems like having a small gap in a cylindrical >capacitor like this probably makes it act like more of a lumped-element >capacitor than, say, a length of RG-58. I guess the latter is more >like 30pF per FOOT, and so you need to use a much longer line in terms >of a wavelength to get the desired capacitance. Sound right to you >folks? It is an approximation to estimate the reactance of a given length by multiplying the length by a capacitance per unit length figure. Error becomes significant as the length increases, and the estimate is probably not accurate enought for you purposes beyond about 15% - 20% of a wavelength (electrically) and is grossly wrong over 25% of a wavelength. Owen -- Article: 225352 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Woody" References: Subject: Re: Ham Survey: How many Appliance Operator classes do we need after code goes away? Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:34:04 GMT Good God people... is everyone a bus driver or teacher??? [then again, the mentality is that of students] What is with this troll-o-rama since school ended???? Shouldn't you people be in Myrtle/Virginia beach or something?? sheesh. rb "Skip Land" wrote in message news:sgGkg.6851$lp.887@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > We have three classes now, Should we increase or decrease? > > > I'm thinking we can reduce the number to two license classes: > > One class for VHF/UHF so those people can screw up the repeaters, and one > with a little harder test that adds HF privileges, for those that want to > screw things up world wide. > > SL Article: 225353 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Chris W <1qazse4@cox.net> Subject: Antenna Drawings Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:34:31 -0500 It has been my experience that most people that are sharing their antenna designs on a web site have very bad drawings of those antennas so bad that it is hard to determine how to build them. Well I would like to help change that. If anyone here is actively maintaining a web site with antenna designs and would like better drawings, please let me know. I will draw them in 3D and give you the 3D model to put on your web site along with screen shots and or PDF drawings of the 3D model. For web site visitors to view the 3D model they have to download and install the free viewer and download the model. The viewer does work as a plug in to IE but it's not very easy to use that way. -- 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: 225354 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Never anonymous Bud Subject: Re: Ham Survey: How many Appliance Operator classes do we need after code goes away? Message-ID: References: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:53:30 GMT On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:28:40 GMT, Skip Land wrote: >We have three classes now, Should we increase or decrease? Whatever it takes to get rid of people who thing ANY license is an 'appliance class'. Lumber Cartel (tinlc) #2063. Spam this account at your own risk. This sig censored by the Office of Home and Land Insecurity... Remove XYZ to email me Article: 225355 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Mustafa" References: Subject: Re: Foreign hams should be concerned about FCC licensing changes as well. Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:50:44 GMT "Skip Land" wrote in message news:rgGkg.6850$lp.5393@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > When bands are open they'll also have to listen to the retards. I'll be listening out for you then. Article: 225356 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Mustafa" References: Subject: Re: Ham Survey: How many Appliance Operator classes do we need after code goes away? Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 23:53:44 GMT "Skip Land" wrote in message news:sgGkg.6851$lp.887@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > We have three classes now, Should we increase or decrease? > > > I'm thinking we can reduce the number to two license classes: > > One class for VHF/UHF so those people can screw up the repeaters, and one > with a little harder test that adds HF privileges, for those that want to > screw things up world wide. > > SL So which group are you in, 'cause I doubt you have the skills or intelligence to build your own equipment...Mr appliance operator in denial. Article: 225357 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44934B5E.2020505@fuse.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 20:22:54 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> There ya go. REAL data. Article: 225358 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:48:42 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs References: Message-ID: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Win wrote: > I have been told that the Force 12 C-3SS does not have much of a > pattern on 6 meters. Today, however, on 6 meters, with a C-3SS, it > appeared that I had good forward lobe, and maybe even some front to > back. > > Has anyone modeled this antenna for 6 meter. If so I would love to > see the pattern. > > Win, w0lz Interesting. This antenna doesn't cover 6 meters according to their web page. http://force12inc.com/c3ssinfo.htm tom K0TAR Article: 225359 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jerry Martes" References: Subject: Re: Antenna Drawings Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:41:47 GMT "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message news:YlGkg.55557$9c6.30756@dukeread11... > It has been my experience that most people that are sharing their antenna > designs on a web site have very bad drawings of those antennas so bad that > it is hard to determine how to build them. Well I would like to help > change that. If anyone here is actively maintaining a web site with > antenna designs and would like better drawings, please let me know. I > will draw them in 3D and give you the 3D model to put on your web site > along with screen shots and or PDF drawings of the 3D model. For web site > visitors to view the 3D model they have to download and install the free > viewer and download the model. The viewer does work as a plug in to IE > but it's not very easy to use that way. > > > -- > 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 Hi Chris I just finished designing an antenna that I'm in the process of trying to describe on a web site. The antenna isnt of much value to most HAMs. I made it for receiving weather satellites (NOAA). I have a buddy in Finland who is helping me display the concept on his web site so anyone with an interest in weather satellite images can build their own hemispheric coverage antenna. My buddy in Finland puts everything I send him on the web. So, this site may be confusing. But, the general idea of what I'm trying to make clean and clear is at http://213.250.83.83/~jerry/index.html. How do I get an idea of the cost? Jerry Article: 225360 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs Message-ID: References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:51:16 GMT On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:48:42 -0500, Tom Ring wrote: >Win wrote: > >> I have been told that the Force 12 C-3SS does not have much of a >> pattern on 6 meters. Today, however, on 6 meters, with a C-3SS, it >> appeared that I had good forward lobe, and maybe even some front to >> back. >> >> Has anyone modeled this antenna for 6 meter. If so I would love to >> see the pattern. >> >> Win, w0lz > >Interesting. This antenna doesn't cover 6 meters according to their web >page. > >http://force12inc.com/c3ssinfo.htm It woks on 6M because it's near the third harmonic of 20M, the elements act similar to an array of extended double zepps. Feeding it is the problem but gain and some front to back should be expected. Allison > >tom >K0TAR Article: 225361 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:17:09 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <44936625$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote: > > > It woks on 6M because it's near the third harmonic of 20M, the > elements act similar to an array of extended double zepps. > Feeding it is the problem but gain and some front to back should be > expected. > > Allison Keep saying to yourself "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..." tom K0TAR Article: 225362 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:28:44 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <449368df$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote: > > It woks on 6M because it's near the third harmonic of 20M, the > elements act similar to an array of extended double zepps. > Feeding it is the problem but gain and some front to back should be > expected. > > Allison > There will be no front lobe. BTDT. There will be a lobe to the NW and NE if you define the desired main lobe as north. It may end up better or a lot worse depending on the "reflector", which isn't going to perform well as one. The only way triple f yagis work well is if the elements are swept forward. That pushes the right and left lobes from the straight elements into the center. tom K0TAR Article: 225363 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:32:10 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <449368df$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <449369aa$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Tom Ring wrote: > The only way triple f yagis work well is if the elements are swept > forward. That pushes the right and left lobes from the straight > elements into the center. > Well known in the VHF and UHF design world, probably almost unknown here. tom K0TAR Article: 225364 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Barry OGrady Subject: Re: Ham Survey: How many Appliance Operator classes do we need after code goes away? Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:32:30 +1000 Message-ID: References: On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:28:40 GMT, Skip Land wrote: >We have three classes now, Should we increase or decrease? > > >I'm thinking we can reduce the number to two license classes: > >One class for VHF/UHF so those people can screw up the repeaters, and one >with a little harder test that adds HF privileges, for those that want to >screw things up world wide. In Australia we have one appliance class, and one semi-appliance class now that code has gone away. >SL Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og Article: 225365 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Barry OGrady Subject: Re: Ham Survey: How many Appliance Operator classes do we need after code goes away? Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:33:13 +1000 Message-ID: References: On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:34:04 GMT, "Woody" wrote: >Good God people... is everyone a bus driver or teacher??? [then again, the >mentality is that of students] What is with this troll-o-rama since school >ended???? >Shouldn't you people be in Myrtle/Virginia beach or something?? >sheesh. They certainly should not be top posting! >rb > > >"Skip Land" wrote in message >news:sgGkg.6851$lp.887@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> We have three classes now, Should we increase or decrease? >> >> >> I'm thinking we can reduce the number to two license classes: >> >> One class for VHF/UHF so those people can screw up the repeaters, and one >> with a little harder test that adds HF privileges, for those that want to >> screw things up world wide. >> >> SL > Barry ===== Home page http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og Article: 225366 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Wayne" References: Subject: Re: Antenna Drawings Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 02:36:19 GMT "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message news:YlGkg.55557$9c6.30756@dukeread11... > It has been my experience that most people that are sharing their antenna > designs on a web site have very bad drawings of those antennas so bad that > it is hard to determine how to build them. Well I would like to help > change that. If anyone here is actively maintaining a web site with > antenna designs and would like better drawings, please let me know. I > will draw them in 3D and give you the 3D model to put on your web site > along with screen shots and or PDF drawings of the 3D model. For web site > visitors to view the 3D model they have to download and install the free > viewer and download the model. The viewer does work as a plug in to IE > but it's not very easy to use that way. > That's a great idea Chris. Also, it would be helpful if you posted some of the antennas from QST on a website. For the past few years, they typically do not have a clean electrical diagram of antennas described in articles. They include so many mechanical details with the electrical, that it is often hard to recognize something as simple as a loaded vertical. For example, I never had the patience to figure out that GPS antenna they posted a couple of years ago. --Wayne Article: 225367 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Chris W <1qazse4@cox.net> Subject: Re: Antenna Drawings References: Message-ID: <0WJkg.55564$9c6.31463@dukeread11> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:37:47 -0500 Jerry Martes wrote: > "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message > news:YlGkg.55557$9c6.30756@dukeread11... > >>It has been my experience that most people that are sharing their antenna >>designs on a web site have very bad drawings of those antennas so bad that >>it is hard to determine how to build them. Well I would like to help >>change that. If anyone here is actively maintaining a web site with >>antenna designs and would like better drawings, please let me know. I >>will draw them in 3D and give you the 3D model to put on your web site >>along with screen shots and or PDF drawings of the 3D model. For web site >>visitors to view the 3D model they have to download and install the free >>viewer and download the model. The viewer does work as a plug in to IE >>but it's not very easy to use that way. >> >> >>-- >>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 > > > > Hi Chris > > I just finished designing an antenna that I'm in the process of trying to > describe on a web site. The antenna isnt of much value to most HAMs. I > made it for receiving weather satellites (NOAA). I have a buddy in Finland > who is helping me display the concept on his web site so anyone with an > interest in weather satellite images can build their own hemispheric > coverage antenna. > My buddy in Finland puts everything I send him on the web. So, this site > may be confusing. But, the general idea of what I'm trying to make clean > and clear is at http://213.250.83.83/~jerry/index.html. > > How do I get an idea of the cost? I don't really care what the antennas are for as long as it is a community share type project and not something you are only going to sell plans for. As long as I don't get to many requests, I'll draw it up for free. In return I'm hoping some of you guys out there who know antenna design can help me with some antenna designs. Right now I am trying to figure out a good design for a LEO Satellite Phone that has a frequency range of 1616-1626.5Mhz. So if you can get email me some sketches or what ever you have I will try and draw it up. The email I use for news groups is bogus. You can email me at a real address by looking for the "email support" link on my web site linked below. -- 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: 225368 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jerry Martes" References: <0WJkg.55564$9c6.31463@dukeread11> Subject: Re: Antenna Drawings Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:01:58 GMT "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message news:0WJkg.55564$9c6.31463@dukeread11... > Jerry Martes wrote: >> "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:YlGkg.55557$9c6.30756@dukeread11... >> >>>It has been my experience that most people that are sharing their antenna >>>designs on a web site have very bad drawings of those antennas so bad >>>that it is hard to determine how to build them. Well I would like to >>>help change that. If anyone here is actively maintaining a web site with >>>antenna designs and would like better drawings, please let me know. I >>>will draw them in 3D and give you the 3D model to put on your web site >>>along with screen shots and or PDF drawings of the 3D model. For web site >>>visitors to view the 3D model they have to download and install the free >>>viewer and download the model. The viewer does work as a plug in to IE >>>but it's not very easy to use that way. >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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 >> >> >> >> Hi Chris >> >> I just finished designing an antenna that I'm in the process of trying >> to describe on a web site. The antenna isnt of much value to most HAMs. >> I made it for receiving weather satellites (NOAA). I have a buddy in >> Finland who is helping me display the concept on his web site so anyone >> with an interest in weather satellite images can build their own >> hemispheric coverage antenna. >> My buddy in Finland puts everything I send him on the web. So, this >> site may be confusing. But, the general idea of what I'm trying to make >> clean and clear is at http://213.250.83.83/~jerry/index.html. >> >> How do I get an idea of the cost? > > > I don't really care what the antennas are for as long as it is a community > share type project and not something you are only going to sell plans for. > As long as I don't get to many requests, I'll draw it up for free. In > return I'm hoping some of you guys out there who know antenna design can > help me with some antenna designs. Right now I am trying to figure out a > good design for a LEO Satellite Phone that has a frequency range of > 1616-1626.5Mhz. > > So if you can get email me some sketches or what ever you have I will try > and draw it up. The email I use for news groups is bogus. You can email > me at a real address by looking for the "email support" link on my web > site linked below. > > -- > 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: 225369 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jerry Martes" References: <0WJkg.55564$9c6.31463@dukeread11> Subject: Re: Antenna Drawings Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:09:30 GMT "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message news:0WJkg.55564$9c6.31463@dukeread11... > Jerry Martes wrote: >> "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:YlGkg.55557$9c6.30756@dukeread11... >> >>>It has been my experience that most people that are sharing their antenna >>>designs on a web site have very bad drawings of those antennas so bad >>>that it is hard to determine how to build them. Well I would like to >>>help change that. If anyone here is actively maintaining a web site with >>>antenna designs and would like better drawings, please let me know. I >>>will draw them in 3D and give you the 3D model to put on your web site >>>along with screen shots and or PDF drawings of the 3D model. For web site >>>visitors to view the 3D model they have to download and install the free >>>viewer and download the model. The viewer does work as a plug in to IE >>>but it's not very easy to use that way. >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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 >> >> >> >> Hi Chris >> >> I just finished designing an antenna that I'm in the process of trying >> to describe on a web site. The antenna isnt of much value to most HAMs. >> I made it for receiving weather satellites (NOAA). I have a buddy in >> Finland who is helping me display the concept on his web site so anyone >> with an interest in weather satellite images can build their own >> hemispheric coverage antenna. >> My buddy in Finland puts everything I send him on the web. So, this >> site may be confusing. But, the general idea of what I'm trying to make >> clean and clear is at http://213.250.83.83/~jerry/index.html. >> >> How do I get an idea of the cost? > > > I don't really care what the antennas are for as long as it is a community > share type project and not something you are only going to sell plans for. > As long as I don't get to many requests, I'll draw it up for free. In > return I'm hoping some of you guys out there who know antenna design can > help me with some antenna designs. Right now I am trying to figure out a > good design for a LEO Satellite Phone that has a frequency range of > 1616-1626.5Mhz. > > So if you can get email me some sketches or what ever you have I will try > and draw it up. The email I use for news groups is bogus. You can email > me at a real address by looking for the "email support" link on my web > site linked below. > > -- > 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 Hi Chris I had tried to contact you before replying to the group by clicking on "reply to sender". Now I'll contact you at your site. I have absolutely *no* interest in selling anything associated with this antenna. Heck, I've paid to get others to try it just to get confirmation of its usability. Thanks Jerry Article: 225370 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jerry Martes" References: <0WJkg.55564$9c6.31463@dukeread11> Subject: Re: Antenna Drawings Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:23:52 GMT "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message news:0WJkg.55564$9c6.31463@dukeread11... > Jerry Martes wrote: >> "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:YlGkg.55557$9c6.30756@dukeread11... >> >>>It has been my experience that most people that are sharing their antenna >>>designs on a web site have very bad drawings of those antennas so bad >>>that it is hard to determine how to build them. Well I would like to >>>help change that. If anyone here is actively maintaining a web site with >>>antenna designs and would like better drawings, please let me know. I >>>will draw them in 3D and give you the 3D model to put on your web site >>>along with screen shots and or PDF drawings of the 3D model. For web site >>>visitors to view the 3D model they have to download and install the free >>>viewer and download the model. The viewer does work as a plug in to IE >>>but it's not very easy to use that way. >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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 >> >> >> >> Hi Chris >> >> I just finished designing an antenna that I'm in the process of trying >> to describe on a web site. The antenna isnt of much value to most HAMs. >> I made it for receiving weather satellites (NOAA). I have a buddy in >> Finland who is helping me display the concept on his web site so anyone >> with an interest in weather satellite images can build their own >> hemispheric coverage antenna. >> My buddy in Finland puts everything I send him on the web. So, this >> site may be confusing. But, the general idea of what I'm trying to make >> clean and clear is at http://213.250.83.83/~jerry/index.html. >> >> How do I get an idea of the cost? > > > I don't really care what the antennas are for as long as it is a community > share type project and not something you are only going to sell plans for. > As long as I don't get to many requests, I'll draw it up for free. In > return I'm hoping some of you guys out there who know antenna design can > help me with some antenna designs. Right now I am trying to figure out a > good design for a LEO Satellite Phone that has a frequency range of > 1616-1626.5Mhz. > Hi Chris The antenna I want to describe was designed for LEO polar orbiting NOAA satellites. It works well at 137 MHz. It is sensitive to RHCP thruout the hemisphere, so I suppose it would be an excellant design for 1.6 GHz LEO satellites. But, with 3 inch dipoles, it would be relatively difficult to construct. I dont have any test equipment for anything over 400 MHz. If I could do any measurements at 1.6 GHz, I'd try to build a prototype 1.6 MHz version of this "Double Cross" antenna. Jerry KD6JDJ Article: 225371 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Povertyhill" References: Subject: Re: Ham Survey: How many Appliance Operator classes do we need after code goes away? Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:36:07 GMT You can change your name that you are showing but you are still the poor troll that just can't let go! Go play with your key or something! sheeez! Still posting from the same IP group! Article: 225372 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150510724.399697.250400@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 03:41:04 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Thanks Richard and Tom D. > > I was worried for a while mythology and the magic dust (not Cheech and > Chong style, but Texas style) would overshadow what really goes on. > > Richard Clark wrote: > >> "few persons realize that when a person stands >> in an open field on a clear day, his head has a >> potential approximately 300V more positive than his feet >> and .... The gradient averages about 180 V/m over land >> in the summertime." > > > We have to be careful with that! > > Actually the impedance of the field is very high. When a person stands > in an open field he actually perturbs the electric field very close to > him because his body resistance is very very low compared to the > impedance of the electric field. His feet are not really 300V more > negative than his head unless you would replace everything below his > eyebrows and above his ankles with a very good insulator. > > On calm windless days the electric field in the air around a structure > like an antenna is easily bled off even through extremely high values > of resistance, and when the wind picks up, especially when there are > particles of some type, the electric field impedance is effectively > reduced. > > There are some people who believe in magic. Some people think a tall > metal structure has a potential difference between ends that builds up > in storms, eventually charging the top of the structure so much it arcs > to the clouds above. > > To cure that pure fantasy they put little spikey balls on the top of > their tower, somehow thinking the leakage from that corona that Cecil > knows doesn't exist bleeds off the charge and makes the clouds above > and earth below the same potential. > > It's very strange how those people all argue with each other and argue > against themselves, but then that's what happens when too much magic > dust hits an antenna. > > 73 Tom > For something that doesn't get much ink in the textbooks, static electricity can be an awfully important subject. I spent years trying every half-baked, nuthouse remedy I could get my hands on to try to get paper through a printing press without having sheets cling to each other due to static attraction. Nothing actually worked very well. There were plenty of people willing to sell me remedies, though. I'm surprised no one is marketing a corona killer for antennas. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225373 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:35:22 -0700 Message-ID: <12971kdecfb3342@corp.supernews.com> References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <449368df$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <449369aa$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Tom Ring wrote: > Tom Ring wrote: > >> The only way triple f yagis work well is if the elements are swept >> forward. That pushes the right and left lobes from the straight >> elements into the center. >> > > Well known in the VHF and UHF design world, probably almost unknown here. That's too bad, since I've described that technique on this group a number of times in various contexts. It allows you to make a very nice 40/15 meter antenna, for example. Bending the wires of a 40 meter dipole in 30 degrees aligns the lobes on 15 meters, but doesn't alter the 40 meter pattern much. And of course it's widely used for TV antennas, where the upper VHF bands are about three times the frequency of the lower ones. This doesn't make an extended double zepp as posted earlier. An EDZ is 5/4 wavelength, which has a single lobe in each direction broadside to the antenna when the antenna is straight. A dipole operated at three times its lowest resonant frequency is about 3/2 wavelength, and has four lobes in a cloverleaf pattern, rather than two in opposite directions like an EDZ. So it requires bending if you want just two major lobes in opposite directions. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Article: 225374 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44938FBA.B98B46E4@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: get help References: <1150417271.125737.165490@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 05:15:31 GMT Dave wrote: > > an_old_friend wrote: > > > > gte help loser > > Loser?? You can't even spell!! What does "gte' mean?? > > Or, did you forget to turm ON your spell checker? > > But, I did like the play on words: 'phoney' GTE was "General Telephone, Inc." a company that ran small local phone systems and sold early PBX systems. ;-) -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Article: 225375 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roger Subject: Re: I bought a large capacitance hat for my vertical, but the antenna still gets wet when it rains. Message-ID: References: <1149939299.081665.138120@m38g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <128n7597b11m190@corp.supernews.com> <448C37E1.8060002@fuse.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:53:39 -0400 On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:50:57 -0700, "Sal M. Onella" wrote: > >"clifto" wrote in message >news:tue6m3-0iv.ln1@remote.clifto.com... >> Incidental note: I've never understood how people who use "it's" as a >> possessive never even think to use "hi's" (though some use "her's" and >> "their's"). > >Yup, me too. I listen to "A Way With Words," a radio program on KPBS >(available streaming at kpbs.org) whose host is language writer Richard >Lederer ("Anguished English," "Get Thee To A Punnery," etc). Richard said >that "it's" for "its" (possessive) was considered correct until near the end >of the 19th century. I didn't know that. That's as bad as using entitled. Michigan Tech voted that as one of the 10 words that should be eliminated in one of their yearly selections. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com. > Article: 225376 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs Message-ID: References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <44936625$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:12:40 GMT On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:17:09 -0500, Tom Ring wrote: >nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote: > >> >> >> It woks on 6M because it's near the third harmonic of 20M, the >> elements act similar to an array of extended double zepps. >> Feeding it is the problem but gain and some front to back should be >> expected. >> >> Allison > >Keep saying to yourself "There's no place like home, there's no place >like home..." > >tom >K0TAR A simple" your wrong" or "the facts dont support" would have been far classier. Instead you resort to abuse. Allison Article: 225377 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:22:12 -0500 Message-ID: <1sv792ttf1hgoknbb2cbd77ejgv5bkefpp@4ax.com> References: On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:16:38 -0500, Win wrote: Actuall, this explains a lot. I remember a slight null at center. I will play with it again today, if the band opens. The antenna loaded well with the internal tuner. I also received good reports. My dilemma is, live with this for a while, or find a place on the tower for another antenna. Thanks, everyone. Win, w0lz Article: 225378 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:37:59 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <449368df$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <449369aa$0$6141$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <12971kdecfb3342@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <449405b8$0$6146$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Roy Lewallen wrote: > Tom Ring wrote: > >> Tom Ring wrote: >> >>> The only way triple f yagis work well is if the elements are swept >>> forward. That pushes the right and left lobes from the straight >>> elements into the center. >>> >> >> Well known in the VHF and UHF design world, probably almost unknown here. > > > That's too bad, since I've described that technique on this group a > number of times in various contexts. It allows you to make a very nice > 40/15 meter antenna, for example. Bending the wires of a 40 meter dipole > in 30 degrees aligns the lobes on 15 meters, but doesn't alter the 40 > meter pattern much. And of course it's widely used for TV antennas, > where the upper VHF bands are about three times the frequency of the > lower ones. > Roy Lewallen, W7EL I should have known you would have stated it already. My bad. ;) There is also an interesting 2 meter antenna for sale on the net that uses that method. 3 3/2 wavelength elements made as a sort of yagi as I remember. I have no idea how well it really works. tom K0TAR Article: 225379 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:42:41 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <44936625$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <449406d1$0$1009$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote: > > > A simple" your wrong" or "the facts dont support" would have been far > classier. Instead you resort to abuse. > > Allison Ok, I apologize. But if you think what I did was abuse, you haven't been reading how some other people in this group express their disagreement, LOL. tom K0TAR Article: 225380 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <0CKkg.118338$dW3.94930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:26:17 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Gene Fuller wrote: >> Cecil Moore wrote: >> Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find >> discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, >> and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical >> description of charge equalization. > > On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the > charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they > are paralleled. Cecil, My bad. I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer phenomena. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 225381 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Gene Fuller Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <0CKkg.118338$dW3.94930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: <5oUkg.34508$mF2.19466@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 14:32:33 GMT Dave wrote: >> Gene Fuller wrote: >> >>> Cecil Moore wrote: >>> Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find >>> discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, >>> and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical >>> description of charge equalization. >> >> >> On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the >> charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they >> are paralleled. > > If I cause 10 coulombs of charge to be on a 10 meter long wire, do I not > have a uniform charge distribution of 1 coulomb per meter on the wire, > under dc steady state conditions? Isn't this required for any > equipotential surface? > Dave, No. A good conductor in DC conditions will have an equipotential surface. Charge distribution depends on the shape of the object and the external environment. The wire you describe will have higher charge density near its ends. Electrostatic analysis would be a lot easier if what you suggested was true. 73, Gene W4SZ Article: 225382 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jimmie D" References: <1150493095.604886.118330@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Copper tubing capacitors Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 09:55:19 -0400 wrote in message news:1150493095.604886.118330@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... > I'm thinking about how I can make matching networks for the center of a > 40 foot doublet for field day. I have a couple of those 20 footer > fiberglass poles and a center mount and want to be able to match on > 20m, 15m, and 10m for now, and there are lots of ways I could do this, > ladderline to the base and a manual or auto tuner, autotuner at the > feedpoint, etc, etc, but what I'd really like to do is have switchable > fixed-tuned networks as my intent for this antenna is to be set up in > the middle of a field in the clear at the same height all the time, and > I want to have FAST bandswitching. > > An autotuner really isn't in the cards financially, and needs power. > > So, inductors are easy. I've got 500 feet of #10 copper wire. > > I need capacitors. Preferably very very cheap ones, and I guess I need > a number of values. > > So it seems like 3/4" copper tubing (type L) slipped into 5/8" copper > tubing with an air dielectric has a capacitance of 30pF per inch and a > breakdown voltage of 1300V, ballpark in the *ideal* case. > > Two questions: It seems like having a small gap in a cylindrical > capacitor like this probably makes it act like more of a lumped-element > capacitor than, say, a length of RG-58. I guess the latter is more > like 30pF per FOOT, and so you need to use a much longer line in terms > of a wavelength to get the desired capacitance. Sound right to you > folks? > > Second, I know the actual breakdown voltage of such an object is going > to be much less than 30kV/cm*the gap width. Anyone using copper tubing > caps like this (I saw a magloop "trombone" unit some years back like > this) and what are the dimensions and actual breakdown voltages of real > units? > > I guess polishing the tubes, making the cut edges rounded and so forth > will help some, but maintaining the gap will be tough. I can easily > derate for concentricity errors, but what about the ends? What is a > good overlap of the two sections? Is it better to have the tubes be > exactly the same length, flush with each other, or maybe have one > longer than the other one so that the ends of one are far away from the > ends of the other, or is it likely no difference? I can always go to a > bigger gap; 0.035in diametral difference is probably pushing it for > 100W use but I haven't yet calculated likely voltages across these > things, so here I'll take any general comments on making coaxial caps > that stand high voltage. I'd probably prefer air dielectric to teflon > heat-shrink or something, I don't know how available that is. > > 73, > Dan > N3OX > Seems like you want something that once it is adjusted to the right capacitance it will probably never have to be tweaked again. I would go with brass plates. You can make up a nice little "brick" and then tweak it by grinding parts of it off or drilling holes in it. Sounds a little crude but really worked quite nicely for an antenna I built a long time ago. It did prove a little impractical though, Capacitance really seemed to change a bit with humidity. I never really solved this problem or even tried because I came by one of the old Heathkit antenna tuners that was a motor driven cap that you put in seies with a long wire antenna. Placing the brick in plastic box would have probably been a viable fix. Also consider that your linear caps may have quite a bit of inductance, just something else to figure into it all. Article: 225383 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <0CKkg.118338$dW3.94930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: <_FVkg.98515$H71.52435@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 15:59:54 GMT Dave wrote: >> Gene Fuller wrote: >> >>> Cecil Moore wrote: >>> Try looking in any basic physics text. I believe you will find >>> discussion of electrostatic forces, equipotential surfaces, fields, >>> and Gauss' law. It is doubtful that you will find any technical >>> description of charge equalization. >> >> >> >> On the contrary, my DC circuits book has an example of the >> charges on two identical capacitors equalizing when they >> are paralleled. > > > If I cause 10 coulombs of charge to be on a 10 meter long wire, do I not > have a uniform charge distribution of 1 coulomb per meter on the wire, > under dc steady state conditions? Isn't this required for any > equipotential surface? > Nope. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 225384 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150510724.399697.250400@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4377925pib1eecfu6rbl7ek8u03os7ddpq@4ax.com> <1150552956.325543.198880@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:09:00 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > In conditions where there is corona or the potential for corona, quads > are less susceptable to noise. Quads are also less susceptible to noise from charged particles because they tend to distribute the charge locally instead of through the transmission line like a dipole does. Corona is like being pregnant. It either exists or it doesn't. Corona is steady-state ionization of the air. Arcing can occur without corona. > Or worse yet they argue moisture prevents corona, when the entire > reason the quad was "invented" was to prevent coronal errosion of > dipole elements in the moist air at HCJB. Apples and oranges, Tom. Since nobody has argued that high humidity prevents corona during transmitting, your statement is just an unfair obfuscation of the facts. On a clear-sky, high-humidity day, the high humidity prevents corona on *receiving* antennas. The antenna at HCJB did *NOT* report any corona problems during receive. The antenna at HCJB had corona problems when 10 KW of power was being supplied by the transmitter. The energy necessary to cause the corona was coming from the transmitter, not from the atmosphere. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225385 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <0CKkg.118338$dW3.94930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:13:18 GMT Gene Fuller wrote: > I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior > of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer phenomena. You apparently misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say the charge on the charged particle and the wire equalized. I said, after the charge is transferred to a point on the wire by the particle, the charge on the wire equalizes up and down the wire. But I am always ready to learn something new. Given two identical conductive spheres with unequal charges, please explain the physics that prohibits those spheres from equalizing their charges when they are brought into physical contact. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225386 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <0CKkg.118338$dW3.94930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <_FVkg.98515$H71.52435@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:18:42 GMT Tom Donaly wrote: >> If I cause 10 coulombs of charge to be on a 10 meter long wire, do I >> not have a uniform charge distribution of 1 coulomb per meter on the >> wire, under dc steady state conditions? Isn't this required for any >> equipotential surface? >> > Nope. But that wasn't the correct question. Given two identical dipole elements connected by a link coupling, does the charge on each element equalize with the other? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225387 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <0CKkg.118338$dW3.94930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:21:30 GMT Cecil Moore wrote: > Gene Fuller wrote: >> I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior >> of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer >> phenomena. > > You apparently misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say > the charge on the charged particle and the wire equalized. I > said, after the charge is transferred to a point on the wire > by the particle, the charge on the wire equalizes up and down > the wire. I'm sorry, not up and down the single elementary wire, but between the two identical elements of a link-coupled dipole. > But I am always ready to learn something new. Given two identical > conductive spheres with unequal charges, please explain the physics > that prohibits those spheres from equalizing their charges > when they are brought into physical contact. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225388 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150187877.341635.61420@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1150322213.586450.142880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <1150333200.568710.156680@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <2q3kg.147934$F_3.147440@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <4490DD4C.8020706@fuse.net> <449205CE.90103@fuse.net> <0CKkg.118338$dW3.94930@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:30:22 GMT Gene Fuller wrote: > I forgot that rain drops and antenna wires are identical. The behavior > of two identical capacitors certainly covers all charge transfer phenomena. I didn't say what I wanted to say in my last reply to this posting so I canceled my first reply and am substituting this one for it. It the older reply made it off my server, please ignore it. You obviously misunderstood what I said. I didn't say the charge equalized between the charged particle and the wire. What I said is after the charge is deposited on the wire and the particle that did the depositing of the charge is long gone, the charge deposited by that particle will equalize between two identical dipole elements that are link coupled. Let's say we have a perfectly symmetrical link-coupled dipole and we deposit one coulomb on one element. Please explain the laws of physics that prohibit those two dipole elements from equalizing at the same charge. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225389 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs Message-ID: <93d892di5fddrh0d0kkgvfqi0ihpjlno5o@4ax.com> References: <4493516a$0$6155$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <44936625$0$6147$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <449406d1$0$1009$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:06:03 GMT On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:42:41 -0500, Tom Ring wrote: >nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net wrote: > >> >> >> A simple" your wrong" or "the facts dont support" would have been far >> classier. Instead you resort to abuse. >> >> Allison > >Ok, I apologize. > >But if you think what I did was abuse, you haven't been reading how some >other people in this group express their disagreement, LOL. > >tom >K0TAR Accepted. As for the others, their bad behavour is just another bad example of how not to act. I did some modeling of 20m beams at 6m and because of the array rather than single dipole you get a more interesting result. However, for any antenna that is either multiple of 5/8 or 1/2 wavelength, the gain is there if you can get RF into the usually very reactive feed. My favorite antenna and second to my 4element 6m beam is a 24FT EDZ wire with matching section for 6m. Cebik has models for this at 2m and I built it for 6 by scaling and then modeling. The nice feature is it's 50 ohm feed (with current balun) and fairly wideband. The bugsplat pattern is good enough for omni listening and I've worked a few contries from FN42 (Aruba, Bramuda, Bahamas, Martinique) at the 10W power level during the recent opening. Allison KB1GMX Article: 225390 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nospam@nouce.bellatlantic.net Subject: Re: Force 12 C-3 on 6 Mtrs Message-ID: <2ld892p4tt5esj6uqel7sr27l9r0m4tfdq@4ax.com> References: <1sv792ttf1hgoknbb2cbd77ejgv5bkefpp@4ax.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:07:09 GMT On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 08:22:12 -0500, Win wrote: >On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:16:38 -0500, Win wrote: > >Actuall, this explains a lot. I remember a slight null at center. > >I will play with it again today, if the band opens. The antenna >loaded well with the internal tuner. I also received good reports. >My dilemma is, live with this for a while, or find a place on the >tower for another antenna. > >Thanks, everyone. > >Win, w0lz >From here (MA) there was a good opening into Europe in the AM. Allison Article: 225391 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Christen Fihl" References: <1150569229.622462.314370@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Circular vs. Linear and Dipole vs. Loop. Thoughts? Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 21:16:09 +0200 Message-ID: <449454f9$0$102$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> I read this paper myself: http://www.ti.com/rfid/docs/manuals/appNotes/HFAntennaCookbook.pdf -- Christen Fihl http://oz1aab.Fihl.net/ Article: 225392 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Subject: Re: Log Peridic 50m - 1300m References: Message-ID: <0WZkg.46046$fb2.1205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 20:50:04 GMT The KMA log antennas seem more durable than Create or Tennadyne but not sure about 80mph wind + ice. They can make you one from thicker materials that would probably survive. Bob Howard W3CQH wrote: > Looking for specs on any log periodic antenna that covers 50Mhz - 1300Mhz, > (Ham variety). Specs must also contain that it can withstand 80MPH wind and > 30 Lbs of ICE? > > Thanks and best DXin. > > de Howard W3CQH > > > Article: 225393 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150510724.399697.250400@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4377925pib1eecfu6rbl7ek8u03os7ddpq@4ax.com> <1150552956.325543.198880@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:12:02 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > When we look at this, it is almost laughable the very people claiming > corona can't be the root cause of what is commonly called p-static > noise are often arguing quad or quad like antenna short the noise of > particles striking the antenna to ground, and thus can't have corona. W8JI: Tibet doesn't exist. W5DXP: Please prove it. W8JI: I have seen China but I have never seen Tibet. Substitute "corona" for China and "charged particle noise" for Tibet and you will completely understand W8JI's argument. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225394 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Win Subject: Re: Ham Survey: How many Appliance Operator classes do we need after code goes away? Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:39:01 -0500 Message-ID: <9c0992hfeoplrae287q3m7gj53f0q8vt6l@4ax.com> References: For the sake of the troll... Back in the early 90s there may have been some etiiqutte on the net, but not today. Top posting is perfectly acceptable today. The first line is about all anyone reads of this kind of crap, anyway. And, these want-to be nurds that think they are hackers because they can read a header are also full of crap. I suspect I was writing code befoer many were born. Most could not hack me if I gave them my password. Give me a break. Win, w0lz Article: 225395 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David & Margaret McBeth" Subject: Feedline impedance query Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:34:19 +1200 Message-ID: If I join 2 lengths of 93 ohm coax to give 46.5 ohm impedance will the db loss on the line be greater,less or the same as a single lengthof the coax? ZL2DG Article: 225396 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Log Peridic 50m - 1300m Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:31:54 -0400 Message-ID: <1299lnlqg1nng48@corp.supernews.com> References: Dear Howard W3CQH: A 26:1 frequency range is difficult to do well. Might you intend 500 MHz to 1300 MHz? A 2.6:1 LPDA is reasonably straight forward with design information in the ARRL Antenna Handbook (including mechanical information). Use care when specifying survival of an antenna in terms of MPH. It is the equivalent Newtons per square meter (pounds-force per square foot) that is important. Several ways of describing wind speed exist and are not equal in terms of what they do to an antenna structure. Ask for pressure information. I do not recognize the "30 Lb of ICE" specification. Most often, ice loading is specified in terms of size such as 12 mm of ice all of the way around each element (12 mm of radial ice). It will help to know the task to be performed by the antenna. Tell us more. Regards, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Howard W3CQH" wrote in message news:DvmdnX0ALIEzxQnZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@adelphia.com... > Looking for specs on any log periodic antenna that covers 50Mhz - 1300Mhz, > (Ham variety). Specs must also contain that it can withstand 80MPH wind and > 30 Lbs of ICE? > > Thanks and best DXin. > > de Howard W3CQH > > > Article: 225397 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Feedline impedance query Message-ID: <6fn99219pobjiufndo7mskdatlcr68gcho@4ax.com> References: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 05:10:58 GMT On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:34:19 +1200, "David & Margaret McBeth" wrote: >If I join 2 lengths of 93 ohm coax to give 46.5 ohm impedance will the db >loss on the line be greater,less or the same as a single lengthof the coax? > ZL2DG > Presumably by "join 2 lengths" you mean to connect two lengths in parallel. If the loss factor L is the loss in one length of the cable, won't the loss in two parallel lengths be Plost=Pin/2*L+Pin/2*L, so Plost/Pin=L? Owen -- Article: 225398 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Log Peridic 50m - 1300m Message-ID: References: <1299lnlqg1nng48@corp.supernews.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 05:27:57 GMT On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:31:54 -0400, "J. Mc Laughlin" wrote: > I do not recognize the "30 Lb of ICE" specification. Most often, ice >loading is specified in terms of size such as 12 mm of ice all of the way >around each element (12 mm of radial ice). Given the looseness of use of the unit lb to specify mass and (incorrectly) force, it is a bit ambiguous... but he probably means mass. 30lbf of windage from ice loading isn't much on an antenna of that type! (We sin in the metric system as well! If someone asks me what I weigh (being a force) I will answer in Kg (being a mass) instead of N (force).) Having said that, the impact of ice on the wind forces is probably much more significant than the gravitational force due to the mass of the ice. Mac, I agree, radial ice loading is a more relevant specification. Owen -- Article: 225399 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: Feedline impedance query Message-ID: <5ro992d0mr8lju37jos9cn674uv2dtvtv8@4ax.com> References: <6fn99219pobjiufndo7mskdatlcr68gcho@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 05:33:00 GMT On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:16:58 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >>If the loss factor L is the loss in one length of the cable, won't the >>loss in two parallel lengths be Plost=Pin/2*L+Pin/2*L, so Plost/Pin=L? > > >Hi Owen, > >Hmm, each time I look at these equations, something is missing, but I >don't know what (probably because it is missing). Devilishly clever technique that. I can't really help, I didn't see it even after I pressed the send button! > >Simply put, two lines in parallel lose as much power as one line. Of course, we both assumed the lines operates with VSWR=1. >Nothing to be gained in that regard. Pardon the pun! Owen -- Article: 225400 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Sal M. Onella" References: Subject: Re: Log Peridic 50m - 1300m Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:41:35 -0700 "Howard W3CQH" wrote in message news:DvmdnX0ALIEzxQnZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@adelphia.com... > Looking for specs on any log periodic antenna that covers 50Mhz - 1300Mhz, > (Ham variety). Specs must also contain that it can withstand 80MPH wind and > 30 Lbs of ICE? > > Thanks and best DXin. > > de Howard W3CQH > > > http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/1700 for starters Article: 225401 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Sky noise temperature - 2m, 70cm, 23cm Message-ID: <2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:10:49 GMT Googling about turns up a little, and only a little information on the expected sky noise temperature on 2m, 70cm, 23cm. The information isn't very consistent. For example, articles that talk about the sky noise below 200MHz being 100K or more, and amateur articles talking about sky noise at 144MHz being "hundreds of degrees". Similary, for 70cm a broad brush figure of 45K seems to be used, and others talk about 20K away from the galactic plane and 60K on the galactic plane. (Yes, they will be blurred together with a low gain antenna.) Some discussions treat the "sky noise temperature" as if it includes spillover noise (eg in cold sky / hot earth measurements). Can anyone recommend a reliable source of sky noise characteristics for these bands. Additionally, I am interested in the range of ambient noise levels experienced for these bands for traditional DX activity (ie antennas at zero elevation. Alternatively, are satellite beacons a reliable source for measuring station receive performance? Or... is there some other better way of measuring station receive performance? Owen -- Article: 225402 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "gravity" References: <1299lnlqg1nng48@corp.supernews.com> Subject: Re: Log Peridic 50m - 1300m Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 07:10:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4495430a$0$16233$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:rrn9929omlehggpe6r5pqbl30pflqu079h@4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:31:54 -0400, "J. Mc Laughlin" > wrote: > > > > I do not recognize the "30 Lb of ICE" specification. Most often, ice > >loading is specified in terms of size such as 12 mm of ice all of the way > >around each element (12 mm of radial ice). > > Given the looseness of use of the unit lb to specify mass and > (incorrectly) force, it is a bit ambiguous... but he probably means > mass. lbs is always force as far as i know. slugs is mass. so long as we are confined to the planet earth, there is no difference really. 1 kg (mass) always weighs 2.2 lbs (force). obviously if you go to the moon ... kilogram, slug -- mass newton, pound -- force Gravity 30lbf of windage from ice loading isn't much on an antenna of > that type! > > (We sin in the metric system as well! If someone asks me what I weigh > (being a force) I will answer in Kg (being a mass) instead of N > (force).) > > Having said that, the impact of ice on the wind forces is probably > much more significant than the gravitational force due to the mass of > the ice. > > Mac, I agree, radial ice loading is a more relevant specification. > > Owen > -- Article: 225403 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dale Parfitt" References: <2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com> Subject: Re: Sky noise temperature - 2m, 70cm, 23cm Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:38:55 GMT "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com... > > Googling about turns up a little, and only a little information on the > expected sky noise temperature on 2m, 70cm, 23cm. > > The information isn't very consistent. For example, articles that talk > about the sky noise below 200MHz being 100K or more, and amateur > articles talking about sky noise at 144MHz being "hundreds of > degrees". > > Similary, for 70cm a broad brush figure of 45K seems to be used, and > others talk about 20K away from the galactic plane and 60K on the > galactic plane. (Yes, they will be blurred together with a low gain > antenna.) > > Some discussions treat the "sky noise temperature" as if it includes > spillover noise (eg in cold sky / hot earth measurements). > > Can anyone recommend a reliable source of sky noise characteristics > for these bands. > > Additionally, I am interested in the range of ambient noise levels > experienced for these bands for traditional DX activity (ie antennas > at zero elevation. > > Alternatively, are satellite beacons a reliable source for measuring > station receive performance? > > Or... is there some other better way of measuring station receive > performance? > > Owen > -- Hi Owen, I seem to recall around 30K-40K for cold sky. At 432 and above, everyone I know is using sun noise to evaluate system performance. Have a look at K5SO's site: http://www.k5so.com/Sun_noise.html Most of us on 1296 EME use a GR1236 IF meter for sun measurements. Easily resolves 0.1dB. 73, Dale W4OP Article: 225404 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:11:01 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Sky noise temperature - 2m, 70cm, 23cm References: <2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com> Message-ID: <449550e6$0$1009$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Owen Duffy wrote: > > Or... is there some other better way of measuring station receive > performance? > > Owen > -- Several of the EME software programs, such as TRACKER for MS machines, or Palmtrack for Palm OS, will give the noise temperature at several frequencies. Google for "EME tracking scheduling". You could also get help from one of the 2 EME nets on 20m. They run >from approximately 1000 through 1230 Eastern time on 14345. If you can't check in, you can listen to the net on the first link at http://taring.org using WMP or any other mp3 streamer, and you can email your question to Joe, K1RQG_ _@_ _aol.com (remove the clutter to use) and he will likely get the net to respond with lots of information for you. Checking there would get you the best answers on sky noise. Alternatively, the sun is easy to find, and the numbers are published daily for at least 2 frequencies. The problem is extrapolating those numbers to as low as 2 meters. Discussions recently say the best known, most used, equation probably is not correct, even at 1296, and will be even less accurate at 432, let alone 2 meters. There was a corrected one suggested, but I would take any of them as untrustworthy at this time. Again, the EME net may be of help, as many net participants take regular, even daily, sun noise measurements at 1296. They can also give you tips on avoiding errors and calibrating. tom K0TAR Article: 225405 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:16:15 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150510724.399697.250400@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4377925pib1eecfu6rbl7ek8u03os7ddpq@4ax.com> <1150552956.325543.198880@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1150605138.230626.17070@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44955220$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Typical of Cecil Moore. Do you think you are the center of attention > and no one else is worth talking to? I wasn't even talking to you! > > Look back Cecil. K0TAR said there couldn't be corona in the rain. > That's incorrect. > > Speak when spoken to Cecil. > > 73 Tom > Hang on, I didn't say "couldn't", I said I doubted it, and I also said I was asking a question. And you and others have given lots of information since, thank you. I not convinced that corona is what I'm hearing, but I'm no longer convinced it's not, either. tom K0TAR Article: 225406 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Yuri Blanarovich" References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150510724.399697.250400@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4377925pib1eecfu6rbl7ek8u03os7ddpq@4ax.com> <1150552956.325543.198880@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1150605138.230626.17070@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:36:16 -0400 wrote > > Typical of Cecil Moore. Do you think you are the center of attention > and no one else is worth talking to? I wasn't even talking to you! > > Look back Cecil. K0TAR said there couldn't be corona in the rain. > That's incorrect. > > Speak when spoken to Cecil. > > 73 Tom > Ooooops! Condx is worsening. Now besides being scientwist's guru, purporting to be the Hitler of free speech. Cecil, can you voluntarily relinquish your center of attention title to the Allknowing One, please, in the name of preserving salinity of the Internet? Shades of Freaktenna. :-) Happy Father's Day to all brave fathers! Yuri da BUm not from Tibet, but lived in Zemplin (free dB to anyone identifying the prefix) Article: 225407 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Noise level between two ant types References: <1150465658.751015.125570@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4%ykg.45048$fb2.29105@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <0Jzkg.117081$dW3.5139@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <5oCkg.61981$4L1.49994@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1150510724.399697.250400@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4377925pib1eecfu6rbl7ek8u03os7ddpq@4ax.com> <1150552956.325543.198880@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1150605138.230626.17070@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <44955220$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1150638540.988006.226840@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:55:35 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > The "dc path eliminates noise" and the "noise comes from each particle > hitting the antenna and a dc path reduces it" are nearly as far > fetched. I already explained that to you, Tom. Perhaps you missed it. In the following diagrams, CH is the charge transferred to the antenna by a charged particle or any other means. Given a non-folded dipole, any equalizing of the charge between the two identical dipole elements must flow through the link where the noise is picked up by the receiver. -------CH------+ +--------------- | | / / | | Link to receiver Turning the non-folded dipole into a folded dipole provides a *local DC path* between the two elements. Most of the noise will follow that DC path between elements instead of traveling down the transmission line, through the link, and back up the transmission line. Hint: Ohm's law. DC path between elements +-------------------------------+ +-------CH-----+ +--------------+ | | / / | | Link to Receiver You avoided replying to this last time. One wonders why. Please explain why you think the charge on the folded dipole would not take the DC path of least resistance. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225408 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Feedline impedance query References: <6fn99219pobjiufndo7mskdatlcr68gcho@4ax.com> <6Tclg.119013$dW3.79518@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: <6Tdlg.52807$Lm5.35687@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:59:14 GMT Reg Edwards wrote: > In general, it is a complete waste of time, trouble and cost to > connect coaxial cables in parallel merely to obtain a different Zo > impedance. Sounds like someone might have some free 93 ohm coax and be wanting to use it on a dipole. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 225409 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "gravity" References: <44950fff$0$22360$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <1150640409.654514.293650@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: 900MHz Cable Feeds Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:00:01 -0500 Message-ID: <44956aac$0$16468$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> wrote in message news:1150640409.654514.293650@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Joe G (Home) wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I have a 900MHz radio system and I want extend 50ohm coax cable from 3m to > > 20metres. > > (well.... I mean - replace the 3m with a complete 20metre section with > > proper termination coax connectors etc) > > > > What losses and reflections should I watch out for? > > The obvious question is: how much loss can you *stand* in this > application? > (X-posted to more appropriate groups) > hardline might work. quite expensive. i'm not sure what the losses from the connectors would be in a hardline system. Gravity Article: 225410 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Log Peridic 50m - 1300m Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 11:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: <129aqu53nq02r27@corp.supernews.com> References: <1299lnlqg1nng48@corp.supernews.com> Dear Owen: As you, and others, have concluded from my descriptions, I too have mass and force in separate bins. I continue to be amazed at the facility with which MEs use "pounds" to indicate just what they want it to indicate. Every time that I do a mechanical design (or check a mechanical design), I convert to SI units with a careful check accompanying the conversion of whether I have converted forces or masses. Once in SI, everything is easy. I have had discussions with some of my fellow P.E.s of the ME persuasion about this: they contend that they always know when force and mass is involved. I remain unconvinced. A mass centered system (SI) is more straight forward than a force centered system where an assumed gravitational field is used. Here in the North, ice plus a moderate amount of wind is most often what kills antennas having cantilevered elements. Thanks for your comments. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:rrn9929omlehggpe6r5pqbl30pflqu079h@4ax.com... > On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:31:54 -0400, "J. Mc Laughlin" > wrote: > > > > I do not recognize the "30 Lb of ICE" specification. Most often, ice > >loading is specified in terms of size such as 12 mm of ice all of the way > >around each element (12 mm of radial ice). > > Given the looseness of use of the unit lb to specify mass and > (incorrectly) force, it is a bit ambiguous... but he probably means > mass. 30lbf of windage from ice loading isn't much on an antenna of > that type! > > (We sin in the metric system as well! If someone asks me what I weigh > (being a force) I will answer in Kg (being a mass) instead of N > (force).) > > Having said that, the impact of ice on the wind forces is probably > much more significant than the gravitational force due to the mass of > the ice. > > Mac, I agree, radial ice loading is a more relevant specification. > > Owen > -- Article: 225411 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 10:25:39 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Sky noise temperature - 2m, 70cm, 23cm References: <2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com> <449550e6$0$1009$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <44957073$0$1006$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Tom Ring wrote: > Owen Duffy wrote: > >> >> Or... is there some other better way of measuring station receive >> performance? >> >> Owen >> -- > > > Several of the EME software programs, such as TRACKER for MS machines, > or Palmtrack for Palm OS, will give the noise temperature at several > frequencies. Google for "EME tracking scheduling". > > You could also get help from one of the 2 EME nets on 20m. They run > from approximately 1000 through 1230 Eastern time on 14345. If you Oops, forgot to add - on Saturday and Sunday. tom K0TAR Article: 225412 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: adykes@panix.com (Al Dykes) Subject: PVC for antenna construction ? Date: 18 Jun 2006 12:29:52 -0400 Message-ID: A friend is telling me that PVC has crappy electrical characteristics and having my wire against it for the entire antenna not good. I've been making simple VHF antennas with small diameter PVC pipe cut and glued to make the rigid structure and then taping 12ga copper wire to the PVC to make the elements. Should I switch to something else ? -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Article: 225413 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Sky noise temperature - 2m, 70cm, 23cm Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:37:32 -0400 Message-ID: <129b087sq5uom06@corp.supernews.com> References: <2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com> Dear Owen: W8PIL and I (then W8TBZ) published a paper on this subject in QST using radio astronomy information. As I recall, the article was published about June of 1961. He has since retired from NRL and I am still going. 73, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com... > > Googling about turns up a little, and only a little information on the > expected sky noise temperature on 2m, 70cm, 23cm. > > The information isn't very consistent. For example, articles that talk > about the sky noise below 200MHz being 100K or more, and amateur > articles talking about sky noise at 144MHz being "hundreds of > degrees". > > Similary, for 70cm a broad brush figure of 45K seems to be used, and > others talk about 20K away from the galactic plane and 60K on the > galactic plane. (Yes, they will be blurred together with a low gain > antenna.) > > Some discussions treat the "sky noise temperature" as if it includes > spillover noise (eg in cold sky / hot earth measurements). > > Can anyone recommend a reliable source of sky noise characteristics > for these bands. > > Additionally, I am interested in the range of ambient noise levels > experienced for these bands for traditional DX activity (ie antennas > at zero elevation. > > Alternatively, are satellite beacons a reliable source for measuring > station receive performance? > > Or... is there some other better way of measuring station receive > performance? > > Owen > -- Article: 225414 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jimmie D" References: Subject: Re: PVC for antenna construction ? Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:40:19 -0400 "Al Dykes" wrote in message news:e73v20$2bb$1@panix5.panix.com... > > > > A friend is telling me that PVC has crappy electrical characteristics > and having my wire against it for the entire antenna not good. > > I've been making simple VHF antennas with small diameter PVC pipe cut > and glued to make the rigid structure and then taping 12ga copper wire > to the PVC to make the elements. > > Should I switch to something else ? > > -- > a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m > > Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Depends on the PVC you use. Some of it is pretty bad. Put a sample in a microwave oven with a cup of water and turn it on for a couple of minutes. If the plastic gets hot it is bad for antenna use.. Probably OK for supports but I wouldnt use it to house an antenna element Article: 225415 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Brian Howie Subject: Re: Sky noise temperature - 2m, 70cm, 23cm Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:00:28 +0100 Message-ID: References: <2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com> In message <2q1a92pkre7o2kc0cechlks7pmh7rlacdn@4ax.com>, Owen Duffy writes > >Googling about turns up a little, and only a little information on the >expected sky noise temperature on 2m, 70cm, 23cm. > Chart on page 94 http://radar04.lightsky.net/tutorials/ducoff/intro.to.radar.pdf Gives bounds of sky temp for different antenna elevations as a function of frequency. Some of the EME programs give it. Brian -- Brian Howie