Article: 226464 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nm5k@wt.net Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 13 Jul 2006 01:04:59 -0700 Message-ID: <1152777899.801027.186610@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Dirk wrote: > Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. > > :-( It all depends on the person requesting help. Some people, I would probably just let drown... Like clowns that troll antenna newsgroups with silly crap about CW. I bet I could save a lot more lives per minute using CW than you could. Wanna race? If you insist.. At that price I can't resist... MK Article: 226466 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "ferrymanr" References: Subject: Help - Autek RF-1 antenna analyst manual Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:20:49 +0100 Message-ID: My brother was recently kind enough to bring me back an Autek RF-1 analyser. Unfortunately the manual got left behind. Most of the operation is intuitive and there are some notes on Autek's web site but no downloadable manual. So far this little box is proving to be very effective and useful - a lot easier to carry around than the MFJ. Does anyone have a manual they can scan for me? Thanks from Richard (Dick) G4BBH Article: 226467 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:37:48 -0400 On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:47:18 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >If CW had not existed at the time, how would things have >turned out differently? If the present GPS-based system >had existed at the time, how would things have turned out? Since The radio operator of the Titanic knew exactly where they were, GPS would have made absolutely no difference. If radio hadn't existed, everyone aboard would have died. Article: 226468 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Help - Autek RF-1 antenna analyst manual From: chuck Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:58:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1152794999_6715@sp6iad.superfeed.net> References: You can download a free manual for the RF-1 from Autek here: http://www.autekresearch.com/instruc.htm Ordering instructions. Autek Research near bottom of the page. Good luck. Chuck Article: 226469 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w0zv@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Antenna optimization Date: 13 Jul 2006 06:24:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1152797044.054170.172830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> Tom Ring wrote: > > And YO could beat K1FO by only hudredths of a dB. If he'd had more CPU > power to do more runs per day... YO7 includes a model of K1FO's 40 element 70 cm Yagi. In YO7, it measures: Gain 20.93 F/R 24.01 Z 21.8 + j5.4 SWR 1.0 Gain FOM -0.4 (versus theoretical limit for a given boom length) In <10k iterations (minutes on a 250 MHz Pentium II), YO7 produced: 21.24 19.54 20.9 + j46.1 1.0 0.0 (I stopped it when it reached this) You can tweak for Gain, F/R, etc depending on how you weight performance tradeoffs. Looking at the current distribution, it appears fewer elements might result in a better design. YO7 does not optimize for number of elements but it doesn't take much effort to remove elements and see what happens on the same boom length. Regarding K1FO's design using Basic on a PDP11, here's Brian's description: *********************************************************************************** YO includes an automatic optimizer that can maximize forward gain and input resistance, and minimize backlobes, sidelobes, and SWR. The optimizer iteratively adjusts element lengths and spacings to optimize performance objectives you specify using parameter tradeoffs you decide. It can perform both local and global optimization. YO is calibrated to NEC, the reference-accuracy Numerical Electromagnetics Code from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. YO and NEC results normally differ by less than 0.05 dB in forward gain, a dB or two in F/B, and a couple ohms in input impedance. You can invoke NEC from within YO to verify results. YO's analysis and graphics engines use assembly language with pipelined floating-point code optimized for Pentium processors. ************************************************************************************ The entire yo.exe program is only 82k (and DSP Blaster is only 16k). The major change from YO6 to YO7 was the addition of global optimization, so it will not get stalled on local maxima. The other thing I must give Brian credit for is his excellent command of English. I have *never* seen a spelling or grammatical error in any of his documentation, which is very unusual these days. 73, Bill W4ZV Article: 226470 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:58:14 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: Antenna optimization References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <44b595b8$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <44b5acfd$0$6145$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <1152797044.054170.172830@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44b65f87$0$1005$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> w0zv@yahoo.com wrote: > Tom Ring wrote: > >>And YO could beat K1FO by only hudredths of a dB. If he'd had more CPU >>power to do more runs per day... > > The other thing I must give Brian credit for is his excellent command > of English. I have *never* seen a spelling or grammatical error in any > of his documentation, which is very unusual these days. > > 73, Bill W4ZV > Oh, I give Brian lots of credit. He did a fantastic job. And there were times his developments happened at a blistering pace. I've had more than a little experience with YO and AO. I was an alpha tester for him. I once ran an optimization for 3 weeks straight in AO. Unfortunately it was a dead end design idea for an odd dual band yagi. I digress. When I said you could only get hundredths of a dB, I meant it. I did hundreds of models and thousands of runs trying. You are probably not optimizing to the specs that an EME'r would desire. Setting the tradeoffs in YO to get the balance right is touchy, and changes as boom length increases. You also need to partially or completely turn off optimization on a few elements for it to do its best job on a long yagi. The K1FO yagi designs are still the best around in my opinion. For one reason above the fact that they have great specs - they are a very high performance design that is easy to reproduce. And when in an array they do not detune as much as "better" designs. tom K0TAR Article: 226471 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Need help on QRM rejection ( WITHOUT A BEAM !!) Message-ID: <31vcb2lr97lkf9sddcaubll38fr7dcsf4s@4ax.com> References: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:01:22 GMT On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:42:10 -0500, wrote: >On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:00:01 -0500, Bob Bob wrote: >> > >thanks for your reply and those from others >will try some of your suggestions to include a game of fox and hounds >have to remember, this is an ICOM 736 which is what? 40 yrs old?? Built late '80s, early '90s. Not that old, really. Bob k5qwg >it does not have some of the circuitry yours has. But then, it is almost >completely analog, which i like. Turn a know or button and it does something. >= no menus to speak of. > >73s >K5DAM >chas Article: 226472 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:36:23 -0400 On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:37:48 -0400, Al Klein wrote: >On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:47:18 GMT, Cecil Moore >wrote: > >>If CW had not existed at the time, how would things have >>turned out differently? If the present GPS-based system >>had existed at the time, how would things have turned out? > >Since The radio operator of the Titanic knew exactly where they were, >GPS would have made absolutely no difference. If radio hadn't >existed, everyone aboard would have died. try onstar.... superior to IMC ! -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226473 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "clfe" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:52:56 -0400 Message-ID: <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Buck" wrote in message news:641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:37:48 -0400, Al Klein > wrote: > >>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:47:18 GMT, Cecil Moore >>wrote: >> >>>If CW had not existed at the time, how would things have >>>turned out differently? If the present GPS-based system >>>had existed at the time, how would things have turned out? >> >>Since The radio operator of the Titanic knew exactly where they were, >>GPS would have made absolutely no difference. If radio hadn't >>existed, everyone aboard would have died. > try onstar.... superior to IMC ! > > > -- > 73 for now > Buck > N4PGW I am not so sure about that. My first and only experience with Onstar - was not a very good impression. The "phone system" didn't dial out for crap - by the time you got it to accept the "right" number, you could be dead. Three people in the vehicle called out the number to the sytem a minimum of 5 times each before one of us finally got it to dial. I'm not sure how the other part (emergency locator and response) would have worked as it was never tried. Maybe it works ok in some areas and not others, like cell phones, I don't know - I'm not "that" familiar with it, but that was my experience, limited as it was. I know others seem to have good reports. Code - has had it's place in history - be it with the Titanic however it helped - to maybe others stranded. We don't know about any (or many) "military" use(s) where it may have helped out, we don't always hear about those things. Is CODE the "saviour" of the world? NO. Each mode or language if you choose to call it that - has it's own heroic moment at some point. Even Smoke Signals (if truly used/existed) probably had SOME helpful value. In a sense, smoke signals STILL exist. They use them at the Vatican to signify certain events - more notibly the death of a Pope. Simply put - you use what you have available at the moment - be it smoke signals, sun light off a mirror, code, fax, voice, drums, whatever. Anything is better than nothing in time of need. Seriously, I don't understand the argument over Code. Times change, things change. We could argue the use of the smoke at the Vatican when a PA system would do the same job. With each advance in technology, something goes off the shelf and tossed aside or if kept on the shelf, gets serious dust collections due to little if any use. Electricity replaced candles and lanterns for the most part - though not completely. The Telephone didn't automatically discontinue all other forms of communication - ie, code. The fax and e-mail have not yet altogether replaced "mail" but some day it may. We as a whole can choose to keep something by "using" it or losing it by NOT using it. Things just don't disappear overnight. IF ya like code - USE IT. IF ya don't, then don't worry about it. "IF" you need it to get a license - 5 wpm is not that hard. You won't get it by osmosis. It takes some determination. Just like studying the book. Nothing in life is worth much if just handed to you. There are myriads of things we "must" learn in life which may never be used again - it goes with the territory of life and getting through it. I had to take a course in college once to jump through their hoops. Have I ever used it since? HELL NO. No plan to - either. As to the Titanic operator being a smart ass as someone alluded to in here - maybe he was just losing his cool (very afraid) and trying desperately to get help and felt any other signals were just going to interfere. I don't know - just my own supposition. People do strange things in an emergency and staring death in the eye IS an emergency. Maybe he screwed up, maybe things could have went differently - we'll never know. FATE has a strange way of playing out in all our lives. We can argue all night long over the "would haves and could haves". Nothing will change that course of history. The fact remains, he at least got the word out and SOME people were saved. ALL could have been lost - were he killed prior to the sending of the message AND if no one else aboard knew how to operate the equipment. He was just a "player" in the scheme of things. Had they not hit the iceberg by whatever faulty(?) piloting or directions being given in the first place, the Radio Operator wouldn't even be the issue. We had an incident here when I was but a teen. A "firefighter" had a problem - losing his cool, he got on the radio and said "Clear the airwaves, we have a national emergency". Yes, they had a problem, not of "national" proportion, but he lost his cool and went overboard in what he did with the radio. People - even stone hard natured people - panic given the right scenario. FRIGHT exists in all of us - at some time. Panic is the response. GPS, CODE, ONSTAR - NOTHING (except perhaps radar or sonar) would have told them the icebergs were there. Even if they knew they were in a section of water where there were "known" icebergs that they could have steered away from, - as we know - icebergs can and DO break off - so this one "could" have been such a case. It was a doomed mission just as any that the Astronauts have been killed on - even with all the so-called advanced technology and communications at their disposal. Any number of people could be pointed to or "what ifs" asked. The point is, the end is still the same. People died. In the latter case, NO amount of radio comms modes would have made a difference. Just like the spotting of the iceberg at the last minute - so too was the spotting of the problem in the heat shield and equipment - aboard the shuttle - too little - too late - with or without radio - regardless the mode. Just my 2 cents. Lou/Ka3flu Article: 226474 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> Message-ID: <7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:14:11 GMT clfe wrote: > As to the Titanic operator being a smart ass as someone alluded to in here - > maybe he was just losing his cool (very afraid) and trying desperately to > get help and felt any other signals were just going to interfere. It was before the Titanic hit the iceberg that the Titanic CW operator told the Californian CW operator to get off the air. He considered his normal Titanic CW message traffic to have priority over any CW traffic that the Californian might need to pass. Turns out the Californian's CW operator was the only person in the world who could have saved the life of the Titanic's CW operator. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226475 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 13 Jul 2006 12:38:23 -0700 Message-ID: <1152819503.528054.33640@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Cecil Moore wrote: > clfe wrote: > > As to the Titanic operator being a smart ass as someone alluded to in here - > > maybe he was just losing his cool (very afraid) and trying desperately to > > get help and felt any other signals were just going to interfere. > > It was before the Titanic hit the iceberg that the Titanic > CW operator told the Californian CW operator to get off the > air. He considered his normal Titanic CW message traffic to > have priority over any CW traffic that the Californian might > need to pass. Turns out the Californian's CW operator was > the only person in the world who could have saved the life > of the Titanic's CW operator. Cecil I will conseede the CW usage could have saved lives could still save lives but that was never the question the question of the thread is could you save a life with CW is the chance came I am sure you could. I could I certainly I could by very different means could I save lifes on HF if the need arouse certainly I could do so except I do not listen them nowsince Ican't use them as rotuiene matter which would save more life and property maintining CW testing to keep many of the current tech from aquiring HF experence or droing the test al though us sue of the bands and the abilty to learn in an evionment that assures there is some one out there to talk to someone > -- > 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226476 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:38:31 -0500 Message-ID: <12bdbqdbtsd79a3@corp.supernews.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> clfe wrote: > "Buck" wrote in message > news:641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com... > >>On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:37:48 -0400, Al Klein >>wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:47:18 GMT, Cecil Moore >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>>If CW had not existed at the time, how would things have >>>>turned out differently? If the present GPS-based system >>>>had existed at the time, how would things have turned out? >>> >>>Since The radio operator of the Titanic knew exactly where they were, >>>GPS would have made absolutely no difference. If radio hadn't >>>existed, everyone aboard would have died. >> >>try onstar.... superior to IMC ! >> >> >>-- >>73 for now >>Buck >>N4PGW > > > I am not so sure about that. My first and only experience with Onstar - was > not a very good impression. The "phone system" didn't dial out for crap - by > the time you got it to accept the "right" number, you could be dead. Three > people in the vehicle called out the number to the sytem a minimum of 5 > times each before one of us finally got it to dial. I'm not sure how the > other part (emergency locator and response) would have worked as it was > never tried. Maybe it works ok in some areas and not others, like cell > phones, I don't know - I'm not "that" familiar with it, but that was my > experience, limited as it was. I know others seem to have good reports. The first thing to go out in a disaster is the phone system. The cell phone system is not immune to this problem. > > Code - has had it's place in history - be it with the Titanic however it > helped - to maybe others stranded. We don't know about any (or many) > "military" use(s) where it may have helped out, we don't always hear about > those things. A long time ago a guy I worked with told me that when he was in the Army he was assigned to the artillery. He could not qualify as a forward observer because he could only work 20 wpm and needed to be able to do 30 to qualify as a FO communicator. Is CODE the "saviour" of the world? NO. Each mode or language > if you choose to call it that - has it's own heroic moment at some point. > Even Smoke Signals (if truly used/existed) probably had SOME helpful value. > In a sense, smoke signals STILL exist. They use them at the Vatican to > signify certain events - more notibly the death of a Pope. Simply put - you > use what you have available at the moment - be it smoke signals, sun light > off a mirror, code, fax, voice, drums, whatever. Anything is better than > nothing in time of need. Seriously, I don't understand the argument over > Code. Times change, things change. We could argue the use of the smoke at > the Vatican when a PA system would do the same job. This is definitely tradition not necessity. > > With each advance in technology, something goes off the shelf and tossed > aside or if kept on the shelf, gets serious dust collections due to little > if any use. Electricity replaced candles and lanterns for the most part - > though not completely. The Telephone didn't automatically discontinue all > other forms of communication - ie, code. The fax and e-mail have not yet > altogether replaced "mail" but some day it may. We as a whole can choose to > keep something by "using" it or losing it by NOT using it. Things just don't > disappear overnight. IF ya like code - USE IT. IF ya don't, then don't worry > about it. "IF" you need it to get a license - 5 wpm is not that hard. You > won't get it by osmosis. It takes some determination. Just like studying the > book. Nothing in life is worth much if just handed to you. There are myriads > of things we "must" learn in life which may never be used again - it goes > with the territory of life and getting through it. I had to take a course in > college once to jump through their hoops. Have I ever used it since? HELL > NO. No plan to - either. > > As to the Titanic operator being a smart ass as someone alluded to in here - > maybe he was just losing his cool (very afraid) and trying desperately to > get help and felt any other signals were just going to interfere. I don't > know - just my own supposition. People do strange things in an emergency and > staring death in the eye IS an emergency. Maybe he screwed up, maybe things > could have went differently - we'll never know. The radio operation on the RMS Titanic was controlled by the Marconie Radio Company. As such the Titanic radio operator was discouraged from communicating with any station controlled by another company. This is called free enterprise. Also the radio was not under the command of Capt. Smith. This was changed after the sinking. They also mandated 24/7 monitoring of the emergency radio frequencies. >FATE has a strange way of > playing out in all our lives. We can argue all night long over the "would > haves and could haves". Nothing will change that course of history. The fact > remains, he at least got the word out and SOME people were saved. ALL could > have been lost - were he killed prior to the sending of the message AND if > no one else aboard knew how to operate the equipment. He was just a "player" > in the scheme of things. Had they not hit the iceberg by whatever faulty(?) > piloting or directions being given in the first place, the Radio Operator > wouldn't even be the issue. We had an incident here when I was but a teen. A > "firefighter" had a problem - losing his cool, he got on the radio and said > "Clear the airwaves, we have a national emergency". Yes, they had a problem, > not of "national" proportion, but he lost his cool and went overboard in > what he did with the radio. People - even stone hard natured people - panic > given the right scenario. FRIGHT exists in all of us - at some time. Panic > is the response. > > GPS, CODE, ONSTAR - NOTHING (except perhaps radar or sonar) would have told > them the icebergs were there. Even if they knew they were in a section of > water where there were "known" icebergs that they could have steered away > from, - as we know - icebergs can and DO break off - so this one "could" > have been such a case. The Canadian Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard expend a lot of time and money looking for and tracking these icebergs. After the Titanic went down the International Iceberg Patrol was created. It even functioned during the Second World War giving positions report to allied mariners. It was a doomed mission just as any that the > Astronauts have been killed on - even with all the so-called advanced > technology and communications at their disposal. Any number of people could > be pointed to or "what ifs" asked. The point is, the end is still the same. > People died. In the latter case, NO amount of radio comms modes would have > made a difference. Just like the spotting of the iceberg at the last > minute - so too was the spotting of the problem in the heat shield and > equipment - aboard the shuttle - too little - too late - with or without > radio - regardless the mode. > > Just my 2 cents. > Just my 2 cents also. Dave WD9BDZ > Lou/Ka3flu > > > Article: 226477 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:43:42 -0500 Message-ID: <12bdc44c26vip27@corp.supernews.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Cecil Moore wrote: > clfe wrote: > >> As to the Titanic operator being a smart ass as someone alluded to in >> here - maybe he was just losing his cool (very afraid) and trying >> desperately to get help and felt any other signals were just going to >> interfere. > > > It was before the Titanic hit the iceberg that the Titanic > CW operator told the Californian CW operator to get off the > air. He considered his normal Titanic CW message traffic to > have priority over any CW traffic that the Californian might > need to pass. Turns out the Californian's CW operator was > the only person in the world who could have saved the life > of the Titanic's CW operator. Ship born radio communications were controlled by communications companies completely separate from the ship. The radio operators were not under the command of the ship's captain. In the case of Titanic the Marconi Radio Company controlled the radio. Californian and Carpathia had different company control and there was a definite rivalry between the companies. The Titanic operator was fully justified in telling the Californian operator to close station. This was one of the direct causes of the formation of the international radio treaties we operate under now. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226478 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:44:00 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Antenna optimization References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <44b595b8$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: Richard Clark wrote: SNIPPED > > Franklin was right about these matters. > > As for automated optimization, NASA spent huge bucks on this stuff to > design twisted paper clips to replace Walt's work of 30 years ago. I > can well bet that license runs pages. If the testimonials to Beezley > are any indicator, the utility of the software is in inverse > proportion to the length of its license. > > 73's > Richard Clark, KB7QHC If I remember the anecdote: A patent guarantees you the right to sue. Article: 226479 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:45:06 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Cecil Moore wrote: > Dave wrote: > >> C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know >> CW. Does that mean we're virtually obsolete? > > > My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never > going to save the world. AGREE!!!!! Article: 226480 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "clfe" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:38:27 -0400 Message-ID: <44b6bd4e$0$3643$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > clfe wrote: >> As to the Titanic operator being a smart ass as someone alluded to in >> here - maybe he was just losing his cool (very afraid) and trying >> desperately to get help and felt any other signals were just going to >> interfere. > > It was before the Titanic hit the iceberg that the Titanic > CW operator told the Californian CW operator to get off the > air. He considered his normal Titanic CW message traffic to > have priority over any CW traffic that the Californian might > need to pass. Turns out the Californian's CW operator was > the only person in the world who could have saved the life > of the Titanic's CW operator. > -- > 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp In that case then - I stand corrected, I was unaware of that. Lou Article: 226481 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:21:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <44b6bd4e$0$3643$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> clfe wrote: > "Cecil Moore" wrote in message > news:7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... >> It was before the Titanic hit the iceberg that the Titanic >> CW operator told the Californian CW operator to get off the >> air. He considered his normal Titanic CW message traffic to >> have priority over any CW traffic that the Californian might >> need to pass. Turns out the Californian's CW operator was >> the only person in the world who could have saved the life >> of the Titanic's CW operator. >> -- >> 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp > > In that case then - I stand corrected, I was unaware of that. It's totaly untrue. The Californian's radio operator ignored the Titanic's distress signals because the Titanic was a Marconi ship and the Californian was a Telefunken ship. The operators were not allowed to communicate with the competing company's operators under any circumstances under penalty of being put off the ship at first landing, with no hope of getting home or being hired by the other company. I recently blogged about it: http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/2006/06/22/ Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 226482 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <44b6bd4e$0$3643$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> Message-ID: <8gAtg.48290$VE1.35525@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:00:20 GMT Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > It's totaly untrue. The Californian's radio operator ignored the > Titanic's distress signals because the Titanic was a Marconi ship and > the Californian was a Telefunken ship. If the History Channel got it right, the Californian's CW operator was asleep by the time the Titanic hit the iceberg. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226483 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:01:09 GMT Slow Code wrote: > With an attitude like that it probably won't. Better keep a microphone > handy. Actually, what I keep handy is food and water. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226484 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44B6E193.4010008@fuse.net> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:13:07 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing References: <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <44995516$0$11193$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1aOdnQMcX-kk9gTZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com> <129lvnf4h9st2d3@corp.supernews.com> <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <7ZWdnbeedbkjrSjZnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com> John L. Sielke wrote: > RHF wrote: > >>JB - Spoken like a True Red and White >>{Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF >> . >> . >>. . >> >>John Barnard wrote: >> >>>Cecil Moore wrote: >>> >>>>David wrote: >>>> >>>>>Corporations pay way less than half the cost of running governments, >>>> >>>>Corporations don't pay any of the cost of running >>>>governments - their customers pay it all. >>> >>>You are right! Corporations don't pay the cost of running governments. >>>They pay the cost of usurping governments! >>> >>>JB >> > It' all because back in the 60's all those draft-dodger types went to Canada. > Canada not only welcomed them, but allowed them to breed. The gene pool has > never been the same. Are you referring to the brain drain in the U.S. or the abundance of professionals in Canada? Article: 226485 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: All kinds of electromagnetic activity Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:15:51 GMT This one is worth a look: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395512&in_page_id=1770 -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226486 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Date: 13 Jul 2006 18:18:29 -0700 Message-ID: <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > "RHF" wrote in > news:1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > > JB - Spoken like a True Red and White > > {Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF > > . > > . > > . . > > > > > Kanadians are more Red... Commie Red. - JB - Spoken like a True Red and White - {Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF There Are Two Parts : # 1 - Spoken like a True Red and White Canadian ! - - - Canadians who are Proud of Being Canadians and are Happy to Talk 'aboot' Canada :o) * Cause - The Flag of Canada is Red and White [.] # 2 - Spoken like a Sad "Blue-in-the-Face" Canadian ! - - - Canadians who are Ashamed to be Canadians and are all to happy to Talk "Bad" About the USA :-{ * Cause - The US Flag has those 50 Blue Stars [.] Canadians Are Canadians -and- Should Be Proud Of It ! As For Me - I Was Born In The USA -and- I Am Proud To Be An American ! ~ RHF . . . . Article: 226487 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <1581682.QM02DIj95t@www.usenetzone.com> From: N7ZZT - Eric Oyen Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:53:35 -0700 Dirk wrote: > Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. > > :-( troll-o-meter (digital version) 0*****1*****2*****3*****4*****5*****6*****7*****8*****9***** |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||> ah shit. we have a troll! Article: 226488 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John Barnard Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing References: <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <44995516$0$11193$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1aOdnQMcX-kk9gTZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com> <129lvnf4h9st2d3@corp.supernews.com> <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <7ZWdnbeedbkjrSjZnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:13:38 GMT John L. Sielke wrote: > RHF wrote: >> JB - Spoken like a True Red and White >> {Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF >> . >> . >> . . >> >> John Barnard wrote: >>> Cecil Moore wrote: >>>> David wrote: >>>>> Corporations pay way less than half the cost of running governments, >>>> Corporations don't pay any of the cost of running >>>> governments - their customers pay it all. >>> You are right! Corporations don't pay the cost of running governments. >>> They pay the cost of usurping governments! >>> >>> JB > It' all because back in the 60's all those draft-dodger types went to Canada. > Canada not only welcomed them, but allowed them to breed. The gene pool has > never been the same. > And you don't believe that corporations don't try to influence the outcome of an election for which particular reasons? It's not called "pork-barrel politics" for nothing! You must hail from one of those inbreeding states! JB Article: 226489 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: <8hvdb2dgushem7kqafbl9v95vdj02gli3j@4ax.com> References: <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <44b6bd4e$0$3643$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <8gAtg.48290$VE1.35525@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:15:30 -0400 On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:00:20 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >If the History Channel got it right That would be an historic first. Article: 226490 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! From: Ed References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: 14 Jul 2006 02:42:09 GMT >>. > At least in Canada you get to keep your life savings if you get sick. > > True. There are no medical costs involved by dying before you get to see your doctor...... :^) Ed Article: 226491 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Subject: Best Price for a Hustler 6BTV ??? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:28:36 -0500 Message-ID: <693eb2h34du63ba0l1debjqbvgip695srq@4ax.com> says it all. still working on QRN MARS issues for 40 and 75m freqs. Tomorrow I am putting up an NVIS for local commo on 75m and am looking for the best price on what appears to be the best of the multiband verticals. I am going to raise the center of my DX-CC to 50' and the ends to 25' for alternate RCV/TX to the Vertical. But sometimes the Vertical works better than the dipole. hmmm, I may also try putting up a split sloper from about 40' down to about 4' anyway, this will allow me to TX on one antenna and recv on another. sure glad that MFJ 969 has three coax plugs and three plain wire plugs. on the back. 73s chas K5DAM -- Charles L Hamilton Houston, TX chasm@texas.net If you are reading this in English, Thank a Vet!! If you are reading this in Spanish, Thank the US Senate!! Article: 226492 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Subject: Re: Need help on QRM rejection ( WITHOUT A BEAM !!) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:31:09 -0500 Message-ID: References: <31vcb2lr97lkf9sddcaubll38fr7dcsf4s@4ax.com> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:01:22 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: > >Built late '80s, early '90s. Not that old, really. no kidding, compared to the new Digital rigs, it seems so much older. thanks again chas K5DAM -- Charles L Hamilton Houston, TX chasm@texas.net If you are reading this in English, Thank a Vet!! If you are reading this in Spanish, Thank the US Senate!! Article: 226493 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John Barnard Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing References: <44995516$0$11193$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1aOdnQMcX-kk9gTZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com> <129lvnf4h9st2d3@corp.supernews.com> <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:42:29 GMT Slow Code wrote: > "RHF" wrote in > news:1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > >> JB - Spoken like a True Red and White >> {Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF >> . >> . >> . . >> > > > Kanadians are more Red... Commie Red. > > And you doubtless like to spell "America" with a "k"! JB Article: 226494 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Date: 13 Jul 2006 20:44:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: DaviD, After all those High Taxes for Social Programs . . . WHAT SAVINGS ? ? ? - It Boggles The Mind ! yes - i said it ~ RHF . . . . David wrote: > On 13 Jul 2006 18:18:29 -0700, "RHF" > wrote: > > > > >Slow Code wrote: > >> "RHF" wrote in > >> news:1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > >> > >> > JB - Spoken like a True Red and White > >> > {Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF > >> > . > >> > . > >> > . . > >> > > >> > >> > >> Kanadians are more Red... Commie Red. > > > >- JB - Spoken like a True Red and White > >- {Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF > > > >There Are Two Parts : > > > ># 1 - Spoken like a True Red and White Canadian ! > >- - - Canadians who are Proud of Being Canadians > >and are Happy to Talk 'aboot' Canada :o) > >* Cause - The Flag of Canada is Red and White [.] > > > ># 2 - Spoken like a Sad "Blue-in-the-Face" Canadian ! > >- - - Canadians who are Ashamed to be Canadians > >and are all to happy to Talk "Bad" About the USA :-{ > >* Cause - The US Flag has those 50 Blue Stars [.] > > > >Canadians Are Canadians -and- Should Be Proud Of It ! > > > > > >As For Me - I Was Born In The USA -and- > >I Am Proud To Be An American ! ~ RHF > >. - At least in Canada you get to keep - your life savings if you get sick. Article: 226495 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "VE2CJW" Subject: How do you isolate a signal? Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:10:34 -0400 I have a funny problem here. I am using my dual band radio, a Kenwood TM-G707 as a simple scanner and I have a problem in isolating a signal. If I open the squelch manually most of the way, I receive a signal from 400 to 523 mhz everywhere. This signal is on 24 hours a day but seems to be modulated only part of the time. When it is modulated, in FM mode, I hear a tv station crew doing their stuff to mount a program. I can hear the producer giving orders to the cameramen and also the script girl. The mikes are on all the time and not switched. I can't identify what station it is but this has been going on for many years. what I would like to do is identify the exact frequency they use but they splatter all over the band. Is there a way to really zero on them? Since I live in the Montreal area, it could come from everywhere but Iknow it's not coming from my town because no one does that kind of free lance work around here. I am really baffled and would appreciate some sugestions. Thanks. Mike. Article: 226496 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <44995516$0$11193$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1aOdnQMcX-kk9gTZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com> <129lvnf4h9st2d3@corp.supernews.com> <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:59:56 +0100 Message-ID: > As For Me - I Was Born In The USA -and- > I Am Proud To Be An American ! ~ RHF ==================================== You are proud to be a US Citizen. Canadans, Cubans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Chileans, etc., are also Americans. The name has been high-jacked. Article: 226497 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <44b595b8$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Subject: Re: Antenna optimization Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:21:07 +0100 Message-ID: > If I remember the anecdote: A patent guarantees you the right to sue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Is that why lawyers are all in favor of patents? Article: 226498 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Best Price for a Hustler 6BTV ??? Date: 13 Jul 2006 22:30:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1152855004.724372.189600@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <693eb2h34du63ba0l1debjqbvgip695srq@4ax.com> Chas, Pienso que su problema de ruido en 75m y 40m es de fuentes locales. Si no puede encontrar el ruido en su casa o las casas de sus vecinos, es posible que un MFJ-1025 o un MFJ-1026 cancelador de ruido puede ayudar, especialmente puesto que usted tendr=E1 antenas m=FAltiples. Son absolutamente baratos para el funcionamiento. Tambi=E9n, una antena de lazo peque=F1a pudo ayudar. Tiene muy profundamente anula y es muy es muy eficaz contra ruido local. Las anulas son hasta 60dB si est=E1 construido correctamente. No pienso que NVIS curar=E1 el ruido, pero har=E1 cerca en se=F1ales m=E1s fuerte concerniente a =E9l. Siempre bueno poner su pol=EDtica en la firma... gracias al senado! 73 Dan www.n3ox.net Article: 226499 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Need help on QRM rejection ( WITHOUT A BEAM !!) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:24:12 -0700 Message-ID: <7cdeb21etflkh5nu7ksainh71qrarrcmk8@4ax.com> References: On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:42:10 -0500, wrote: >On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 10:00:01 -0500, Bob Bob wrote: >> >>No doubt I will be mentioning stuff you have already tried and tested... >>I assume you mean QRN rather than QRM? > >Hi Bob >yes, QRN it is ... how foolish of me. sigh > Hi Chas, Bobē asked for other tests that you either haven't done, or haven't reported. You need to examine more than antennas to solve your problem. I had a noisy TR relay that did the same thing (bad contacts). A good tech will attempt to partition his station by halves to discover the source of noise. For you, simply short the input of your rig. Does the noise go away? If so, your problem is external to the rig (there's every chance that your problem is here, there's every chance it isn't). A simple test like this can eliminate a world of grief. Bobē suggested killing power around the house. A very good suggestion that removes local sources from remote sources. It is also a very simple one too. Running off a battery with the complete house shut down can tell you what your noise floor is. Time of year is significant, along with weather conditions. Is this noise seasonal? I had a bad telephone ground that got worse WITHOUT rain (I live in rain city, so this was only an occasional problem that seemed insoluble). Your report: >there is no real static or tones or motorboating or anything distinctive. It >is just plain, old NOISE!! is quite odd in that static is classic plain old NOISE!!!!! You need to be more descriptive because this is not plain at all if it is distinctly different from static. If you have a portable SWL radio (or just an AM transistor radio), you need to walk the neighborhood and see if the noise is generally heard, or just on your block, or just in your lot. Neighbors with fishtanks are a leading culprit. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226500 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Date: 13 Jul 2006 23:46:59 -0700 Message-ID: <1152859619.850299.129880@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Reg Edwards wrote: > > As For Me - I Was Born In The USA -and- > > I Am Proud To Be An American ! ~ RHF > ==================================== > - You are proud to be a US Citizen. - - Canadans, Cubans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Chileans, - etc., are also Americans. The name has been high-jacked. RE, The Mexicans just may refer to themselves as : Norte Amercanos -or- Americanos del Norte http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos_da_Am%C3%A9rica The Cubans might call themselves : Americanos de Cuba. Seriously NO Canadian would call themselves an : American [.] - - - Even the French Canadians would say : Je Suis Un Canadien ! And the Argentinians, Chileans would most likely call themselves : Sur Americanos -or- Americanos del Sur -or- Americanos Latinos The Brazilians being slightly different would say : Americanos Sul Only an American (USA) would Boldly Say : I Am An American ! - and I Am Proud of It ! and so say i ~ RHF . . . . Article: 226501 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Bob Subject: Re: How do you isolate a signal? References: Message-ID: <2npjo3-cs5.ln1@p400bob.personal.cox.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:20:49 -0500 Hi Mike An intermod product? Fundamental overload? Modern broadband design amateur radios arent renown for good selectivity in strong signal environments... I doubt they "splatter all over the band", its most likely your receiver possibly in tandem with some other strong signal mixing in the front end. It may even be coming direct to the IF. First suggestion is to use a smaller antenna (thinking its an overload situation). A directive antenna would be next with an inline attenuator and scan around. Keep in mind that the signal you want to hear may not even be in the radio's normal band coverage. Next is to try a different radio (design) and scan with that. It is probably also worthwhile listening to determine who they might be, then do a online database lookup (if Canada has it) for that organisations name! Cheers Bob VK2YQA VE2CJW wrote: > I have a funny problem here. I am using my dual band radio, a Kenwood > TM-G707 as a simple scanner and I have a problem in isolating a signal. Article: 226502 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:06:35 -0400 On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:06:55 GMT, dj@qkd.net (Dirk) wrote: << Troll message clipped >>> I'll byte... Someone can correct me if the order of my time-line is off... Here goes what I can piece together. Before radio, people used homing pigeons and wired communications. This was the means of comms during WWI. If the wires failed or were cut, the troops would send important messages out by carrier or homing pigeons. As technology developed, the Radio was invented which allowed CW only communications via Spark Gap. There was no voice so ALL operators learned Morse Code. Later, AM was invented and the voice could be heard across the radio. This newer technology wasn't as reliable as CW, but became more popular and more reliable as time progressed. Eventually, SSB was invented. However, CW was maintained as the communication standard for distress signals from ships, for two reasons. One: It could be heard and understood even when someone wasn't tuned precisely on frequency. Two: An invention made for ships created an automated transmission of SOS and the ship's location coordinates. This could not only be heard when tuned off-frequency, but also across a very wide band of frequency. Eventually, Satellite technology became a new standard. Now, instead of having to calculate a ship's approximate position using LORAN signals, a ship can know within 100 feet where it actually is. Also, with that technology, comes a new generation of two-way communications. Now, during a distress, the ship not only automatically sends an SOS and it's coordinates within just a few feet, but it is sent to monitoring rescue services who can find the ship much more quickly than before. Now, regardless of the sun-spot cycle, the time of day, the meteor activity, and band conditions, the ship in distress can take only a fraction of a second to send an emergency message in plain english ( or native language) and receive a notice that their message has been received and is being acted on just as quickly. Not only that, but ANYONE on the ship can read and understand the message. They don't need to have a specially trained CW operator to interpret it and write it down for them. Sorry, I love to operate CW, but if it is that important to emergency comms, maybe we need to convince OnStar to convert to CW to be more effective. I don't think they will buy it. I don't think the question should be "If you had to use CW to save someone's life...?", but rather "If you had to save a life, what reliable technology do you have ready and available to use?" Depending on the member of my club, the answer could be any of the following: CW on any ham band, SSB on any ham band, FM on any allowed band, Packet radio, Satellite communication via FM or SSB, Thru the ISS, Digital voice, APRS, Cell phone, CB channel 9 or 19, (yes, it can be very handy in an emergency), OnStar and similar services, and probably some other mode which does not come to mind at the moment. Having worked communications in the aftermath of several disasters, I have come to believe that there is no less reliable method of communications than HF SSB. However, I have never seen conditions so bad it couldn't be used quite effectively. Several years ago I conducted an experiment three times during a day: in the morning about sunrise, at lunch time, and in the evening about 6pm. I laid a 20 meter dipole on the ground and, without an antenna tuner, I transmitted an emergency drill cq on 20, 40 and 80 meters in SSB mode. In each exercise I found someone who could copy me clearly within 2-4 states of me on 80 and 40 meters. Even during the prime-time net period on 75, I got responses indicating adequate conditions to communicate the emergency messages. I was informed by one ham I drew him out of the woodwork as he has been listening but not transmitting for the last four or five months. The rig I used, an Atlas 180 drops power at high swr to 5-10 watts. The antenna was a 20 meter dipole with no balun attached directly to 75 feet of whatever coax the cable company uses to bring CATV into the home with. 20 meters only worked during the morning and at lunch time. People are listening and the word "emergency" will get attention! Even appliance operators can answer that call. Could they answer you if you sent a distress in CW? -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226503 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? Message-ID: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> References: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:17:18 -0400 On Friday, 24 Jun 2005 16:58:38 -500, "Asimov" wrote: >"Bob B." bravely wrote to "All" (24 Jun 05 11:01:20) > --- on the heady topic of "Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work?" > > BB> From: Bob B. > BB> Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:33120 > > BB> Hello... > > BB> Will an antenna rotator like a Radio Shack or Channel Master work if > BB> hung upside-down from a roof beam, or should I try to come up with a > BB> way to secure it to the attic floor? > > BB> I know rotators are designed to handle a certain weight, but I can't > BB> guess at what they'd do with a "negative" weight... > > BB> The antenna I'm looking to rotate is a Channel Master 8-bay bowtie. > BB> (CM4228) > > BB> Thanks, > BB> -Bob- > BB> N1GYL > > >I think it might work because rotators are rated for a large wind load >and hanging upside down doesn't even seem to come close to that. >However, I'd call the mfr first to ask for their recommendation >before doing it. I doubt any gears in the rotator depend on gravity to >stay in place. OTOH do you think fix mounting the rotator shaft and >having the antenna hanging off the mast fixture instead might work? > > A*s*i*m*o*v > >... Thank Thor Friday Nears! I don't think it would work. The reason is that the bearings that must turn will likely only be located on the bottom section expecting the antenna weight feeding down in that direction. Twisting left and right is a different problem from hanging upside down. The top of the rotor may not have the kind of thrust support for any bearing that may be there. I can't say for sure whether or not it will work without actually looking at the specific rotor's construction, but I can easily imagine that the engineers would not have included an upside down option as it would add significant cost to hundreds of thousands of rotors only to be used by a dozen or so.... Rather than speculate, I would suggest contacting the manufacture of the specific rotor in mind. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226504 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "oli" Subject: Some infos about Antennas in the world web site. Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:22:37 +0200 Message-ID: <44b74643$0$830$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> Good morning gentlemen, Some days ago, I have put online a website to show antennas for all band and from everywhere in the world: http://www.antenna-street.com/antennas We are hundreds to practice radio on differents band and to have web site to show our working conditions, qsl, locations and... Antennas. Well, If you have a web page on your site who show your antenna(s) I would like that you submit it in "Antennas in the world" How does the site works : It is like a database, But the only informations published are : a picture of your antenna, the link to your website and a short description of your antenna. That is all ! Ex : http://www.antenna-street.com/antennas/yagi-stacked-p1-15.html When you submite your link, you give some few informations like : 1) Name or qrz : It is only internal information 2) Email : also internal info uses to confirm that your submited link has been validated. You will not receive spam ! and your email is not transmited to anybody ! 3) Country : Information about the country where the antenna is 4) Locator : Optionnal information, you can give your city or your locator if you know it, or just let a "*" (also for country) 5) Title : You can write the model 6) Site url : The link to your webpage or picture 7) Url image : This optional picture, if you don't give a picture url you will see a white picture and a view of your web page some days after. 8) Description : To give informations about your antenna if you want Well, thank you to read me, and I hope that you will insert your antenna page or picture in "Antennas in the world" http://www.antenna-street.com/antennas/ Best regards Oli Article: 226505 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:50:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bactjanpufjfc@corp.supernews.com> <7ifcb2pnsk4dfm7sqgq0fk5o2blct6i9r7@4ax.com> <641db29d5dd2dsn4ofkgdc7dr02nq7ugr1@4ax.com> <44b69682$0$3634$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> <7Ywtg.3750$2v.1828@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <12bdc44c26vip27@corp.supernews.com> >> It was before the Titanic hit the iceberg that the Titanic >> CW operator told the Californian CW operator to get off the >> air. He considered his normal Titanic CW message traffic to >> have priority over any CW traffic that the Californian might >> need to pass. Turns out the Californian's CW operator was >> the only person in the world who could have saved the life >> of the Titanic's CW operator. > Firstly the Californian's r/o was not told to get off the air, he was told to "Keep out, I'm working Cape Race" while the Titanic was sending Passenger telegram messages to Cape Race shore station. The Titanic's r/o was just fed up with stations butting in, the "Break-Break" syndrome. The r/o on the Californian was in-experienced and failed to prefix his message correctly, this brought about the rebuke from the Titanic who thought he was just chatting. It is also thought that it was the same failure of the MV Mesaba's r/o to correctly prefix the last ice warning message that was received by the Titanic that meant this message was not sent straight to the bridge, rather than being left with the other routine messages. There is no evidence that the Californian heard any radio distress traffic until the r/o came on watch the next morning. They did however see rockets >from the Titanic. Regards Jeff Article: 226506 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Buck wrote: > People are listening and the word "emergency" will get attention! > Even appliance operators can answer that call. Could they answer you > if you sent a distress in CW? In 1995 the ARRL commissioned a survey of ham radio operators licensed in the U.S. by having passed a morse code test. (5wpm on up). 64% of the hams responded that they NEVER used morse code. The ARRL published the results as 36% responded that they used morse code at least occasionaly, but the truth remains that over 10 years ago, you had a one in three chance of the person hearing you being able to copy your message. That's why there was an international agreed to distress call, although at the time, radio operators were NOT obligated to listen or act upon it. "CQD" was not a distress call per se, it was Marconi company code for "assistance" as in "CQD CQD CQD" meaning send assistance and "CQD?" meaning "do you need assistance". Telefunken operators were not privy to Marconi company internal codes, and were forbidden by company policy (and Marconi's) to answer them. Of course nothing is secret for long and it is quite likely that most Telefunken operators heard the CQD call from the Titanic, understood it and listened, although none of them were going to do anything about it. When the Titanic operator sent the new distress call (which I can't write due to text limitations) of ...---... as one continuous string (not the letter S followed by the letter O followed by the letter S), anyone listening knew what they were sending. The confusion to the reader of this is because it is written as SOS with a line on top of all three, so if I could do it, --- it would look like: SOS but here it looks like I am underlining with. However the Telefunken radio operator on the Californian may or may not of heard it, but he was forbidden by company policy to reply or tell anyone about it. The Cape Race story and his having gone to sleep was a cover-up. For sake of brevity, I'm not going to repeat the entire story and references here, but you can find them in my blog entry I pointed to in a previous post. So while sending SOS or any other morse code signal would be a good idea if you have a CW only radio, calling "MAYDAY" in voice would be much more likely to be answered. It also depends upon where you are. Here in Israel, calling anything on CB channel 9 will probably not be heard, calling MAYDAY on 2 meters, will get you a "roger beep" from the repeater and nothing else. You'd better have a cell phone and know how to call for help. 911 (U.S.) and 999 (U.K,) are not used here, 112 should work on GSM phones, but the real numbers are 101, 102 and 103. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 226507 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:18:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> "> That's why there was an international agreed to distress call, although > at the time, radio operators were NOT obligated to listen or act upon it. > "CQD" was not a distress call per se, it was Marconi company code for > "assistance" as in "CQD CQD CQD" meaning send assistance and "CQD?" > meaning > "do you need assistance". > > Telefunken operators were not privy to Marconi company internal codes, > and were forbidden by company policy (and Marconi's) to answer them. > Of course nothing is secret for long and it is quite likely that most > Telefunken operators heard the CQD call from the Titanic, understood it > and listened, although none of them were going to do anything about it. > > When the Titanic operator sent the new distress call (which I can't write > due to text limitations) of ...---... as one continuous string (not the > letter > S followed by the letter O followed by the letter S), anyone listening > knew what they were sending. The confusion to the reader of this is > because > it is written as SOS with a line on top of all three, so if I could do it, If you look at the radio logs you will find that Titanic only used SOS once at 12:45am, and that was to MKC - her sister ship, the Olympic. The callsign MKC indicating that she was also a 'Marconi' ship. The rest of the time CQD was used. Also to explode your theory even more at 12:15am Frankfurt DFT replied to Titanic's CQD; 12:26 DKF (Prinz Friedrich Wilhelm) called the Titanic; 1am DDC (Cincinatti) replied to Titanic's CQD. etc.etc None of these were Marconi ships!! and finally the Californian (MWL) was also a Marconi ship!!! So no Telefunken operator to ignore any CQD's. Regards Jeff Article: 226508 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:12:03 +0100 Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> >That's why there was an international agreed to distress call, although > at the time, radio operators were NOT obligated to listen or act upon it. I forgot to add that that is also not correct. For British Ships at least, and I expect most other countries had similar legislation, the Merchant Shipping Act, did and still does *require* a vessel to render assistance to another vessel in distress; regardless of how you find out about it. You are confusing it with the fact there was no requirement to keep a listening watch for distress traffic. Regards Jeff Article: 226509 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Jeff wrote: > and finally the Californian (MWL) was also a Marconi ship!!! So no > Telefunken operator to ignore any CQD's. Do you have any documentation of that? I carefully searched and only found references to the Californian being a Telefunken ship. I have NOT found any contemporary listings of ships, which company operated their radio rooms, their callsigns, etc. I would welcome them. Thanks, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Article: 226510 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:58:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> > >> and finally the Californian (MWL) was also a Marconi ship!!! So no >> Telefunken operator to ignore any CQD's. > > Do you have any documentation of that? I carefully searched and only found > references to the Californian being a Telefunken ship. I have NOT found > any contemporary listings of ships, which company operated their radio > rooms, > their callsigns, etc. > You have to understand that in 1912 radio callsigns were not internationally allocated, an M prefix was used and allocated exclusively by the Marconi company, it did not signify that the ship was UK registered.. Of the twenty six ships in the area and involved in the incident, twenty were Marconi ships, Of the rest one was a USA warship (USS Chester), four were German (with 'D' callsigns}) and one was Greek (with an 'S' callsign). The 'Marconi' ships were: ANTILLIAN MJL ASIA MKL BALTIC MBC CALIFORNIAN MWL CARONIA MSF CARPATHIA MPA CELTIC MLC CEDRIC MDC FRANCONIA MEA EMPRESS OF BRITAIN MPB LA TOURAINE MLT MOUNT TEMPLE MLQ MESABA MMU MINNEHAHA MMA MINNEWASKA MMW NOORDAM MRA OLYMPIC MKC, later GLSQ when national callsigns were introduced PARISIAN MZN and of course TITANIC MGY (was originally MUC) Regards Jeff Article: 226511 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:18:33 GMT Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: > it would look like: SOS but here it looks like I am underlining with. ___ SOS ? http://jproc.ca/radiostor/titanic.html http://www.marconi.com/Home/about_us/Our%20History/Marconi%20Heritage/Titanic%2090th%20Anniversary/those%20saved "The closest, a mere ten miles (16km) distant, was the 4,000-ton Californian. Cyril Evans, its solo Marconi operator, like those on other ships, had been warning of icebergs since the previous afternoon and at 19:30 had drawn attention to three 'large' ones in the immediate vicinity. At 23.00 hrs (ship's time) he tried to send a further message to Titanic warning that the Californian was stopped, surrounded by ice. He was told by Titanic to "keep out" as it was in communication with the Cape Race station at the time in connection with passengers' messages. Evans then retired to bed." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226512 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:32:15 GMT Jeff wrote: > CALIFORNIAN MWL http://www.euronet.nl/users/keesree/mystery.htm -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226513 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:39:56 -0400 From: "J. D. B." Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Well at least your estate will get to keep your life savings. If you get sick late in the year, and the healthcare facility/hospital shut down for the rest of the year because it ran out of government money (a typical scenario in Canada), there will be no one to give you any care and you'll just die. But hey, your life savings will still be intact! Is socialized health care great or what? > > - At least in Canada you get to keep > - your life savings if you get sick. > Article: 226514 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: Need help on QRM rejection ( WITHOUT A BEAM !!) Message-ID: References: <31vcb2lr97lkf9sddcaubll38fr7dcsf4s@4ax.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:19:40 GMT On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:31:09 -0500, wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:01:22 GMT, Bob Miller wrote: > >> >>Built late '80s, early '90s. Not that old, really. > >no kidding, compared to the new Digital rigs, it seems so much older. >thanks again >chas >K5DAM Actually, the 736 was introduced in the Spring of '94, so yours is 12 years old, tops. Yep, they've come a long way... bob k5qwg Article: 226515 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John - KD5YI Subject: Re: How do you isolate a signal? References: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:28:35 GMT VE2CJW wrote: > I have a funny problem here. I am using my dual band radio, a Kenwood > TM-G707 as a simple scanner and I have a problem in isolating a signal. If I > open the squelch manually most of the way, I receive a signal from 400 to > 523 mhz everywhere. This signal is on 24 hours a day but seems to be > modulated only part of the time. When it is modulated, in FM mode, I hear a > tv station crew doing their stuff to mount a program. I can hear the > producer giving orders to the cameramen and also the script girl. The mikes > are on all the time and not switched. I can't identify what station it is > but this has been going on for many years. what I would like to do is > identify the exact frequency they use but they splatter all over the band. > Is there a way to really zero on them? Since I live in the Montreal area, it > could come from everywhere but Iknow it's not coming from my town because no > one does that kind of free lance work around here. I am really baffled and > would appreciate some sugestions. Thanks. > Mike. > Hi, Mike - I've heard a similar signal just above the 70 cm band (above 450 MHz) but I don't remember the exact frequency. It was a local AM radio station using that frequency for remote broadcasts like, say, a little league baseball game. While not actually rebroadcasting the game, I could hear all sorts of stuff going on. They even occasionally used the frequency as one half of a duplex communications link as an aid in getting everything set up. The other half of the duplex link was the AM radio station! Sounds like you might have something similar in your area, but perhaps the signal is so strong that your receiver is overloading so as to make the signal appear wide. Or, maybe they're also broadcasting the video as well. As you know, video is very wide (but not 123 MHz wide). You could try a different location to monitor them and see if the signal narrows down some. Otherwise, try to zero in on the voice frequency. Just a guess. Cheers, John Article: 226516 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Iain Kelly Subject: Re: New Swiss antenna system... Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:23:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1152588973.511463.222930@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <12b7qb5ohcdhk5b@corp.supernews.com> John Ferrell wrote: > I think the electronics problems are trivial compared with the matter > of maintaining the platform at altitude and geosynchronous. > > There is not much air for a lighter than air ship to float in at that > altitude. A quick estimate of 21km is about 65,000 feet. It would seem > to me that a platform that could hover at that altitude keeping pace > with the earths rotation could also circumnavigate the earth in 24 > hours in the direction of the rotation. > > The energy required to maintain that hover is going to be substantial. > Forget filling the Zep with Hydrogen. Even if you can devise a scheme > to fill an evelope with nothing (vacuum) It is going to be monstrous > in size to displace a hundred kilo's or so. > > Count me out on the project... > John W8CCW I agree, I've not actually seen any of the research about the platforms themselves, but as well as the airships there are also some unmanned solar powered wing planes have been tested too I think. I'm sceptical myself, but it will be very interesting to see if it ever takes off! (no pun intended ;-)) -- 73, Iain M0PCB/P Article: 226517 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Iain Kelly Subject: Re: New Swiss antenna system... Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:34:17 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1152588973.511463.222930@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <12b7qb5ohcdhk5b@corp.supernews.com> Richard Clark wrote: > Hi Ian, > > This is called "conflict of interest," which discounts those same > lecturers' and professors' credentials. Well, I for one am not going to instantly take the view that my lecturers' credentials are not solid. Of course they're going to put positive spin on it, mainly because for their part (physical layer and comms protocol stuff) they've been successful so far. Trials in Sweden were a total success, albeit on a smaller scale. I'm still not convinced that the idea will ever actually be realised, but nevertheless it's still a very interesting one! > You've missed the point Roy made. Adding connections (more HAPs) does > not add more bandwidth. Those extra HAPs will be competing for the > same (now diminishing by proportion) spectrum. That'd be why there is ongoing research into the various multiplexing techniques so many users can use the same piece of spectrum and not cause *too much* interference with each other. Using spreading codes etc the other signals just appear as a little bit of extra background noise so I am led to believe. (I will get the full story on this sort of stuff in the next academic year). Surely though even for broadband internet home users will not need to exceed 10Mbps speeds, what would be the point? Who needs to get a web page served a second faster, bearing in mind bandwidth limits at the server end as well as the end user connection. The 3rd generation mobiles were not looking to exceed 5Mbps per handset (which is a hell of a lot of data) at the very most and that is more than capable of streaming video etc (albeit at lower resolutions for the handsets). The bandwidth requirements for cellular voice calls is minimal in comparison to data requirements. A phone line is only 64kbps, and cellular (gsm) data rates are less than that even and still provide good (enough) voice reproduction! > When there's existing hardware (after all, no one is telling the > consumers to throw away their phones and buy HAP versions), and > Hindenberg technology is a century old; then any proviso "there is > still a lot of work to be done" translates into SEND MORE MONEY - a > message tape with an infinite loop. Basically as I understand it they'd be looking to use current Wi-Fi, Wi-Max and GSM technologies etc so why would there be a requirement to change hardware? The only thing that would need changing with the broadband data downlinks to serve internet would be gateways with directional antennae to serve buildings etc. > Ask researcher1: "can I float a balloon?" > researcher1: "Sure, no problem." > > Ask researcher2: "can I transmit and receive from a height?" > researcher2: "Sure, no problem." > > Ask researcher3: "can I find a stabilizing platform?" > researcher3: "Sure, no problem." > > Ask researcher4: "can more connections serve more customers?" > researcher4: "Sure, no problem." > > The sum is not equal to the whole: > Ask customers: "can you still hear me?" > customers: "What the ****! My line is dead." This is the same with any new technology! Just look at 3G services in the UK, it's taken them a while to get network coverage any where near comparable to the already existing 2 and 2.5G network infrastructure. Do you suggest that we just give up carrying out research into this sort of thing? Maybe we should have stuck with the original optical telegraph rather than develop methods of signalling using electricity... I have no personal/pecuniary connections with this project, as I'm only an undergrad student, but I think to dismiss it out of hand as a non starter is a bit harsh. It does have the potential to work, whether it ever gets deployed is another matter... -- 73, Iain M0PCB/P Article: 226518 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "k35454" References: <44995516$0$11193$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1aOdnQMcX-kk9gTZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com> <129lvnf4h9st2d3@corp.supernews.com> <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152859619.850299.129880@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:11:19 -0700 "RHF" wrote in message news:1152859619.850299.129880@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... Reg Edwards wrote: > > As For Me - I Was Born In The USA -and- > > I Am Proud To Be An American ! ~ RHF > ==================================== > - You are proud to be a US Citizen. - - Canadans, Cubans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Chileans, - etc., are also Americans. The name has been high-jacked. RE, The Mexicans just may refer to themselves as : Norte Amercanos -or- Americanos del Norte http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos_da_Am%C3%A9rica The Cubans might call themselves : Americanos de Cuba. Seriously NO Canadian would call themselves an : American [.] - - - Even the French Canadians would say : Je Suis Un Canadien ! And the Argentinians, Chileans would most likely call themselves : Sur Americanos -or- Americanos del Sur -or- Americanos Latinos The Brazilians being slightly different would say : Americanos Sul Only an American (USA) would Boldly Say : I Am An American ! - and I Am Proud of It ! and so say i ~ RHF No problem. 4warned is 4armed. k35454. . . . . Article: 226519 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 14 Jul 2006 12:05:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1152903904.823970.155070@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> Tom Ring wrote: > Sal M. Onella wrote: > > > > Yes, but I think this was more an odd attempt to be funny. Suggest all go > > back and look at whom he said he "will not hesitate to contact" ... then > > decide how to take the OP. I bet he didn't mean to spin up so many people. > > > > > > No offense, but only an idiot wouldn't have known that they would "spin > up" people on these news groups, or any others for that matter. Your > idea is possible, but I'd have to say not probable. > > If what you say _is_ true, maybe he'll 'fess up. That would be interesting. > > tom > K0TAR LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Article: 226520 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "AAA RF Products" Subject: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 each. Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:07:03 -0700 For Sale: Finest quality PL-259's silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation, nickel plated coupling nut. Unlimited quantity available. 1 to 99 ------ $1.67 each 100 to 499----$1.50 each 500+----------$1.40 each Immediate shipment, FOB: San Clemente, CA No minimum order. No handling charges. Please email sales@AAARFProducts.com or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) See our catalog @ www.aaarfproducts.com Article: 226521 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Mike Luther Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:16:49 +0000 Message-ID: <12bfrd1eeduas5a@corp.supernews.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Bingo .. part of the real issue as I have been taught all this! Cecil Moore wrote: > Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: >> it would look like: SOS but here it looks like I am underlining with. > > ___ > SOS ? > > http://jproc.ca/radiostor/titanic.html > > http://www.marconi.com/Home/about_us/Our%20History/Marconi%20Heritage/Titanic%2090th%20Anniversary/those%20saved > > > "The closest, a mere ten miles (16km) distant, was the 4,000-ton > Californian. Cyril Evans, its solo Marconi operator, like those > on other ships, had been warning of icebergs since the previous > afternoon and at 19:30 had drawn attention to three 'large' ones > in the immediate vicinity. At 23.00 hrs (ship's time) he tried to > send a further message to Titanic warning that the Californian was > stopped, surrounded by ice. He was told by Titanic to "keep out" as > it was in communication with the Cape Race station at the time in > connection with passengers' messages. Evans then retired to bed." I think that the facts are that this whole episode was right in the time line of the transition from the more or less official original distress signal which was the 'CQD' cited here and in many other references, to the 'SOS'. And .. had the operator of the Titanic actually been using the then newly 'adopted' 'SOS' distress signal, it is actually likely that the Californian marine operator, even though he retired and went to bed *MIGHT* have caught the call for help in time and many more lives had been saved. As I think is the correct history here, the real reason for the as-thought need for a better distress signal than 'CQD' was precisely over this exact type circumstance! The Morse Code difference in the pure sound pattern between the very common 'CQ' (Call Quarters) and 'CQD' (Call Quarters Distress) is really a rather complex sound pattern. Which if one is awake and paying attention to the sound of the calling frequency channel, is different enough to attract attention. However that is *NOT* the case, if .. while 'in quarters' ... one is asleep but still in an environment when the emergency 500Khz calling channel is there still coming over the speaker in the shack. As I've been taught, this issue is one that adding that 'dah dit dit' to the 'CQ' is really, an issue when one is asleep and has it jangling in one's asleep ears, of a garbled sound pattern. It is just like the over and over again 'CQ" that one heard at the time and thus, in one's sleep, would tend to be 'not significant' as a OH WAKE ME UP distress call! You go right on snoring! Contrary to a lot of opinions that 'SOS' means "Save Our Souls" or "Save Our Ship", the 'SOS' Morse Code pattern was chosen for one specific reason. It is the absolutely clear unique sound pattern of the "Dit Dit Dit Dah Dah Dah Dit Dit Dit" pure sound pattern which .. even if an operator were asleep in the shack and the 500Khz calling channel distress frequency were playing .. could actually be unique enough as to a sound pattern to awaken the sleeping operator. And if it did, that would add to the possibility of saving lives and handling whatever was wrong for the poor ship in distress. Thus .. purely conjecture at this point .. had the operator of the Titanic actually used the newer 'SOS' distress call and the operator of the California been awakened by it, perhaps many more souls could have been saved in the sinking of the Titanic. One of the most interesting books which has all this in it is: "SOS To The Rescue" by Karl Baarslag Copyright (c) 1935 by Oxford University Press, New York, Inc. Special Edition published by arrangement by Cadmus Books E. M. Hale and Company of Chicago A treasured copy of this book which is in my possession is one of the real motivational forces which moved me steadily forward in CW toward my original WN5WQN Novice call here in the USA in 1952. And as soon as I could take it, to one of the early Extra Class tickets thereafter. At that time .. so told me .. I was the youngest person in the USA to have been issued an Extra Class, by the examiner in Buffalo, New York, where my Dad took me while the family was on summer vacation in Erie, Pennsylvania as a kid. Do not think for a minute that if you are in still yet a few professional work disciplines, that sending 'SOS' cannot save lives. It can. And yes, I have proof i person of how that can still be! As a high time FAA Multi-Engine Instrument Flight Instructor in a part of my past life, there is actually a formal life save citation in the personal record of a long ago FAA employee at Easterwood Airport who worked in the FAA Flight Service Station there, now long deceased. His name was Ted Wiley. During a serious IFR flight in a single engine Cessna 172 N1784F way back in the 1960's from Dallas, Texas to College Station Easterwood field, no radar in the little plane and all that .. the silly microphone failed! No transponder at that time in the little Cessna either. So no distress signal possible with that method. In the middle of all the TRW activity and so on I had an idea. I ripped the wires out of the microphone and pinched the keying relay lead under the metal clipboard hold down of my pilot's kneepad note board. Then with the ground lead, I began sending 'SOS' in Morse Code to Fort Worth Center .. and the airplane tail number. Back came Fort Worth Center, "Aircraft on CW, do you read me? If so send Morse Code dots only." I sent back an single dots several times. Next came, "Aircraft on CW, stand by while we find someone who can copy CW please!" I waited. Then came the following from Fort Worth Center, "Aircraft on CW, send your call sign." I sent it. Came back, "Aircraft on CW are you N1784F?". I sent several "R"'s. >From that point on, the whole flight was carried, TRW diversions and all, with the FAA circuits patched to the FAA person who was doing this, all the way from about half way between Dallas, Texas (DAL) and Waco, Texas (ACT), thence all the way to College Station, Texas (CLL) totally on CW on my end! That included even the whole instrument approach clearance, landing clearance; eveything. And .. in fact .. when we broke out of the clouds just above minimums on the VOR 12 approach at Easterwood Field, the FAA person doing the 'save' asked, "N1784F, Easterwood Tower wants to know if you'll send them a ditty dum dum ditty?" Just before the wheels touched the runway I did that! And at that moment I looked off to my left over in front of the main hanger where the offices of Texas Airmotive Company were, for whom I was the Chief Pilot for the Texas A&M University contract ROTC Flight Training program at that time, as well as where the FAA Flight Service Station was. Out in front was a whole line of people who were cheering that save! And that save is formally in Ted Wiley's record and was published in the USA FAA official employee paper as a life save for him. Who did just exactly what this topic thread questioned could be done. If somebody ever called SOS and ever needed help on CW, could a life be saved? Answer; yes! It also can still be done today, though not very many commercial pilots think so. If you call 'SOS' on CW 121.5 Mhz or whatever channel you are in communication with the FAA upon, they *CAN* drag up someone who can copy CW. Even if they have to patch the audio for the communications channel to afar to do it. And they *CAN* act on even CW communications to do whatever can be done to even save lives this way. If need be. And they will. So this is one place where that is still true, grin. W5WQN At that time - Commercial Pilot ASMEL & Flight Intructor 15128600 And at that time - Commercial First Telegraph License # T1-HQ 3645 Which curiously, are still two licenses which, although not really well known, can get you a letter from the President of the USA calling you to service at any time for the rest of your life in time of crisis. But at my age and of the every-day importance of CW, I rather doubt such a letter would arrive at this point in my life, carried by the two officers who normally deliver it. And yes, I do know of two men who have in past years gotten such a letter! Although both were in the Instrument Multi-Engine Flight Instructor group of people. -- --> Sleep well; OS2's still awake! ;) Mike Luther Article: 226522 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bfrd1eeduas5a@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:12:31 GMT Mike Luther wrote: > Bingo .. part of the real issue as I have been taught all this! Hey Mike, good to hear from you again. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226523 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Howard W3CQH" Subject: CQ WW VHF Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:18:28 -0400 Message-ID: Please LQQK for us on Saturday and Sunday during the contest. We should be somewhere around FM07 or FM06 on both 6 & 2, SSB & FM. 73's Howard W3CQH Jay K3JAY and the rest of the Dark Side of The Force Contest Group! Article: 226524 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 14 Jul 2006 14:02:05 -0700 Message-ID: <1152910925.756384.94300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: get help sicko Article: 226525 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com> From: dada Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:06:25 GMT Buck wrote: > On Friday, 24 Jun 2005 16:58:38 -500, "Asimov" > wrote: > > >"Bob B." bravely wrote to "All" (24 Jun 05 11:01:20) > > --- on the heady topic of "Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work?" > > > > BB> From: Bob B. > > BB> Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:33120 > > > > BB> Hello... > > > > BB> Will an antenna rotator like a Radio Shack or Channel Master work if > > BB> hung upside-down from a roof beam, or should I try to come up with a > > BB> way to secure it to the attic floor? > > > > BB> I know rotators are designed to handle a certain weight, but I can't > > BB> guess at what they'd do with a "negative" weight... > > > > BB> The antenna I'm looking to rotate is a Channel Master 8-bay bowtie. > > BB> (CM4228) > > > > BB> Thanks, > > BB> -Bob- > > BB> N1GYL > > > > > >I think it might work because rotators are rated for a large wind load > >and hanging upside down doesn't even seem to come close to that. > >However, I'd call the mfr first to ask for their recommendation > >before doing it. I doubt any gears in the rotator depend on gravity to > >stay in place. OTOH do you think fix mounting the rotator shaft and > >having the antenna hanging off the mast fixture instead might work? > > > > A*s*i*m*o*v > > > >... Thank Thor Friday Nears! > > I don't think it would work. The reason is that the bearings that > must turn will likely only be located on the bottom section expecting > the antenna weight feeding down in that direction. Twisting left and > right is a different problem from hanging upside down. The top of the > rotor may not have the kind of thrust support for any bearing that may > be there. > > I can't say for sure whether or not it will work without actually > looking at the specific rotor's construction, but I can easily imagine > that the engineers would not have included an upside down option as it > would add significant cost to hundreds of thousands of rotors only to > be used by a dozen or so.... > > Rather than speculate, I would suggest contacting the manufacture of > the specific rotor in mind. > > -- > 73 for now > Buck > N4PGW How about mounting it rightside up but putting the mount in the top and antenna on the bottom ? Joe WB2JQT Article: 226526 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Howard W3CQH" References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> <42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:46:44 -0400 Message-ID: I got some 1 1/2" plastic pipe threaded on one end and threaded it into a flange that had 4 mounting holes, the piece of pipe was about 12" long, and screwed it to the floor in my attic and mounted a "RADIO SHACK" rotator and a small mast to the top and mounted a 2 ele 2m quad. Quad and rotator works great! best 73's - de Howard W3CQH "dada" wrote in message news:42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com... > > > Buck wrote: > >> On Friday, 24 Jun 2005 16:58:38 -500, "Asimov" >> wrote: >> >> >"Bob B." bravely wrote to "All" (24 Jun 05 11:01:20) >> > --- on the heady topic of "Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work?" >> > >> > BB> From: Bob B. >> > BB> Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:33120 >> > >> > BB> Hello... >> > >> > BB> Will an antenna rotator like a Radio Shack or Channel Master work >> > if >> > BB> hung upside-down from a roof beam, or should I try to come up with >> > a >> > BB> way to secure it to the attic floor? >> > >> > BB> I know rotators are designed to handle a certain weight, but I >> > can't >> > BB> guess at what they'd do with a "negative" weight... >> > >> > BB> The antenna I'm looking to rotate is a Channel Master 8-bay bowtie. >> > BB> (CM4228) >> > >> > BB> Thanks, >> > BB> -Bob- >> > BB> N1GYL >> > >> > >> >I think it might work because rotators are rated for a large wind load >> >and hanging upside down doesn't even seem to come close to that. >> >However, I'd call the mfr first to ask for their recommendation >> >before doing it. I doubt any gears in the rotator depend on gravity to >> >stay in place. OTOH do you think fix mounting the rotator shaft and >> >having the antenna hanging off the mast fixture instead might work? >> > >> > A*s*i*m*o*v >> > >> >... Thank Thor Friday Nears! >> >> I don't think it would work. The reason is that the bearings that >> must turn will likely only be located on the bottom section expecting >> the antenna weight feeding down in that direction. Twisting left and >> right is a different problem from hanging upside down. The top of the >> rotor may not have the kind of thrust support for any bearing that may >> be there. >> >> I can't say for sure whether or not it will work without actually >> looking at the specific rotor's construction, but I can easily imagine >> that the engineers would not have included an upside down option as it >> would add significant cost to hundreds of thousands of rotors only to >> be used by a dozen or so.... >> >> Rather than speculate, I would suggest contacting the manufacture of >> the specific rotor in mind. >> >> -- >> 73 for now >> Buck >> N4PGW > > How about mounting it rightside up but putting the mount in the top and > antenna on the bottom ? > > Joe > WB2JQT > Article: 226527 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:48:14 -0500 Message-ID: <12bgib4diaqpce2@corp.supernews.com> References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> <42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com> dada wrote: > > Buck wrote: > > >>On Friday, 24 Jun 2005 16:58:38 -500, "Asimov" >> wrote: >> >> >>>"Bob B." bravely wrote to "All" (24 Jun 05 11:01:20) >>>--- on the heady topic of "Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work?" >>> >>>BB> From: Bob B. >>>BB> Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:33120 >>> >>>BB> Hello... >>> >>>BB> Will an antenna rotator like a Radio Shack or Channel Master work if >>>BB> hung upside-down from a roof beam, or should I try to come up with a >>>BB> way to secure it to the attic floor? >>> >>>BB> I know rotators are designed to handle a certain weight, but I can't >>>BB> guess at what they'd do with a "negative" weight... >>> >>>BB> The antenna I'm looking to rotate is a Channel Master 8-bay bowtie. >>>BB> (CM4228) >>> >>>BB> Thanks, >>>BB> -Bob- >>>BB> N1GYL >>> >>> >>>I think it might work because rotators are rated for a large wind load >>>and hanging upside down doesn't even seem to come close to that. >>>However, I'd call the mfr first to ask for their recommendation >>>before doing it. I doubt any gears in the rotator depend on gravity to >>>stay in place. OTOH do you think fix mounting the rotator shaft and >>>having the antenna hanging off the mast fixture instead might work? >>> >>>A*s*i*m*o*v >>> >>>... Thank Thor Friday Nears! >> >>I don't think it would work. The reason is that the bearings that >>must turn will likely only be located on the bottom section expecting >>the antenna weight feeding down in that direction. Twisting left and >>right is a different problem from hanging upside down. The top of the >>rotor may not have the kind of thrust support for any bearing that may >>be there. >> >>I can't say for sure whether or not it will work without actually >>looking at the specific rotor's construction, but I can easily imagine >>that the engineers would not have included an upside down option as it >>would add significant cost to hundreds of thousands of rotors only to >>be used by a dozen or so.... >> >>Rather than speculate, I would suggest contacting the manufacture of >>the specific rotor in mind. >> >>-- >>73 for now >>Buck >>N4PGW > > > How about mounting it rightside up but putting the mount in the top and > antenna on the bottom ? > > Joe > WB2JQT > The same problem. The thrust bearing is setup to support the upper section of the rotor pressing on the bearing pressing on the lower section of the rotor. (long complex sentence). Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226528 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 14 Jul 2006 19:15:59 -0700 Message-ID: <1152929759.022387.231510@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Dirk wrote: > Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. > > :-( Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors. That trumps CW at any speed. Article: 226529 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 14 Jul 2006 19:17:31 -0700 Message-ID: <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Steve N. wrote: > Uh oh! Now a battle of the troll-o-meters... > Really cute, Bill...I love it. > > 73, Steve, K9DCI > P.S. I tilted my monitor and I see that this movement is a little out of > balance on the sides. End-to-end balance is ok. Carefully turn the balance > weight on the right side in a little, then it'll sit on zero regardless of > the orientation... Press the degauss button. The needle will let go. > "R. Scott" wrote in message > news:J2B3qt.68p@news.boeing.com... > > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ > > > > > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > > > \ > > > \ > > > \ > > > \ > > > \ > > > \ > > > \ > > > \ > > > TROLL-O-METER > > > > > > > > > Bill, W6WRT > > > > There I fixed it for you > > > > Article: 226530 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim - NN7K Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> <42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com> <12bgib4diaqpce2@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <_zYtg.49007$VE1.20073@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:39:54 GMT "Bob B." bravely wrote to "All" (24 Jun 05 11:01:20) on the heady topic of "Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work?" My oppinion would be: that while it May, or May Not work (depending on the bearings in it), The MAIN consideration, tho, as I see it would be WATER in the Control Cable connections, when a Rotor is upside down (obviously NOT a factor ,when mounted under a cover, roof, ect)! Probably will work fine! just DONT try this if EXPOSED to the Weather! Jim NN7K Article: 226531 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 14 Jul 2006 19:40:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: > Dirk wrote: > > Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a lives. > > > > :-( > > Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors. > > That trumps CW at any speed. lol thank you for that Article: 226532 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Bryan" References: <2mkog.58280$9c6.45638@dukeread11> Subject: Re: Anyone here think they would pay for a map like this? Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:01:45 -0700 Message-ID: "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message news:hz3qg.64276$9c6.11059@dukeread11... > Robert Haston wrote: > > Google Earth will give you the coordinates of a point anywhere. There are > > lots of free ways to convert lat long to bearing such as trigonometry > > spreadsheets - or a GPS. > > I'm obviously not explaining myself very well. I'm not trying to say I > have come up with some new revolutionary way to determine what heading > some place is from you. The ways of doing that are endless. Which one > is best, depends on the situation. Sure there are a number of places > you can purchase a map and draw radials on it. However the chances of > getting one that covers the area you want it to and having it centered > where you want it aren't very good. Drawing all that on a map by hand > is just way too much work if you ask me. I just think it is kind of > cool to have a large map hanging on my wall centered at my location with > radials going out. But hey I just like maps, guess that makes me weird. > > > -- > Chris W > KE5GIX In areas that aren't flat, reflection(s) on VHF/UHF from nearby hill(s) and/or building(s), a map that shows the direct path for a signal may be useless. Point the antenna where the signal is strongest or least affected by multipath... no map needed. I learned that lesson when installing/maintaining FM broadcast (67KHz SCA) background music receivers, back when I was young and impressionable. Now, I'm not so young... ;-) Still, the map would look good on the wall in the shack! Vy 73, Bryan WA7PRC Article: 226533 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Wussy Woger" Subject: Re: Unwanted Vile Filthy Intruders Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:06:19 -0500 Message-ID: <56bjn.pkg.17.1@news.alt.net> References: <8810933.2458F8789@tarrnews.net> "Lloyd 1" wrote in message news:8810933.2458F8789@tarrnews.net... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:23:31 -0000, Anonymous Markie wrote: [flush] Go away, Markie. Go irritate the nimbusters regulars some more. > Oh, he will. Mark is caught between two septic systems and wallows in both. Does he want to spam Usenet with his inane comments or does he want to spam Nim Busters? Since nobody (with any credibility) on these boards has responded to Mark, he slowly learned that he was being ignored or avoided. So, what is a spammer to do? He did what came naturally to him, and that meant that since the low-lifes had gone elsewhere, he followed. Now he wants to bring his like-minded idiots back to Usenet and again disrupt it for the rest of us. The greatest service any of us can render Mark is to ignore him. That, more than anything, seems to bug him the most. Killfile the putz. Ignore him. Simple as that. Article: 226534 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: get help sicko Date: 14 Jul 2006 20:07:22 -0700 Message-ID: <1152932842.656021.139090@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: Wussy Woger wrote: get help sicko Article: 226535 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "BakedHam" Subject: Re: Unwanted Vile Filthy Intruders Date: 14 Jul 2006 21:48:48 -0700 Message-ID: <1152938928.350661.138820@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: AYE-AYE SIR! QRT Wussy Woger wrote: > "Lloyd 1" wrote in message > news:8810933.2458F8789@tarrnews.net... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:23:31 -0000, Anonymous Markie wrote: > [flush] > Go away, Markie. Go irritate the nimbusters regulars some more. > > > Oh, he will. Mark is caught between two septic systems and wallows in both. > Does he want to spam Usenet with his inane comments or does he want to spam > Nim Busters? Since nobody (with any credibility) on these boards has > responded to Mark, he slowly learned that he was being ignored or avoided. > So, what is a spammer to do? He did what came naturally to him, and that > meant that since the low-lifes had gone elsewhere, he followed. > Now he wants to bring his like-minded idiots back to Usenet and again > disrupt it for the rest of us. > The greatest service any of us can render Mark is to ignore him. That, more > than anything, seems to bug him the most. > Killfile the putz. Ignore him. Simple as that. Article: 226536 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John Barnard Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 04:58:39 GMT J. D. B. wrote: > Well at least your estate will get to keep your life savings. If you get > sick late in the year, and the healthcare facility/hospital shut down > for the rest of the year because it ran out of government money (a > typical scenario in Canada), there will be no one to give you any care > and you'll just die. You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be able to handle reality. But hey, your life savings will still be intact! > Is socialized health care great or what? >> >> - At least in Canada you get to keep >> - your life savings if you get sick. >> > JB Article: 226538 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Vinny" Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 03:35:07 -0500 Message-ID: <56rbp.m7e.17.1@news.alt.net> References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> "John Barnard" wrote in message news:3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no... J. D. B. wrote: > Well at least your estate will get to keep your life savings. If you get > sick late in the year, and the healthcare facility/hospital shut down > for the rest of the year because it ran out of government money (a > typical scenario in Canada), there will be no one to give you any care > and you'll just die. You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be able to handle reality. But hey, your life savings will still be intact! Socialism! Oh! Canada! We speak two tongues...a nation united. Yeah! Eh? Article: 226539 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Jeff" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:55:47 +0100 Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <12bfrd1eeduas5a@corp.supernews.com> > I think that the facts are that this whole episode was right in the time > line of the transition from the more or less official original distress > signal which was the 'CQD' cited here and in many other references, to the > 'SOS'. And .. had the operator of the Titanic actually been using the > then newly 'adopted' 'SOS' distress signal, it is actually likely that the > Californian marine operator, even though he retired and went to bed > *MIGHT* have caught the call for help in time and many more lives had been > saved. > > SOS had been the official distress call for about 3 years when the Titanic went down, but CQD was the long established distress call used by the Marconi Company. Marconi had such a strangle hold on marine radio at that time that old habits died hard. That said everyone knew what CQD meant regardless of the company they worked for. I doubt that the Californian's R/O would have heard any SOS or CQD in his sleep. At that time it was general practice to shut down the Equipment when not on watch.The receivers needed constant attention to keep the coherers functioning properly.. Regards Jeff Article: 226540 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "JOHN D" References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:33:00 GMT > "L is easy to remember. "to hell with it". > >Thank you, I was haveing trouble confusing "F" and "L" I got nothing against CW, but being kept out of amateur radio for 40+ years cus I had difficulty learning the code, sucks. Finally, I got enough right to barely pass the 5 wpm test. Still can't find anybody slow enough for me to copy on the air. If I ever get good enough to use it, I'll try a few homebrew transmitter projects. I expect there are some technically competent people who might be interested in amateur radio, but have no interest in learning code. John Article: 226541 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Pete - G4PLZ Subject: Re: How do you isolate a signal? Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:20:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 00:10:34 -0400, "VE2CJW" wrote: >I have a funny problem here. I am using my dual band radio, a Kenwood >TM-G707 as a simple scanner and I have a problem in isolating a signal. If I >open the squelch manually most of the way, I receive a signal from 400 to >523 mhz everywhere. This signal is on 24 hours a day but seems to be >modulated only part of the time. When it is modulated, in FM mode, I hear a >tv station crew doing their stuff to mount a program. I can hear the >producer giving orders to the cameramen and also the script girl. The mikes >are on all the time and not switched. I can't identify what station it is >but this has been going on for many years. what I would like to do is >identify the exact frequency they use but they splatter all over the band. >Is there a way to really zero on them? Since I live in the Montreal area, it >could come from everywhere but Iknow it's not coming from my town because no >one does that kind of free lance work around here. I am really baffled and >would appreciate some sugestions. Thanks. >Mike. > Mike I am an ex-broadcast TV worker. To me it sounds like a studio talkback system that is left on all the time - not uncommon in regularly used control rooms - but only has modulation when in use. From what you describe of your neighbourhood it is unlikely to be front end overload on your Kenwood. To help track down the source it may be possible to figure out what sort of programming is being produced by listening to the talkback; if the same stuff happens at the same times of the week/day it is obviously a regular show of some kind. It is most likely to be a prerecorded show; the only live broadcasts are news programmes and sporting events and the timing will give a big clue. "Run tape. OK, we got three minutes, reset for the singing sheep". If it is a regular show, the direction will be fairly laconic because the crew will be doing the same stuff over and over again - but you might get the presenters' first names: "Two, tight closeup on Tom. Three, loose two on Dick and Harry". If it is a game show, anything up to six progarmmes might be recorded in a day: "Next is programme three. Autocue, can we change line four to 'our new defending champion from last week is John Doe' " Either way, your next step should be to Google TV production companies in the Montreal area, starting close and working outward. I suspect there will not be many with a regularly used studio. It is a small community so a very few calls may well help you zero in on the source. In each case ask for the technical director and explain what you are receiving; in my experience he would be very concerned about the emission and take steps to suppress it as quickly as possible for a variety of reasons: "OK three, gimme a two shot. One, frame a single on that visiting political asshole once makeup has made him vaguely human". Good luck. Pete Article: 226542 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: ml Subject: hakko ? Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:36:15 GMT by chance would anyone know a place selling hakko soldering irons at a good prices? I've found a bunch of places via google, but non offer any 'special' prices tnx Article: 226543 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: nm5k@wt.net Subject: Re: Need help on QRM rejection ( WITHOUT A BEAM !!) Date: 15 Jul 2006 04:10:26 -0700 Message-ID: <1152961826.302703.238610@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: chasm@texas.net wrote: > Hi Bob > yes, QRN it is ... how foolish of me. sigh > > but, this evening I just tried 4mhz and saw S/N of 9+ > and going up to 7mhz, the QRN is even worse. > > there is no real static or tones or motorboating or anything distinctive. It > is just plain, old NOISE!! it is so high that I cannot even hear my NCS very > well and he is about 30 mi North of me. Even 75m should allow local > intelligibility and reception regardless of propagation. Not always. It's quite common to see a skip zone on even 75m. It's more common in the winter than summer, but can happen any time of the year. We are in the low end of the solar cycle, so it's more common right now. As one already asked, you need to determine if this is normal atmospheric static, or some type of local line noise. That you hear it on the higher bands kind of points to some local noise being a problem. You say 1900? Is this GMT? Sounds like you are talking in the afternoon...?? Or do you mean 7PM? ?? 75m is unstable early in the evening. It's common to see a skip zone where you don't hear stations close to you. Most of the time, this clears up about 10-11 PM, but it varies... In the winter, in the low solar cycle, it's not unusual to see the MUF drop below 4 mhz between close stations. But again, this will often raise back up later at night. > > A fellow on another site or forum suggested an NVIS as you have. Absolutely. > I am > considering a 63' wire about 10 ft above and across the yard (which has about > 4" of iron ore for a base) so I should get good reflectivity espec with all > this rain. I might attach it to a 15x20' steel patio cover at one end if I > can find a way to insulate the cover from the pipes into the ground. or do > I want it grounded? I am getting so confused and frustrated. I can > certainly remember in the 1950s how low the QRN was except for sunspots, etc. > or someone with a "noisy" auto engine. Forget the gimmick antennas. They won't help. How good is the antenna of the net control station? Maybe half the problem is on his end? Is he running any power? It's July. It's normal to have a high noise level at this time of year. S9 noise level is nothing unusual. So this means you need to use the most efficient antennas you can, and power won't hurt. I have no trouble talking in the summer using 100w, but I run coax fed antennas such as dipoles, etc. Right now I'm running a coax fed turnstile on 80m. You mentioned what antenna you had, but I don't know what that is... It sounds like one of those "all band compromise" antennas though. I'd ditch it, and stick up a regular old coax fed dipole. Nothing you can use will be any better, or more efficient. Use a 1:1 balun, or a coax choke at the feedpoint to ensure you don't pipe shack noise back to your receiver. Forget the carolina windom. BTW, most any wire antenna at 35 ft is going to function as a NVIS antenna. Most of the radiation is straight up. What really counts is the total system efficiency. You don't want to waste any power in tuners, intentional resisters, etc... A coax fed dipole, loop, turnstile, etc is appx 95+ % efficient as far as the total system efficiency. Some use full wave loops for NVIS on 75, but there is really little if any to gain over a 1/2 wave dipole. If parts of the horizontal loop are close to the ground, it's quite possible for the 1/2 wave dipole to outperform it, if the dipole is well up in the air. Max current is at the apex of a dipole or turnstile. So it's usually well up in the air away from ground. A low hanging loop can have high current points fairly close to ground. So I wouldn't use a horizontal loop unless all sides were fairly high in the air. Even then, I doubt if much advantage. I remember back in the 80's , I compared horizontal loops, and dipoles back and forth, and could hardly tell much difference at all. I came to the conclusion the extra work for the loop didn't pay off. :/ I think the turnstile is slightly better than the loop, or the dipole for 75m NVIS. It's pretty much my favorite lower band NVIS antenna. The turnstile is real good on 40m in the daytime. Your memories of a quiet 75m were probably in the winter...Wait about 4 months.. It'll get quiet again.. MK Article: 226544 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dave" References: Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 11:37:24 -0000 Message-ID: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:XmBtg.48331$VE1.34836@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > This one is worth a look: > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395512&in_page_id=1770 > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp though one would wish that clueless reports would refrain from scientific explanations: The actual electric charge in a flash of lightning comes from particles from the sun sent out in the solar wind which gather in the outer atmospheric layers before creating a strike. though at least he has also heard of the real explanation, though he even distorts that one and refers to it only as a theory, where the above is stated as a fact. Scientists are still divided by what actually causes lightning, with one theory suggesting falling droplets of ice and rain become electrically polarised(sic) as they fall through the natural electric field in the Earth's atmosphere. Article: 226545 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:07:31 -0400 From: "J. D. B." Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> Message-ID: Sorry John, do some reading for once as that is the reality of the Canadian system. You'll actually learn something if you do research yourself and not just listen to NPR and CNN. Now, on the other hand, if you live in the U.K., you'll still have healthcare through the end of the year, but if you are too old, they just let you die as it is not worth the expenditure to keep someone old alive even longer. But again, hey, your estate gets to keep the money! Come on, this isn't really John now is it? Hillary Clinton, is that you? John Barnard wrote: > You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be able > to handle reality. > JB > Article: 226546 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:13:01 -0400 From: "J. D. B." Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Message-ID: John, Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the fun is and the copy is much better. A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and various digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The best was DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also has a second channel to display additional information. CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the stone-age hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes. MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can use. MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many capabilities in the program. Move on and start having fun. JDB JOHN D wrote: > > I got nothing against CW, but being kept out of amateur radio for 40+ years > cus I had difficulty learning the code, sucks. > Finally, I got enough right to barely pass the 5 wpm test. Still can't find > anybody slow enough for me to copy on the air. > If I ever get good enough to use it, I'll try a few homebrew transmitter > projects. > > I expect there are some technically competent people who might be interested > in amateur radio, but have no interest in learning code. > John > > Article: 226547 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:36:35 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity References: Dave wrote: > >"Cecil Moore" wrote in message >news:XmBtg.48331$VE1.34836@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... >> This one is worth a look: >> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_articl >>e_id=395512&in_page_id=1770 >> -- >> 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp > >though one would wish that clueless reports would refrain from scientific >explanations: > >The actual electric charge in a flash of lightning comes from particles from >the sun sent out in the solar wind which gather in the outer atmospheric >layers before creating a strike. > > > >though at least he has also heard of the real explanation, though he even >distorts that one and refers to it only as a theory, where the above is >stated as a fact. > >Scientists are still divided by what actually causes lightning, with one >theory suggesting falling droplets of ice and rain become electrically >polarised(sic) as they fall through the natural electric field in the >Earth's atmosphere. > > What more can you expect from the London 'Daily Wail'? (However, 'polarised' is perfectly good British English.) -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226548 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dave" References: Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:00:19 -0000 Message-ID: "Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message news:GQ1D$JOTFOuEFAqH@ifwtech.co.uk... > Dave wrote: >> >>"Cecil Moore" wrote in message >>news:XmBtg.48331$VE1.34836@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... >>> This one is worth a look: >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_articl >>>e_id=395512&in_page_id=1770 >>> -- >>> 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp >> >>though one would wish that clueless reports would refrain from scientific >>explanations: >> >>The actual electric charge in a flash of lightning comes from particles >>from >>the sun sent out in the solar wind which gather in the outer atmospheric >>layers before creating a strike. >> >> >> >>though at least he has also heard of the real explanation, though he even >>distorts that one and refers to it only as a theory, where the above is >>stated as a fact. >> >>Scientists are still divided by what actually causes lightning, with one >>theory suggesting falling droplets of ice and rain become electrically >>polarised(sic) as they fall through the natural electric field in the >>Earth's atmosphere. >> >> > > What more can you expect from the London 'Daily Wail'? > > (However, 'polarised' is perfectly good British English.) > oh well, my spell checker only does corrupted colonial english i guess. Article: 226549 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Smokey" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:15:50 -0500 Message-ID: <12bhqgcrmppd4eb@corp.supernews.com> References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> If you want easy...and most of the CW whiners do...why don't you just hook your laptop up to your DSL line and stay the hell off the air? Jeez, you've got a pathetic joke for an exam now with canned questions to memorize and no code to learn. Too bad you're not still in your mother's womb so you don't have to feed yourselves. Though you have deluded yourselves into believing you are "hams," you are hardly believable when you wear that title. The only reason you have been able to slip through into the dumbed-down requirements and some sort of fcc "license" sham is because your appliance manufacturers that make your rigs and the charlatans like the arrl are selling out the hobby so they can sell you things. It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and you no-coder idiots have fallen for it. As for traditional, genuine "hams, we may be from the "Stone Age," but once the dinosauers became extinct the pristine landscape took on pollution and overcrowding. You simpletons have all drank the Kool-Aid and cannot see that you are parties to the eventual elimination of ham radio. Thank God for "stone age hams," for at least there is someone still around that knows something about the avocation. "J. D. B." wrote in message news:d6d2b$44b8dc47$d06640f9$20723@FUSE.NET... > John, > > Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the > fun is and the copy is much better. > > A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and > various digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The > best was DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also > has a second channel to display additional information. > > CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the > stone-age hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes. > > MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can > use. MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many > capabilities in the program. > > Move on and start having fun. > > JDB > > JOHN D wrote: > > > > > I got nothing against CW, but being kept out of amateur radio for 40+ years > > cus I had difficulty learning the code, sucks. > > Finally, I got enough right to barely pass the 5 wpm test. Still can't find > > anybody slow enough for me to copy on the air. > > If I ever get good enough to use it, I'll try a few homebrew transmitter > > projects. > > > > I expect there are some technically competent people who might be interested > > in amateur radio, but have no interest in learning code. > > John > > > > Article: 226550 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dxAce Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 09:20:56 -0400 Message-ID: <44B8EBB8.C221285D@milestones.com> References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <12bhqgcrmppd4eb@corp.supernews.com> Smokey wrote: > If you want easy...and most of the CW whiners do...why don't you just hook > your laptop up to your DSL line and stay the hell off the air? > > Jeez, you've got a pathetic joke for an exam now with canned questions to > memorize and no code to learn. Too bad you're not still in your mother's > womb so you don't have to feed yourselves. Though you have deluded > yourselves into believing you are "hams," you are hardly believable when you > wear that title. The only reason you have been able to slip through into the > dumbed-down requirements and some sort of fcc "license" sham is because your > appliance manufacturers that make your rigs and the charlatans like the arrl > are selling out the hobby so they can sell you things. > > It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and you no-coder idiots have fallen for it. > > As for traditional, genuine "hams, we may be from the "Stone Age," but once > the dinosauers became extinct the pristine landscape took on pollution and > overcrowding. You simpletons have all drank the Kool-Aid and cannot see that > you are parties to the eventual elimination of ham radio. > > Thank God for "stone age hams," for at least there is someone still around > that knows something about the avocation. Amen. dxAce Michigan USA > > > "J. D. B." wrote in message > news:d6d2b$44b8dc47$d06640f9$20723@FUSE.NET... > > John, > > > > Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the > > fun is and the copy is much better. > > > > A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and > > various digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The > > best was DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also > > has a second channel to display additional information. > > > > CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the > > stone-age hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes. > > > > MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can > > use. MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many > > capabilities in the program. > > > > Move on and start having fun. > > > > JDB > > > > JOHN D wrote: > > > > > > > > I got nothing against CW, but being kept out of amateur radio for 40+ > years > > > cus I had difficulty learning the code, sucks. > > > Finally, I got enough right to barely pass the 5 wpm test. Still can't > find > > > anybody slow enough for me to copy on the air. > > > If I ever get good enough to use it, I'll try a few homebrew transmitter > > > projects. > > > > > > I expect there are some technically competent people who might be > interested > > > in amateur radio, but have no interest in learning code. > > > John > > > > > > Article: 226551 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:07:34 GMT JOHN D wrote: >> Thank you, I was haveing trouble confusing "F" and "L" Was it embarrassing when you sent "good luck"? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226552 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:21:34 GMT Dave wrote: > "Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message >> (However, 'polarised' is perfectly good British English.) >> > oh well, my spell checker only does corrupted colonial english i guess. It was still true. "(sic)" signifies an exact reproduction of the original text - and it was. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226553 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dave" References: Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:41:53 -0000 Message-ID: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message news:OR6ug.4815$2v.1449@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > Dave wrote: >> "Ian White GM3SEK" wrote in message >>> (However, 'polarised' is perfectly good British English.) >>> >> oh well, my spell checker only does corrupted colonial english i guess. > > It was still true. "(sic)" signifies an exact reproduction of > the original text - and it was. > -- yeah, but its usually only used to flag an error in the original text so that readers know that the person quoting it did not introduce the error. Article: 226554 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bill Turner Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 07:54:34 -0700 Message-ID: References: <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <12bhqgcrmppd4eb@corp.supernews.com> ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:15:50 -0500, "Smokey" wrote: >As for traditional, genuine "hams, we may be from the "Stone Age," but once >the dinosauers became extinct the pristine landscape took on pollution and >overcrowding. You simpletons have all drank the Kool-Aid and cannot see that >you are parties to the eventual elimination of ham radio. ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ LOL! This from someone who calls himself "Smokey" and does not post his callsign. Can you say "troll", boys and girls? Bill, W6WRT Article: 226555 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 15 Jul 2006 08:22:56 -0700 Message-ID: <1152976976.776663.120710@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net><12b8k3ugq5ovgeb@corp.supernews.com> an old freind wrote: > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > get help sicko STFU, stupid. Article: 226556 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Not Cocksucker Lloyd" Subject: Re: Unwanted Vile Filthy Intruders Date: 15 Jul 2006 08:25:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1152977101.063014.279370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: Wussy Woger wrote: > "Lloyd 1" wrote in message > news:8810933.2458F8789@tarrnews.net... > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:23:31 -0000, Anonymous Markie wrote: > [flush] > Go away, Markie. Go irritate the nimbusters regulars some more. > > > Oh, he will. Mark is caught between two septic systems and wallows in both. > Does he want to spam Usenet with his inane comments or does he want to spam > Nim Busters? Since nobody (with any credibility) on these boards has > responded to Mark, he slowly learned that he was being ignored or avoided. > So, what is a spammer to do? He did what came naturally to him, and that > meant that since the low-lifes had gone elsewhere, he followed. > Now he wants to bring his like-minded idiots back to Usenet and again > disrupt it for the rest of us. > The greatest service any of us can render Mark is to ignore him. That, more > than anything, seems to bug him the most. > Killfile the putz. Ignore him. Simple as that. Hi Fatass! Article: 226557 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "g. beat" <@> References: Subject: Re: Hakko ? Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:50:30 -0500 Message-ID: "ml" wrote in message news:m-6933E2.06360315072006@news.verizon.net... > by chance would anyone know a place selling hakko soldering irons at a > good prices? > > I've found a bunch of places via google, but non offer any 'special' > prices > > tnx What do you consider a "Special Price" Remember you BASIC economics -- and WATCH the Yen-Dollar exchange rates. Hakko has attempted to keep their product prices the same -- as the Dollar has devalued against the Yen. My advice: Last time I saw these factors (1973; 1979) with energy price increases -- inflation and price increases followed within a few months or the year. IF you want one - find best deal today - and buy it - and do not be surprised if the price rises 10% over next 18 months. eBay has about the best prices for the Hakko 936-12 A majority of these sellers are large Hakko distributors or dealers (TE equipment, HCM) - selling excess inventory. IF you want best retail store price - checkout Fry's Electronics. BEWARE of bargains or very low prices -- you may be buying a Chinese copy of the Hakko products. Web sites can be found on Internet that show side by side pictorial comparisons ---inferior vacuum pumps (desoldering stations), poor assembly quality and ceramic iron heaters that are not of the same quality or construction --- as the true Hakko (Japanese made) heaters. Hakko USA web site http://www.hakkousa.com/2006/default_1.asp?Assistant=Dinky gb Article: 226558 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:52:10 GMT Dave wrote: > "Cecil Moore" wrote in message >> "(sic)" signifies an exact reproduction of >> the original text - and it was. > yeah, but its usually only used to flag an error in the original text so > that readers know that the person quoting it did not introduce the error. Nothing said about any "error" in the definition of "(sic)". The use was entirely appropriate for a largely US audience. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226559 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:44:40 -0400 From: "J. D. B." Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <12bhqgcrmppd4eb@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Smokey wrote: > If you want easy...and most of the CW whiners do...why don't you just hook > your laptop up to your DSL line and stay the hell off the air? Because we don't want to. > > Jeez, you've got a pathetic joke for an exam now with canned questions to > memorize and no code to learn. And your drivers' license test was what? Did they test you on rebuilding your car? >Too bad you're not still in your mother's > womb so you don't have to feed yourselves. Though you have deluded > yourselves into believing you are "hams," you are hardly believable when you Well as a supporter of getting rid of the out-dated CW testing requirement, I passed my test 35 years ago and a 13WPM CW exam. So I am one of what you called a "genuine ham" but still have the intelligence to know that a CW exam is old, stupid and mostly supported by a bunch of stone-age hams who whine because they had to pass a more stringent test and can't accept that others are not having to study for and pass a more stringent test. Waaaaa, Waaaaa, Waaaaa.....I want my CW. Blah, Blah, Blah. > wear that title. The only reason you have been able to slip through into the > dumbed-down requirements and some sort of fcc "license" sham is because your > appliance manufacturers that make your rigs and the charlatans like the arrl > are selling out the hobby so they can sell you things. That is somewhat true. So what. Heck, what does a test even prove anymore? I can have 440 handheld family band transceivers with the same power as many small ham handhelds. I don't need a license to use those, so what's the big deal about stringent testing requirements for hams. Test hams only on the legal issues and rules. We don't really even need the other crap anymore. It's not like we dealing with lethal voltages all the time like the days of ol'. > > It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and you no-coder idiots have fallen for it. So what if it is about the money. You need money to live on right? What's the matter with spending money to create jobs from manufacturing, selling, fixing, etc. ham radios. Maybe it's also about having experienced radio communicators in an emergency and a lot of extra equipment in home inventories. > > As for traditional, genuine "hams, What is a genuine ham? Someone who knows CW? That's a laugh. Look at all the bickering "genuine hams" who passed that all important test and 13 or 20WPM CW and who argue and fight on the bands. Did you listen to 75 Meters? And I mean going back 30+ years ago? Your testing did not stop the idiot "genuine hams" back then now did it? >we may be from the "Stone Age," but once > the dinosauers became extinct the pristine landscape took on pollution and > overcrowding. You simpletons have all drank the Kool-Aid and cannot see that > you are parties to the eventual elimination of ham radio. Yeah, you want a pristine landscape for yourself while keeping out the "undesirables" - you are a bigot. > > Thank God for "stone age hams," for at least there is someone still around > that knows something about the avocation. You know nothing accept bigotry. Article: 226560 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi Date: 15 Jul 2006 09:49:13 -0700 Message-ID: <1152982153.622999.283230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1152578671.148819.275420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > That is a complete quote of your item number 1. What you said is > self explanatory. You said the current flowing onto the antenna > is equal to the current flowing down the feedline. You were wrong. Cecil, rather than help people with questions and give them good helpful answers you seem to just want to turn it into a peeing contest. Even if you have to drop sentences to make it appear someone else is wrong. Why do you do that??? Don't you think it is more important to help the guy asking the question than to play Cecil games?? Actually here is everything I said in CONTEXT. Tell me what is wrong in the entire CONTEXT of what I said. From: w...@akorn.net - view profile Date: Thurs, Jul 6 2006 8:56 pm Email: w...@akorn.net Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna n3ox....@gmail.com wrote: > Tom, I didn't know that the feedline decoupling issues with J-poles > were so bad. > I'd be interested in more information about why it's such an issue. > Would a sleeve stub work better than an open wire stub? It's certainly > stupid to make the feedline MORE of an issue. Look at what the J-pole really is. 1.) You have a half-wave end-fed antenna. There has to be as much common mode current leaving the end of that point and flowing down the feedline as there is flowing out onto the antenna at that point. There isn't any exception to this rule. 2.) While that current may be small with a perfect half wave, it is never zero. It gets worse fast of the antenna is not 1/2 wl long electrically, or if it is thick. 3.) Now you have a 1/4 wl stub feeding that half-wave on the end. If you perfectly floated that 1/4 wl stub, common mode current in the stub would DECREASE as you move away from the feedpoint. But if you ground the 1/4 wl stub, current common mode INCREASES as you move away from the stub. This is why end-fed Zepps and J-poles model very good when a perfect ground independent current source is used to feed them. Unfortunately we can't do a perfect ground independent feedpoint in the real world, so depending on the CM impedance the amount of pattern distortion will be all over the place. This is why Zepps, antennas that are really just the same as a J-pole, are notorious for RF in the shack. The lack of feedlines in models are why people who do not include the feeder or feedline matching device to the 1/4 wl closed stub conclude they aren't so bad. Why would anyone go through all that bother to complicate the feed system in a Yagi is beyond me, when there are a half dozen easy solutions that were mentioned here. 73 Tom <> So you see, you mislead people on purpose Cecil. Shame on you. Article: 226561 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Unwanted Vile Filthy Intruders Date: 15 Jul 2006 10:05:05 -0700 Message-ID: <1152983105.774579.326700@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: get help sicko Article: 226562 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dee Flint" References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:22:51 -0400 Message-ID: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> "J. D. B." wrote in message news:d6d2b$44b8dc47$d06640f9$20723@FUSE.NET... > John, > > Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the > fun is and the copy is much better. > > A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and various > digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The best was > DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also has a second > channel to display additional information. > > CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the stone-age > hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes. > > MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can use. > MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many capabilities in the > program. > > Move on and start having fun. > You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that will make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for voice, all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you had the best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. Another night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will favor CW. Based on what I've read about DominoEX, it is a form of Multi-Frequency Shift Keying. This variation looks to be more robust than others, however, anything that can compromise FSK and MFSK has the potential to compromise DominoEX. It will merely be a matter of the degree of severity needed before it becomes unusable. Just because something is old doesn't make it useless or stone age. Pencils have been around far longer and are still highly useful. Dee, N8UZE Article: 226563 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:30:49 -0500 Message-ID: <12bi9igte6gtc2d@corp.supernews.com> References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> Cecil Moore wrote: > JOHN D wrote: > >>> Thank you, I was haveing trouble confusing "F" and "L" > > > Was it embarrassing when you sent "good luck"? Actually it was a simple realization on my part that half the alphabet was the mirror of the other. i.e. a/n f/l e/t etc. When I had this epiphany I basically knew the code. All I had to do was learn to receive it which I did successfully twice, once for my novice and once again when I sat for my Tech before my novice license came. Passed both tests. Haven't used it much since. My choice. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226564 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 15 Jul 2006 10:33:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1152984786.228548.155380@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: Dee Flint wrote: > "J. D. B." wrote in message > news:d6d2b$44b8dc47$d06640f9$20723@FUSE.NET... > > John, > > > > Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the > > fun is and the copy is much better. > > > > A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and various > > digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The best was > > DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also has a second > > channel to display additional information. > > > > CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the stone-age > > hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes. > > > > MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can use. > > MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many capabilities in the > > program. > > > > Move on and start having fun. > > > > You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that will > make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for voice, > all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you had the > best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. Another > night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will favor CW. no you don't get it CW is in radio terms stone age, simol e fact stone does not mean useless you lack of ability to use english is worse than my problem with it you can't use words even though you can spell em A stone club is still leathal does that mean the army should drill and train with stone weapons? CW is obselete like HMS Canpous at the battle of the Falklands, like the Bowmen that fought with em in the retreat to Dunkirk . utility does not preclude obselenece LEARN ENGLISH esp when yo u lhave played spelling NAZI your self Article: 226565 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 15 Jul 2006 10:46:14 -0700 Message-ID: <1152985574.360465.197630@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: > an old freind wrote: > > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > > get help sicko > > STFU, stupid. no and you howl accroos the ngs becuase you can't make me pretty bad for a 50 yo child Article: 226566 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:59:59 -0400 From: "J. D. B." Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> Message-ID: <62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET> Dee Flint wrote: > > You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that will > make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for voice, > all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you had the > best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. Another > night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will favor CW. Thanks Dee, you admitted that CW is not the best mode in any condition. You agree that different modes work better under differing conditions. I agree. That's why is it utterly stupid to test incoming hams on one mode of communication. Finally we agree on something. > > Based on what I've read about DominoEX, it is a form of Multi-Frequency > Shift Keying. This variation looks to be more robust than others, however, > anything that can compromise FSK and MFSK has the potential to compromise > DominoEX. It will merely be a matter of the degree of severity needed > before it becomes unusable. Any mode can become unusable depending on conditions. The best thing is that some digital modes can be decoded when you cannot even hear the signal with a human ear. You just cannot do that with CW. With CW if you cannot hear it, you cannot decode it. > > Just because something is old doesn't make it useless or stone age. Pencils > have been around far longer and are still highly useful. I agree. I never said do away with CW. I like to use it myself. However, tube rigs suck more electricity than solid state rigs and are bad for the environment so old things can be rather useless or damaging. Just like CW, it's not useless, but continuing to have a CW testing requirement is damaging and outdated. Riding horses is fun still, but very few want them for the normal day to day transportation now. They may be useful still, but for everyday transportation they are no longer required. Horses are found more and more out in the pasture where the CW testing requirement belongs. > > Dee, N8UZE > > Article: 226567 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? From: "Alun L. Palmer" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: 15 Jul 2006 21:04:50 +0200 hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote in news:1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > Steve N. wrote: >> Uh oh! Now a battle of the troll-o-meters... >> Really cute, Bill...I love it. >> >> 73, Steve, K9DCI >> P.S. I tilted my monitor and I see that this movement is a little out >> of balance on the sides. End-to-end balance is ok. Carefully turn >> the balance weight on the right side in a little, then it'll sit on >> zero regardless of the orientation... > > Press the degauss button. The needle will let go. > >> "R. Scott" wrote in message >> news:J2B3qt.68p@news.boeing.com... >> > > ------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------ >> > > >> > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ >> > > TROLL-O-METER >> > > >> > > >> > > Bill, W6WRT >> > >> > There I fixed it for you >> > >> > > > Just found this thread. If I had to use CW to save someone's life, it would depend on a lot of variables. Firstly, if it involved any of my own ham radio gear, it would be more than a little odd, since I have a mic for each transceiver and I don't own a key jack that would plug into any of them, although I do have a straight key, just no jack to plug it in with. Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on. If it was on the HF ham bands then no major problem, as there are still quite a few people who still use CW. My own lack of real aptitude shouldn't be a real problem for two reasons. One, I could slow down to a comfortable speed, i.e. 5-10 wpm. Two, it would matter more whether others could copy my sending than vicea versa. I did pass 20 wpm, but have yet to buy a plug for my key, many years later. As I said though, that really wouldn't make a difference. If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm and then, like me, never used it, then I suspect the victim wouldn't make it. But then in most countries there is NO morse code testing any more, so there are plenty of hams now who've never learnt atall. For decades there have been no code VHF hams in most countries anyway. There again, if the key was anything other than a straight key, that would be curtains for the victim, as I would have no idea how to use it. OTOH, if this scenario didn't involve the HF ham bands, then the victim would be as good as dead, as I'd never find a non-ham who could still read CW on the other end. And your point was...? Article: 226568 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi References: <1152578671.148819.275420@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152609823.761832.13220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1152631289.594334.34440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152643960.102707.230980@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152645952.257578.20580@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152651970.397776.294700@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152657212.158640.43920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152736765.706079.169140@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1152982153.622999.283230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:34:39 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > Cecil, rather than help people with questions and give them good > helpful answers you seem to just want to turn it into a peeing contest. > Even if you have to drop sentences to make it appear someone else is > wrong. Pot: Kettle, Kettle: Pot. This was a deliberate dose of your own medicine. When you stop the deliberate obfuscation of my postings, the problem will cease to exist. > Why do you do that??? Don't you think it is more important to help the > guy asking the question than to play Cecil games?? You are the one who taught me to play those silly games, Tom. Just as soon as you abandon your unethical methods of quoting, I will stop mirroring your actions back at you. You have even reverse-ordered the dates of my postings to make them appear to mean the opposite of what they originally meant. I know a few technical types who could be contributing to this newsgroup but are afraid of attack from your junk yard dog style. Your strategy seems to be to attack everyone who disagrees with you and try to drive them off the newsgroup. One of the QRZ moderators advised me to stop arguing with you because "W8JI is never wrong, even when he is completely wrong". He made me promise not to reveal his identity. Another individual regularly sends me technical information to use against your irrational arguments but makes me promise to keep his identity a secret lest he suffer one of your attacks. You have intimidated a lot of people with your attack dog style. One wonders why, if you are such a guru, you need to adopt such a style. How about a kindler, gentler W8JI in the future? I'm willing to agree to a truce which limits your and my postings to technical information and logical arguments. Are you willing to give up your ad hominem attacks and obfuscation of my postings? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226569 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: matthewcoan@hotmail.com Subject: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Date: 15 Jul 2006 12:48:44 -0700 Message-ID: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Hello, Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? It is for use with a long vertical wire antenna or TV antenna pole. I was wondering if anybody new of any antenna circuits that meat this description. Thank you, Matthew William Coan Sat Jul 15 15:48:04 EDT 2006 Article: 226570 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dee Flint" References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET> Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:17:46 -0400 Message-ID: "J. D. B." wrote in message news:62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET... > Dee Flint wrote: > >> >> You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that >> will make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for >> voice, all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you >> had the best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. >> Another night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will >> favor CW. > > Thanks Dee, you admitted that CW is not the best mode in any condition. > You agree that different modes work better under differing conditions. I > agree. That's why is it utterly stupid to test incoming hams on one mode > of communication. Finally we agree on something. No that has nothing to do with whether it should be tested. We do NOT agree on that issue. CW is a valid and useful mode but it is different in nature from the other modes. All the other digital modes simply require investing perhaps as much as 30 minutes in setting up the hardware and software to get up and running even if you make your own interface. So one can quickly evaluate whether or not they will like it. On the other hand, it is impossible to determine whether you will like CW until you have learned it, which takes some time. Many people who might like it won't tackle it unless it's required as they will have a false impression that it is too hard since there are so many trying to get the code requirement dropped by trying to convince people it is difficult. It is not difficult to learn but it does take time. I've known a number of people who admitted that they wouldn't have tried it unless required to do so but now find that they enjoy it. It's rather like piano lessons. Every adult I know who took piano as a child has made one of the two following statements: a) I'm glad my parents didn't let me quit, or, b) I wish my parents had not let me quit. The very adults who, as a child, were glad to drop piano are the ones who most deeply regret it now. >> >> Based on what I've read about DominoEX, it is a form of Multi-Frequency >> Shift Keying. This variation looks to be more robust than others, >> however, anything that can compromise FSK and MFSK has the potential to >> compromise DominoEX. It will merely be a matter of the degree of >> severity needed before it becomes unusable. > > Any mode can become unusable depending on conditions. The best thing is > that some digital modes can be decoded when you cannot even hear the > signal with a human ear. You just cannot do that with CW. With CW if you > cannot hear it, you cannot decode it. That is true but it is not a reason to condemn CW. It is merely a working parameter that one must deal with. Besides one can run CW at a higher output without risking damage to the radio to often make up the difference. Keep in mind that if you include the power requirements for the computer and monitor plus radio that a 25watt output signal for the digital mode draws more power than a radio putting out 100watts of CW. I have repeatedly maintained that each mode has its advantages and disadvantages but the anti-CW crowd takes its particular characteristics as a reason to castigate it. They refuse to objectively evaluate their "high-tech" digital modes for their unique advantages and disadvantages. There are times when a voice signal will beat the digital modes in intelligibility. For example, PSK goes belly up with even the slightest auroral disturbance yet voices, while distorted, can still come through. It will take a higher level of auroral activity to knock out voice in comparison to that required to knock out PSK. A well rounded ham should be able to select his/her mode on the basis of conditions and not be limited to by the fact that they were allowed to "slide" on the code training. >> >> Just because something is old doesn't make it useless or stone age. >> Pencils have been around far longer and are still highly useful. > > I agree. I never said do away with CW. I like to use it myself. However, > tube rigs suck more electricity than solid state rigs and are bad for the > environment so old things can be rather useless or damaging. Just like CW, > it's not useless, but continuing to have a CW testing requirement is > damaging and outdated. > Who says you have to stick to tube rigs to run CW? I know you know better than that. Tube rigs have largely gone away (except for collectors) simply because its much easier to deal with solid state equipment. Yet if one wants to run a legal limit amp, it's going to be a tube unit as they haven't come up with a way to do it cost effectively any other way. I strongly disagree that a CW testing requirement is damaging or outdated. There simply is not sufficient data to support that point of few. An occasional anecdote does not qualify as valid data. > Riding horses is fun still, but very few want them for the normal day to > day transportation now. They may be useful still, but for everyday > transportation they are no longer required. Horses are found more and > more out in the pasture where the CW testing requirement belongs. > Again I disagree. That analogy is not really valid. A better one would be comparing it to driving an automobile with a stick shift. I personally feel that every one who drives should be required to know how to drive a stick. They often get better mileage than automatics as an experienced driver can do a better job of selecting the shift point than a mere gadget. More people might select stick shifts if only they knew how to drive one. Dee, N8UZE Article: 226571 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 15 Jul 2006 13:22:05 -0700 Message-ID: <1152994925.871520.48500@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: Dee Flint wrote: > "J. D. B." wrote in message > news:62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET... > > Dee Flint wrote: > > > >> > >> You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that > >> will make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for > >> voice, all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you > >> had the best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. > >> Another night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will > >> favor CW. > > > > Thanks Dee, you admitted that CW is not the best mode in any condition. > > You agree that different modes work better under differing conditions. I > > agree. That's why is it utterly stupid to test incoming hams on one mode > > of communication. Finally we agree on something. > > No that has nothing to do with whether it should be tested. We do NOT agree > on that issue. lying again bitch it certainly has something to do with the issue but then you arenot honest about most thing Article: 226572 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "clfe" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:24:57 -0400 Message-ID: <44b94f14$0$3631$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message news:Xns9801992EDFA46elektrosmdonet@217.22.228.20... > hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote in > news:1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm and > then, like me, never used it, then I suspect the victim wouldn't make it. > But then in most countries there is NO morse code testing any more, so > there are plenty of hams now who've never learnt atall. For decades there > have been no code VHF hams in most countries anyway. > To "some" extent, I "may" have to disagree. I held a class once for "No Code Tech" and one of the guys - a man in his 70s asked if he could go for the code test even though I wasn't teaching code. He said he had learned it years ago in the service - but may be rusty. Let me tell you - when he was done testing, he had PERFECT copy. Was he practicing all along? We'll never know - nor did I ask. He has since passed on. Some people DO have a good memory and retain quite well. Others - lose things almost immediately if not used. Some of us, it takes a while to lose it and we usually do. Lou Article: 226573 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Dave" References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:24:33 -0000 Message-ID: <2JGdnWrribqLwCTZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@crocker.com> your request makes no sense... just what are you trying to do?? wrote in message news:1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Hello, > > Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V > Shortwave Antenna circuits? It is for use with a long vertical wire > antenna or TV antenna pole. I was wondering if anybody new of any > antenna circuits that meat this description. > > Thank you, > Matthew William Coan > Sat Jul 15 15:48:04 EDT 2006 > Article: 226574 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: matthewcoan@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Date: 15 Jul 2006 14:33:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1152999181.249928.78320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Dave wrote: > your request makes no sense... just what are you trying to do?? > > wrote in message > news:1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Hello, > > > > Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V > > Shortwave Antenna circuits? It is for use with a long vertical wire > > antenna or TV antenna pole. I was wondering if anybody new of any > > antenna circuits that meat this description. > > > > Thank you, > > Matthew William Coan > > Sat Jul 15 15:48:04 EDT 2006 > > I am trying to make a powered shortwave antenna circuit for use with a shortwave crystal radio. I wanted the circuit to use power directly >from the wall socket (AC 220V) so as to make a powerful and sensitive antenna out of a TV antenna or just a long wire. Thank You, Matthew William Coan Sat Jul 15 17:32:10 EDT 2006 Article: 226575 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w0zv@yahoo.com Subject: Re: hakko ? Date: 15 Jul 2006 15:28:38 -0700 Message-ID: <1153002518.914080.15010@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: ml wrote: > by chance would anyone know a place selling hakko soldering irons at a > good prices? Not exactly your question but take a look at Circuit Specialists CSI-STATION1A: http://www.circuitspecialists.com/prod.itml/icOid/7307 This is basically a clone of the Hakko 936, uses the same tips and even has the same schematic. I've had good luck with mine and the price is right at $34.95 Someone on the QRP-L list thought that the Chinese maufacturer might also be making the Hakko. Caveat emptor & 73! Bill W4ZV Article: 226576 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: jgboyles@aol.com Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Date: 15 Jul 2006 15:34:35 -0700 Message-ID: <1153002875.379459.36040@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> matthewcoan@hotmail.com wrote: > Dave wrote: > > your request makes no sense... just what are you trying to do?? > > > > wrote in message > > news:1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > Hello, > > > > > > Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V > > > Shortwave Antenna circuits? It is for use with a long vertical wire > > > antenna or TV antenna pole. I was wondering if anybody new of any > > > antenna circuits that meat this description. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Matthew William Coan > > > Sat Jul 15 15:48:04 EDT 2006 > > > > > I am trying to make a powered shortwave antenna circuit for use with a > shortwave crystal radio. I wanted the circuit to use power directly > from the wall socket (AC 220V) so as to make a powerful and sensitive > antenna out of a TV antenna or just a long wire. > > Thank You, > Matthew William Coan > Sat Jul 15 17:32:10 EDT 2006 Sounds like you need an active antenna. Try Google on active antenna and see what you get. An active antenna uses transistors or I.C's to amplify very short or poor antennas to increase the signal strength. Active antennas can be powered from AC mains with an appropriate power supply. With a crystal radio, normally you don't need any active devices. If signal boost is desired, you can do it on the RF end (active antenna), or on the Audio side (audio amp). Good Luck. Gary N4AST Article: 226577 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "g. beat" <@> References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2JGdnWrribqLwCTZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@crocker.com> <1152999181.249928.78320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:57:09 -0500 Message-ID: wrote in message news:1152999181.249928.78320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Dave wrote: >> your request makes no sense... just what are you trying to do?? >> >> wrote in message >> news:1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Hello, >> > >> > Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V >> > Shortwave Antenna circuits? It is for use with a long vertical wire >> > antenna or TV antenna pole. I was wondering if anybody new of any >> > antenna circuits that meat this description. >> > > > I am trying to make a powered shortwave antenna circuit for use with a > shortwave crystal radio. I wanted the circuit to use power directly > from the wall socket (AC 220V) so as to make a powerful and sensitive > antenna out of a TV antenna or just a long wire. > > Thank You, > Matthew William Coan > Sat Jul 15 17:32:10 EDT 2006 > >From your written question - these observations. 1. English is not your native language. IF it is - your spelling and grammar need work. 2. It appears to lack fundamental electrical and radio theory knowledge - a good way to get electrocuted with commercial line voltages (120 or 220 VAC) and appliances. 3. A crystal radio (shortwave) is limited by its overall sensitivity and the RF from broadcast stations that it can capture by the antenna. You just need a better antenna (higher in height or longer in length) The Xtal Set Society http://www.midnightscience.com/ Simple crystal radios http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/radio/radio.html 4. If you wish to improve the receiver - then you need to read Edwin Armstrong (regenerative and superhetrodyne designs) http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/armstrng.htm who blazed this trail you are attempting almost 100 years ago. 5. I think you need to follow this line of construction for improving your crystal radio http://www.techlib.com/electronics/crystal.html http://www.thebest.net/wuggy/ http://www.schmarder.com/radios/crystal/ gb "We who give advice or responses are survivors of the electrical and radio craft -- those who made serious mistakes -- did not survive their mistakes." Article: 226578 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Grey" References: <2mkog.58280$9c6.45638@dukeread11> Subject: Re: Anyone here think they would pay for a map like this? Message-ID: <14fug.10298$nK.1242@dukeread05> Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 18:41:15 -0500 I think I'm starting to get that "don't cast your pearls before swine" thing. "Chris W" <1qazse4@cox.net> wrote in message news:2mkog.58280$9c6.45638@dukeread11... > I have created some software to create a radial map to help you know > where to point your antenna. A sample of the map can be seen here... > http://www.thewishzone.com/cdw/hamradio/RadialMap.gif > > Pretty much any part of this map can be customized from the start and > end point of the radials how many degrees apart each one is, having > multiple sets of radials, such as a set every 1 degree from 97 to 100 > miles out with an other set from 5 to 200 miles every 15 degrees. Any > number of sets of any length can be done. As well as circles of any > size. All very easy, just supply the center lat long. I can also print > the map any size up to 42" wide/high. I've never printed had any paper > that big on this printer but I do know it will take paper that big. I > would have got a 36" wide printer but it was too slow, and this one is > faster. With the software I am developing creating the map is very easy > but obviously printing it isn't cheap. > > > > -- > 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: 226579 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:59:28 -0400 From: "J. D. B." Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: <32903$44b981da$d06640f9$12761@FUSE.NET> Dee, you can disagree all you want. The fact is that the world is moving on and away from CW testing. Not the mode, but the testing requirement. It is just outdated and not necessary. If you want to learn it and then use it, great. The time has come to stop forcing an old mode onto people. We can debate the merits of CW all day. In 200 years, no one will be using it. It will die a natural death like all languages because the world evolves. Better things come along. And like many humans, you are resisting change because people hate change. But change is inevitable. You cannot stop this change and it is a change for the better even if you won't admit it. History will show the only way to save the Amateur Radio Service and help its growth is to evolve and change. Out with the old and in with the new. Those that won't evolve will fade from the earth just like stone-age man. Good bye CW testing requirement. Your departure is long, long overdue. Dee Flint wrote: > > Again I disagree. That analogy is not really valid. A better one would be > comparing it to driving an automobile with a stick shift. I personally feel > that every one who drives should be required to know how to drive a stick. > They often get better mileage than automatics as an experienced driver can > do a better job of selecting the shift point than a mere gadget. More > people might select stick shifts if only they knew how to drive one. > > Dee, N8UZE > > Article: 226580 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Hymie_slowbotski@yah00.net (Hymie) Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT In article <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Dee Flint" wrote: > >"J. D. B." wrote in message >news:d6d2b$44b8dc47$d06640f9$20723@FUSE.NET... >> John, >> >> Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the >> fun is and the copy is much better. >> >> A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and various >> digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The best was >> DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also has a second >> channel to display additional information. >> >> CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the stone-age >> hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes. >> >> MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can use. >> MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many capabilities in the >> program. >> >> Move on and start having fun. >> > >You just don't get it do you. There are conditions for each mode that will >make that mode "the best". Every mode has its place. That goes for voice, >all the multiplicity of digital modes and yes CW. Last night you had the >best luck with DominoEx. Another night RTTY might be better. Another >night, voice might be more intelligible. Yet another night will favor CW. > >Based on what I've read about DominoEX, it is a form of Multi-Frequency >Shift Keying. This variation looks to be more robust than others, however, >anything that can compromise FSK and MFSK has the potential to compromise >DominoEX. It will merely be a matter of the degree of severity needed >before it becomes unusable. > >Just because something is old doesn't make it useless or stone age. Pencils >have been around far longer and are still highly useful. > >Dee, N8UZE Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode" Hymie Article: 226581 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Dan Andersson Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 02:08:54 +0100 References: Message-ID: Cecil Moore wrote: > Dave wrote: >> "Cecil Moore" wrote in message >>> "(sic)" signifies an exact reproduction of >>> the original text - and it was. > >> yeah, but its usually only used to flag an error in the original text so >> that readers know that the person quoting it did not introduce the error. > > Nothing said about any "error" in the definition of "(sic)". > The use was entirely appropriate for a largely US audience. Such an assumption... I would like to remind the vaguely English speaking US audience that there are more people outside the US that speaks English as their first or second language - most of whom have a rather good idea of the world as well. Also, most of them actually knows that Switzerlands capital is, not Stockholm... Cheers M0DFI Article: 226582 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 15 Jul 2006 18:10:53 -0700 Message-ID: <1153012253.101790.290630@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Hymie wrote: > In article <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Dee Flint" wrote: > > > >Dee, N8UZE > > > Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different > situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd > wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode" wrong again > > Hymie Article: 226583 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:06:14 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity References: Message-ID: <44b99f16$0$1012$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Dan Andersson wrote: > > I would like to remind the vaguely English speaking US audience that > there are more people outside the US that speaks English as their first or > second language - most of whom have a rather good idea of the world as > well. > Also, most of them actually knows that Switzerlands capital is, not > Stockholm... > > Cheers > > M0DFI If you're going to point out how others use the language poorly, then learn to use the language correctly. The posessive form of Switzerland is "Switzerland's". Stockholm is a very nice city; I especially like old town. It has some great live music bars. Too bad they tax alcohol so highly that the locals have to get smashed before they go out. 20 years ago a beer was 5 bucks, mixed drinks over 10, I shudder to think what it costs now. Did you know that Sweden consumes over 10 times the sugar needed for cookies, coffee, tea, and other needs? I here it all goes into stills. Wonder if has anything to do with taxes? tom K0TAR Article: 226584 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 21:19:14 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: All kinds of electromagnetic activity References: <44b99f16$0$1012$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <44b9a222$0$1018$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Tom Ring wrote: > Did you know that Sweden consumes over 10 times the sugar needed for > cookies, coffee, tea, and other needs? I here it all goes into stills. > Wonder if has anything to do with taxes? > > tom > K0TAR Eccuse me, "hear" tom K0TAR Article: 226585 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! From: Slow Code References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> Message-ID: <%miug.535$157.8@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:27:55 GMT John Barnard wrote in news:3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no: > J. D. B. wrote: >> Well at least your estate will get to keep your life savings. If you >> get sick late in the year, and the healthcare facility/hospital shut >> down for the rest of the year because it ran out of government money (a >> typical scenario in Canada), there will be no one to give you any care >> and you'll just die. > > You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be able > to handle reality. > > But hey, your life savings will still be intact! >> Is socialized health care great or what? Provided you don't die while standing in line for the doctor. SC Article: 226586 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 15 Jul 2006 21:11:38 -0700 Message-ID: <1153023098.148215.15320@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > "JOHN D" wrote in > news:gD2ug.2582$k31.2016@trnddc06: > > > > >> "L is easy to remember. "to hell with it". > >> > >>Thank you, I was haveing trouble confusing "F" and "L" > > > > I got nothing against CW, but being kept out of amateur radio for 40+ > > years cus I had difficulty learning the code, sucks. > > Finally, I got enough right to barely pass the 5 wpm test. Still can't > > find anybody slow enough for me to copy on the air. > > If I ever get good enough to use it, I'll try a few homebrew transmitter > > projects. > > > > I expect there are some technically competent people who might be > > interested in amateur radio, but have no interest in learning code. > > John > > They're not interested in being about to communicate in all ways > effectively, they just want to be phonies. They they could've stuck to CB > for that. why do you lie I'd love to various mode on HF indeed I oly use a mike half the time now oone can't "stick to CB for that" but you can't face facts Article: 226587 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 15 Jul 2006 21:13:29 -0700 Message-ID: <1153023209.619793.80920@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Slow Code wrote: > "an old friend" wrote in > news:1152931208.617498.208970@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote: > >> > >> Many ham are American Red Cross first aid and adult CPR instructors. > >> > >> That trumps CW at any speed. > > lol thank you for that > > Sorry Mark, the pumping and blowing you know isn't called CPR. i am skilled at CPR amoug other thing you uon the other have given us no reason to say your skilled at anything > > SC Article: 226588 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John - KD5YI Subject: Re: hakko ? References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:05:42 GMT ml wrote: > by chance would anyone know a place selling hakko soldering irons at a > good prices? > > > I've found a bunch of places via google, but non offer any 'special' > prices > > tnx http://www.kiesub.com/ Article: 226589 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "christine" References: <1153002518.914080.15010@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: hakko ? Message-ID: <3Ukug.19745$ME4.17247@reader1.news.jippii.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:19:16 +0300 wrote in message > ml wrote: >> by chance would anyone know a place selling hakko soldering irons at a >> good prices? > > Not exactly your question but take a look at Circuit Specialists > CSI-STATION1A: > > This is basically a clone of the Hakko 936, uses the same tips and even > has the same schematic. I've had good luck with mine and the price is > right at $34.95 Someone on the QRP-L list thought that the Chinese > maufacturer might also be making the Hakko. > > Caveat emptor & 73! > > Bill W4ZV hi! i wouldn't buy hakko, at least not for professional use. i found it wasn't very good, the heat wouldn't transfer to the soldering tip very well. my friend changed all 50 hakkos to weller even if they are 3-4 times more expensive ! cheers, christine Article: 226590 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 16:59:39 +1000 From: Zen Subject: Re: hakko ? References: <1153002518.914080.15010@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <3Ukug.19745$ME4.17247@reader1.news.jippii.net> Message-ID: <44b9e3dc_1@news.iprimus.com.au> christine wrote: > wrote in message > ml wrote: >>> by chance would anyone know a place selling hakko soldering irons at a >>> good prices? >> Not exactly your question but take a look at Circuit Specialists >> CSI-STATION1A: >> >> This is basically a clone of the Hakko 936, uses the same tips and even >> has the same schematic. I've had good luck with mine and the price is >> right at $34.95 Someone on the QRP-L list thought that the Chinese >> maufacturer might also be making the Hakko. >> >> Caveat emptor & 73! >> >> Bill W4ZV > > hi! > > i wouldn't buy hakko, at least not for professional use. > i found it wasn't very good, the heat wouldn't transfer to the soldering tip > very well. > my friend changed all 50 hakkos to weller even if they are 3-4 times more > expensive ! > > cheers, > christine > > > Which Model Weller did he change them for? I am looking for a new Iron thats ESD safe so i am curious. The impressive thing about the Hakko is the extensive tip range. very few irons have such a broad range, if they do they move you towards professional SMT stations for SMT tips etc. With Hakko you can at least get SMT tips for their cheap irons. Since i hand solder SMT this is great for me. Zen Article: 226591 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: John Barnard Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:04:53 GMT J. D. B. wrote: > Sorry John, do some reading for once as that is the reality of the > Canadian system. You'll actually learn something if you do research > yourself and not just listen to NPR and CNN. > > Now, on the other hand, if you live in the U.K., you'll still have > healthcare through the end of the year, but if you are too old, they > just let you die as it is not worth the expenditure to keep someone > old alive even longer. But again, hey, your estate gets to keep the > money! > > Come on, this isn't really John now is it? Hillary Clinton, is that > you? > > John Barnard wrote: > >> You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be >> able to handle reality. > >> JB >> > Here are your words: > If you get sick late in the year, and the healthcare > facility/hospital shut down for the rest of the year because it ran > out of government money (a typical scenario in Canada), there will be > no one to give you any care and you'll just die. Pray tell, oh wise one, from what source are you getting this information? You claim that this is a typical scenario in Canada, which is utter BS (= Bush shit), which means that it happens all the time. It seems rather strange that none of this seems to make the headlines or news. BTW, I overheard this while I was visiting in Toronto and witnessed an accident: " Wow! The police and ambulance are much quicker here than in Atlanta". JB Article: 226592 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Big Rich Soprano Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers If Necesssary. Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 05:53:11 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> >Warning. I, Paul W Schreck, blowgut of blowguts, and self-appointed >moderator, will be monitoring these newsgroups for inappropriate statements, >misuse of the groups, cross-posting and foul language and will be saving and >archiving your comments for future use. Good luck in a contest Smedly! Article: 226593 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dxAce Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:30:04 -0400 Message-ID: <44BA152C.550F3708@milestones.com> References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> John Barnard wrote: > J. D. B. wrote: > > Sorry John, do some reading for once as that is the reality of the > > Canadian system. You'll actually learn something if you do research > > yourself and not just listen to NPR and CNN. > > > > Now, on the other hand, if you live in the U.K., you'll still have > > healthcare through the end of the year, but if you are too old, they > > just let you die as it is not worth the expenditure to keep someone > > old alive even longer. But again, hey, your estate gets to keep the > > money! > > > > Come on, this isn't really John now is it? Hillary Clinton, is that > > you? > > > > John Barnard wrote: > > > >> You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be > >> able to handle reality. > > > >> JB > >> > > > Here are your words: > > > If you get sick late in the year, and the healthcare > > facility/hospital shut down for the rest of the year because it ran > > out of government money (a typical scenario in Canada), there will be > > no one to give you any care and you'll just die. > > Pray tell, oh wise one, from what source are you getting this > information? You claim that this is a typical scenario in Canada, which > is utter BS (= Bush shit), Are you certain that isn't Barnard shit? dxAce Michigan USA Article: 226594 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi Date: 16 Jul 2006 04:39:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1153049946.945606.107650@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <1152609823.761832.13220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > > Cecil, rather than help people with questions and give them good > > helpful answers you seem to just want to turn it into a peeing contest. > > Even if you have to drop sentences to make it appear someone else is > > wrong. > > Pot: Kettle, Kettle: Pot. > > This was a deliberate dose of your own medicine. When you > stop the deliberate obfuscation of my postings, the problem > will cease to exist. That's not true. You interact with others through obfuscation and bullying. I just wish you could control it a little bit becuase you do have useful things to say. Sometimes people want answers to questions Cecil. The J-pole is a good example where the focus should be on the antenna. All of the models I've found on Cebik's site and nearly all of the models elsewhere lack a ground or mast connection at the shorted feed-stub junction, while most J-poles have that connection. They also use a floating ground independent current source, which virtually no J-poles have in the real world. I'd bet nearly all J-pole are eventually fed by unbalanced feedlines or feedlines with finite common mode. The models, through pure accident or lack of basic understanding, use a BEST case feed simulation that masks all of the problems a J-pole has with common mode current. No designer in his right mind would use such a lousy feed system to feed a pattern sensitive design like a Yagi antenna, they are barely acceptable as a omni-antenna. 73 Tom Article: 226595 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:16:01 +0000 From: Scott Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF References: Message-ID: I think I worked you...I have NEVER seen 6M this good (and I've been on 6M for 21 years now). Just about EVERY signal was S9 +60 (yes, +60!!!)...WOW!! Signals were SO strong, my Kenwood 690S receiver was being overloaded. The plus side was that I didn't have to rotate the beam...I worked people off every possible angle from the Yagi! Even work XE2 and VP9 and THAT'S not a daily occurence up here in EN45 (WI). It was open all day like that and was still open a little when I went to bed just after midnight. 2M opened up so I actually turned down 6 to go work 2M stuff!! Scott N0EDV EN45fa Howard W3CQH wrote: > Please LQQK for us on Saturday and Sunday during the contest. > > We should be somewhere around FM07 or FM06 on both 6 & 2, SSB & FM. > > 73's > > Howard W3CQH > Jay K3JAY > and the rest of the Dark Side of The Force Contest Group! > > Article: 226596 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dxAce Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:22:51 -0400 Message-ID: <44BA3DAB.472F96E6@milestones.com> References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> John Barnard wrote: > J. D. B. wrote: > > Sorry John, do some reading for once as that is the reality of the > > Canadian system. You'll actually learn something if you do research > > yourself and not just listen to NPR and CNN. > > > > Now, on the other hand, if you live in the U.K., you'll still have > > healthcare through the end of the year, but if you are too old, they > > just let you die as it is not worth the expenditure to keep someone > > old alive even longer. But again, hey, your estate gets to keep the > > money! > > > > Come on, this isn't really John now is it? Hillary Clinton, is that > > you? > > > > John Barnard wrote: > > > >> You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be > >> able to handle reality. > > > >> JB > >> > > > Here are your words: > > > If you get sick late in the year, and the healthcare > > facility/hospital shut down for the rest of the year because it ran > > out of government money (a typical scenario in Canada), there will be > > no one to give you any care and you'll just die. > > Pray tell, oh wise one, from what source are you getting this > information? You claim that this is a typical scenario in Canada, which > is utter BS (= Bush shit), which means that it happens all the time. It > seems rather strange that none of this seems to make the headlines or news. Maybe they just don't want you to know the truth? Not surprising, since the government in CanaDuh woud fall if you ever discovered the truth. > BTW, I overheard this while I was visiting in Toronto and witnessed an > accident: " Wow! The police and ambulance are much quicker here than in > Atlanta". Did the accident involve the police and the ambulance racing to the donut shop? Maybe that's why they appeared to be quicker. dxAce Michigan USA Article: 226597 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 09:48:53 -0400 From: "J. D. B." Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <4niug.538$157.336@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1fc5a$44ba43c6$d06640f9$8681@FUSE.NET> Sorry Blow Code, but you cannot turn back the hands of time. The 13 & 20 WPM tests are gone forever. And soon, the CW testing requirement will be eliminated completely. It's the will of the majority. It's evolution. You can whine, cry and carry on all you want about the CW testing requirement. It is going the way of the buggy whip, the Ford Model-T, dinosaurs, the carrier pigeons, and a host of other old, outdated, and unnecessary things of the past. Good Bye and Good Riddance. Slow Code wrote: > Yes, just as long as it's still required to get a license and the speeds > need to be bumped back up to 13 & 20wpm again. > > SC Article: 226598 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi References: <1152609823.761832.13220@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1152631289.594334.34440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152643960.102707.230980@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152645952.257578.20580@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152651970.397776.294700@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152657212.158640.43920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152736765.706079.169140@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1152982153.622999.283230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153049946.945606.107650@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:51:33 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > You interact with others through obfuscation and bullying. I treat others the way they treat me. I treat you the way you treat me. You insist on turning my inclusive statements into exclusive straw men statements so you can argue with them. You are the only one who can change that interaction. We just had a civil exchange over on QRZ.COM where you didn't misquote me for a change. That could happen here. > No designer in his right mind would use such a lousy feed system to > feed a pattern sensitive design like a Yagi antenna, they are barely > acceptable as a omni-antenna. I agree with everything you said about J-Poles in this posting so you are apparently trying to set up yet another straw man. One wonders why you feel compelled to try such a transparent trick. When I disagree with you on one minor point, you react as if I had disagreed with you on all major points. You really need to learn the difference between "inclusive" and "exclusive". My disagreement was inclusive of your point 1, not with anything else you said. That's why I trimmed out everything else. What I disagreed with you on is that common-mode current is the same at two different points in a J-Pole system separated by a 1/4WL stub feed system. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226599 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: ve5axe@sasktel.net Subject: Homebrew antenna Date: 16 Jul 2006 09:01:25 -0700 Message-ID: <1153065685.640807.176450@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> I'm thinking of changing my antenna. Currently it is an inverted V cut to 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meters, with one feed point. Due to the fact I'm renting and can't put up a beam, I've put the dipole on an old TV tower, which has guy wires, that is on the apartment building, the dipole is mounted so that it is approx. 2 ft away from the tower structure itself and I've tried to get it as far away from the guy wires as possible, so it is mounted above the wires. My question is if I make another dipole using the same measurements and feed point only mount it so that it is at 90 degrees to the original dipole will I have any problems. Article: 226600 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 16 Jul 2006 09:03:28 -0700 Message-ID: <1153065808.874674.72870@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: J. D. B. wrote: > Sorry Blow Code, but you cannot turn back the hands of time. The 13 & 20 > WPM tests are gone forever. And soon, the CW testing requirement will > be eliminated completely. It's the will of the majority. It's > evolution. You can whine, cry and carry on all you want about the CW > testing requirement. It is going the way of the buggy whip, the Ford > Model-T, dinosaurs, the carrier pigeons, and a host of other old, > outdated, and unnecessary things of the past. Good Bye and Good Riddance. > not the majority prehaps it is the will of and judgement of those that are supposed to serve the bets interest of the people the best interest of the people are served but ending code testing and the code culture that has dominated it and sent it on a downword slide not certain we can fix it with NOCode but it will be easier to try > Slow Code wrote: > > > Yes, just as long as it's still required to get a license and the speeds > > need to be bumped back up to 13 & 20wpm again. > > > > SC Article: 226601 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "ferrymanr" Subject: Limited space horizontal loop for local 80M ops Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:04:41 +0100 Message-ID: I live in the top flat of a building with a flat roof about 24' (7.5M) x 21' (6.5M) and 30' (9M) above ground. I need an 80M antenna to operate locally around the SE part of England. I have limitations on what I can erect. I thought of a horizontal loop about 3' (1M) above the roof, possibly with 90uH to 100uH in each of the two side legs to help it resonate on 80M. I'm not very good at modelling and could not work out how I enter a reactance across the feedpoint to balance out the large negative reactance there. The FFT plot with EZNEC looks promising. Can someone help me to work out how to feed this antenna and what reactance I should add at the feedpoint. I have some options segarding the feeder and ATU. I have an SGS SG-230 ATU which I could mount near the loop or an LDG Z-11 that I could mount near the transmitter with a balun (I have several from 1:1 to 16:1) and balanced feed to the antenna. My preferred feeder is 50 or 300 ohm balanced as they are easily concealed or alternatively coax feeder and balun at the antenna. Thanks for any help. Richard (Dick) G4BBH Article: 226602 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Higgins Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <10lkb21ntkbdobai87o092m7vo484sv256@4ax.com> References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:59:12 GMT On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 16:17:46 -0400, "Dee Flint" wrote: >Again I disagree. That analogy is not really valid. A better one would be >comparing it to driving an automobile with a stick shift. I personally feel >that every one who drives should be required to know how to drive a stick. >They often get better mileage than automatics as an experienced driver can >do a better job of selecting the shift point than a mere gadget. More >people might select stick shifts if only they knew how to drive one. I think everyone should be tested on use of RTTY and PSK modes as a condition of receiving a license. Article: 226603 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? From: "Alun L. Palmer" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44b94f14$0$3631$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> Message-ID: Date: 16 Jul 2006 18:51:21 +0200 "clfe" wrote in news:44b94f14$0$3631$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net: > "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message > news:Xns9801992EDFA46elektrosmdonet@217.22.228.20... >> hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote in >> news:1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: >> >> If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm >> and then, like me, never used it, then I suspect the victim wouldn't >> make it. But then in most countries there is NO morse code testing any >> more, so there are plenty of hams now who've never learnt atall. For >> decades there have been no code VHF hams in most countries anyway. >> > > To "some" extent, I "may" have to disagree. I held a class once for "No > Code Tech" and one of the guys - a man in his 70s asked if he could go > for the code test even though I wasn't teaching code. He said he had > learned it years ago in the service - but may be rusty. Let me tell you > - when he was done testing, he had PERFECT copy. Was he practicing all > along? We'll never know - nor did I ask. He has since passed on. Some > people DO have a good memory and retain quite well. Others - lose > things almost immediately if not used. Some of us, it takes a while to > lose it and we usually do. > > Lou > > > It is possible that someone could learn at 5wpm, not use it for years, and still be able to use it, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the only mode available, and that hams are about the only remaining users of CW. Article: 226604 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. From: "Alun L. Palmer" References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET> <32903$44b981da$d06640f9$12761@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: Date: 16 Jul 2006 19:15:12 +0200 "J. D. B." wrote in news:32903$44b981da$d06640f9$12761@FUSE.NET: > Dee, you can disagree all you want. The fact is that the world is > moving on and away from CW testing. Not the mode, but the testing > requirement. > It is just outdated and not necessary. If you want to learn it and > then use it, great. The time has come to stop forcing an old mode onto > people. We can debate the merits of CW all day. In 200 years, no one > will be using it. It will die a natural death like all languages > because the world evolves. Better things come along. And like many > humans, you are resisting change because people hate change. But > change is inevitable. You cannot stop this change and it is a change > for the better even if you won't admit it. History will show the only > way to save the Amateur Radio Service and help its growth is to evolve > and change. Out with the old and in with the new. Those that won't > evolve will fade from the earth just like stone-age man. Good bye CW > testing requirement. Your departure is long, long overdue. > > Dee Flint wrote: > >> >> Again I disagree. That analogy is not really valid. A better one >> would be comparing it to driving an automobile with a stick shift. I >> personally feel that every one who drives should be required to know >> how to drive a stick. They often get better mileage than automatics as >> an experienced driver can do a better job of selecting the shift point >> than a mere gadget. More people might select stick shifts if only >> they knew how to drive one. >> >> Dee, N8UZE >> >> > As it happens, I do think people should have to learn on a stick shift, but I don't support code testing. If you can't drive a stick shift, you can't drive my car, as every car I've had has had a stick shift and so will every car I buy in future. OTOH, every rig I've bought has come with a mic, and none of them came with a key. Now, I know you can get some QRP rigs that are CW only. The point is, there is a very real chance that it may be necessary to drive someone else's car in an emergency, or even just to help out. What happens when you need to get someone to the emergency room and the only car available is a stick shift? It's no good saying that statistically manual shifts are declining in sales, as there are plenty of us who will never buy an automatic. OK, maybe you can say that you don't own a mic, and all the rigs in your shack are hooked up to a key (good luck on the local repeater!). What then is the realistic scenario where I will have to use one of your radios to save the world? (or even to save the next door neighbour) Doesn't seem to likely, does it? Article: 226605 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 16 Jul 2006 10:16:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1153070161.533747.325300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Alun L. Palmer wrote: > "clfe" wrote in > news:44b94f14$0$3631$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net: > > > "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message > > news:Xns9801992EDFA46elektrosmdonet@217.22.228.20... > >> hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote in > >> news:1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > >> > >> If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm > > > > Lou > > > > > > > > It is possible that someone could learn at 5wpm, not use it for years, and > still be able to use it, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it. > > More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the > only mode available, and that hams are about the only remaining users of > CW. oh I can imgine that much bt then however I can't take the next and imagine that cw is all their is andthat the message is going to do anygood the only senario like that is independace day Article: 226606 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:16:52 -0400 Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> In article , "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: > Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to send CW > but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on. I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was based. Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating a digital camera user: "If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" Article: 226607 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:24:36 -0000 Message-ID: <12bktikg7r3huc9@corp.supernews.com> References: <62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET> <10lkb21ntkbdobai87o092m7vo484sv256@4ax.com> In article <10lkb21ntkbdobai87o092m7vo484sv256@4ax.com>, Jim Higgins wrote: >I think everyone should be tested on use of RTTY and PSK modes as a >condition of receiving a license. Ability to copy by ear, ability to create high-quality modulation by whistling, or both? -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 226608 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44b94f14$0$3631$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:59:32 -0400 On 16 Jul 2006 18:51:21 +0200, "Alun L. Palmer" wrote: >More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the >only mode available A transmitter with no mic, no computer - just a transmit switch. Or not even a transmit switch, but you can get to one of the battery wires. Far fetched, but it could happen. >and that hams are about the only remaining users of CW. Boy Scouts? The military no longer uses CW - what used to be passed by brass pounders is now passed digitally. Merchant Marine? Same thing. Aero commo? Same thing, except for voice. I doubt any group or service actually uses it these days. Article: 226609 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> References: <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:04:56 -0400 On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT, Hymie_slowbotski@yah00.net (Hymie) wrote: >Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different >situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd >wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode" Even those who tout digital modes - they want to buy an interface and software and "be" on digital. Then they wonder why the signal they're hearing, that sounds just like the digital mode they use, doesn't work on their setup. Maybe because a PSK program won't decode SSTV? Reminds me of the GPRS "exerts" who can't understand why changing the "code" on their radios doesn't eliminate the interference from the guy next door. The anti-CW crowd wants no code and a written test you can memorize the answers to. It's their "right" to be on the air, isn't it? Even if they need 2 more clues to be totally clueless? Article: 226610 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "JeffM" Subject: [SPAM] Some people refuse to learn from their errors Date: 16 Jul 2006 11:25:33 -0700 Message-ID: <1153074333.126707.117090@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: was: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 each. AAA RF Products wrote: >[SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM] http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.components/browse_frm/thread/e3786ad39814b5f6/9db691e887340175?q=a-lot-of-ill-will+zzz+SPAM+qq+your-inappropriate-attempts-at-advertising+scumbag Article: 226611 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 16 Jul 2006 11:26:38 -0700 Message-ID: <1153074398.607078.121310@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT, Hymie_slowbotski@yah00.net (Hymie) > wrote: > > >Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different > >situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd > >wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode" > > Even those who tout digital modes - they want to buy an interface and > software and "be" on digital. Then they wonder why the signal they're > hearing, that sounds just like the digital mode they use, doesn't work > on their setup. Maybe because a PSK program won't decode SSTV? learn what you are tlaking about psk31 sounds very little like sstv and most of the programs that can demolate it show you a spectrograhand they look nothing alike there is some time confusion in wether that sgnal BPSK 31 or QPSK31 but the marvels of Windows wallo me to run the output of the sound card interface to at least 2 program so it can be worked out you just want to bash any ham that doesnot follow your morse fetish > > Reminds me of the GPRS "exerts" who can't understand why changing the > "code" on their radios doesn't eliminate the interference from the guy > next door. > > The anti-CW crowd wants no code and a written test you can memorize > the answers to. It's their "right" to be on the air, isn't it? Even > if they need 2 more clues to be totally clueless? it is our right and everybody else right that any restriction to our access to public spectrum be "neccisary and proper" (one of 3 clauses in the constitution that give the power to regulate the airwave to the govet at all) otherwise the 10 reserving all right and power to the sates or the people applies modifing that is the thrid place where the consititution of US touches on this issue mby making the constitution and the TREATIES made the supreme law of the land according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect for that document Article: 226612 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi Date: 16 Jul 2006 12:19:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1153077576.701721.63440@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1152631289.594334.34440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> The poor guy trying to learn about the J-pole probably didn't learn a thing about the J-pole Yagi feed. He probably thinks the model on the W4RNL site is a valid model. Way to go! 73 Tom Article: 226613 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Bob Miller Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! Message-ID: References: <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152859619.850299.129880@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 19:45:15 GMT On 13 Jul 2006 23:46:59 -0700, "RHF" wrote: > >Reg Edwards wrote: >> > As For Me - I Was Born In The USA -and- >> > I Am Proud To Be An American ! ~ RHF >> ==================================== >> >- You are proud to be a US Citizen. >- >- Canadans, Cubans, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Chileans, >- etc., are also Americans. The name has been high-jacked. > >RE, > >The Mexicans just may refer to themselves as : Norte Amercanos >-or- Americanos del Norte >http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estados_Unidos_da_Am%C3%A9rica > >The Cubans might call themselves : Americanos de Cuba. > >Seriously NO Canadian would call themselves an : American [.] >- - - Even the French Canadians would say : Je Suis Un Canadien ! > >And the Argentinians, Chileans would most likely call themselves : >Sur Americanos -or- Americanos del Sur -or- Americanos Latinos > >The Brazilians being slightly different would say : Americanos Sul > >Only an American (USA) would Boldly Say : >I Am An American ! - and I Am Proud of It ! >and so say i ~ RHF > . > . >. . Runaway nationalism has its problems. bob k5qwg Article: 226614 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Limited space horizontal loop for local 80M ops Date: 16 Jul 2006 13:23:06 -0700 Message-ID: <1153081386.607703.302640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: If you're only interested in 80m, get a good split stator loop tuning capacitor and put it opposite the feedpoint in the loop. Make the loop out of the fattest conductor you can find. It'll basically be a big halo antenna for 80m. (maybe you could call it a magnetic loop.. i don't know if people ascribe a particular fraction of a wavelength limit on magnetic loop sizes)..You'll need a motor drive for the cap, because as modeled with 3/4" copper tubing and 3-j1200 ohms opposite the feedpoint, the 2:1 SWR bandwidth is about 15kHz. Radiation resistance is 1.85 ohms or something like that, so you'd need low loss connections for all the wires and a welded capacitor... if you do it all right, though, you'd have a good efficient radiator for local communications. Just a thought. I think this would give you better performance than trying to inductively load the legs. 73, Dan Article: 226615 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi References: <1152631289.594334.34440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152643960.102707.230980@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152645952.257578.20580@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152651970.397776.294700@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152657212.158640.43920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152736765.706079.169140@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1152982153.622999.283230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153049946.945606.107650@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153077576.701721.63440@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <74yug.68427$Lm5.26094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:20:03 GMT w8ji@akorn.net wrote: > The poor guy trying to learn about the J-pole probably didn't learn a > thing about the J-pole Yagi feed. He probably thinks the model on the > W4RNL site is a valid model. Again you divert the issue. Will you never learn to admit a simple mistake and move on? You were ignorant of the definition of the word "rationalize" but you are unlikely ever to admit it. If you simply change your bad boy ways, the world will be a much better place for all the rest of us. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226616 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "ferrymanr" References: <1153081386.607703.302640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Limited space horizontal loop for local 80M ops Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:42:56 +0100 Message-ID: Dan Remember that this has to be a 'stealth' antenna as I live dead center in the town with a lady councillor opposite, the town council office 75 yards away and town hall about 150 yards away. This rules out low loss copper pipe etc. Most of the small 'magnetic loop' antennas are intended for vertical use which would also stand out like a sore thumb here. The advantage of the wire loop is that many buildings here have wire around the roof to deter seagulls, that means my wire would not be conspicuous. When I modelled my 21' x 24' horizontal square loop with loading coils of about 90uH in each side leg I got a feed impedance of over 300 ohms but with -j5000 or thereabouts. The swr curved dipped nicely at 3.65 MHz to a manageable level if I used a 4:1 balun and 300 ohm line feed. I reasoned that as the natural loop resonance was between 20M band and 30M band I could link out the coils and operate those bands too, although that would means climbing up a ladder out of the rooflight rather more often than my old bones like. Richard (Dick) G4BBH Article: 226617 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: ml Subject: Re: hakko ? References: Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:48:42 GMT In article , ml wrote: > by chance would anyone know a place selling hakko soldering irons at a > good prices? > > > I've found a bunch of places via google, but non offer any 'special' > prices > > tnx thanks all Article: 226618 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:54:07 -0400 Message-ID: <12blgpd5pg2o73a@corp.supernews.com> References: One evening at 2330Z, KUT 90.5 covered WKAR 90.5 just long enough for me to hear KUT's station announcement! Texas is a long distance from Michigan. It is important to note that the receiver was receiving WKAR (about 50 miles away) with a signal just a little above noise threshold because of a metal bulkhead in my new office. (I will have a better antenna before I am done.) 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Scott" wrote in message news:Ir-dnfnXTZ2PoSfZnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@bright.net... > I think I worked you...I have NEVER seen 6M this good (and I've been on > 6M for 21 years now). Just about EVERY signal was S9 +60 (yes, > +60!!!)...WOW!! Signals were SO strong, my Kenwood 690S receiver was > being overloaded. The plus side was that I didn't have to rotate the > beam...I worked people off every possible angle from the Yagi! Even > work XE2 and VP9 and THAT'S not a daily occurence up here in EN45 (WI). > It was open all day like that and was still open a little when I went > to bed just after midnight. 2M opened up so I actually turned down 6 to > go work 2M stuff!! > > Scott > N0EDV > EN45fa > > Howard W3CQH wrote: > > > Please LQQK for us on Saturday and Sunday during the contest. > > > > We should be somewhere around FM07 or FM06 on both 6 & 2, SSB & FM. > > > > 73's > > > > Howard W3CQH > > Jay K3JAY > > and the rest of the Dark Side of The Force Contest Group! > > > > Article: 226619 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BAEB96.7010107@fuse.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 21:44:54 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing References: <44995516$0$11193$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <1aOdnQMcX-kk9gTZnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com> <129lvnf4h9st2d3@corp.supernews.com> <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Slow Code wrote: > "RHF" wrote in > news:1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > >>JB - Spoken like a True Red and White >>{Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF >> . >> . >>. . >> > > > > Kanadians are more Red... Commie Red. > slow code is lo-co Article: 226620 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing Date: 16 Jul 2006 19:00:24 -0700 Message-ID: <1153101624.875176.246610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: jawod wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > "RHF" wrote in > > news:1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > > > > >>JB - Spoken like a True Red and White > >>{Blue-in-the-Face} Canadian ~ RHF > >> . > >> . > >>. . > >> > > > > > > > > Kanadians are more Red... Commie Red. > > > slow code is lo-co yea he canada arabs jews it seems, Ham radio, republicans and democrats anybody he doesn't hate Article: 226621 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 each. Date: 16 Jul 2006 19:03:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1153101822.957736.32090@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: AAA RF Products wrote: > For Sale: Finest quality PL-259's silver plated contact & body, Teflon > insulation, nickel plated coupling nut. Unlimited quantity available. > > 1 to 99 ------ $1.67 each > > 100 to 499----$1.50 each > > 500+----------$1.40 each > > Immediate shipment, FOB: San Clemente, CA > > No minimum order. > > No handling charges. > > Please email sales@AAARFProducts.com > > or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) > > See our catalog @ www.aaarfproducts.com spam perhaps but at least it is better than most of the posting these days Article: 226622 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 16 Jul 2006 19:10:02 -0700 Message-ID: <1153102202.937363.109480@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Fred McKenzie wrote: > In article , "Alun L. > Palmer" wrote: > > > Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to send CW > > but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on. > > I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was based. > > Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating a > digital camera user: > > "If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save > him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" Time magazine. Article: 226623 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Antenna optimization Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:13:35 -0400 Message-ID: <12blsff78i13lbe@corp.supernews.com> References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <44b595b8$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Dear Reg: Patents are one of the things that makes a creative people great. In the Republic's Constitution patents and copyright are listed. Citizens have thereby a means to increase their wealth and provide employment while having available the power of the courts to protect their rights. Not all lawyers are in favor of patents. A few, before they are cashiered, are against anything that inconveniences their clients, including laws. At the other extreme, a few lawyers serving as judges have expressed disgust at the patent system, supposedly because it rewards the creative. Please look for some Midwestern wine. It may assist you in recovering the common sense seen in your early work. Warm regards, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Reg Edwards" wrote > - > > Is that why lawyers are all in favor of patents? > > Article: 226624 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BAF290.6060607@fuse.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:14:40 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF References: Howard W3CQH wrote: > Please LQQK for us on Saturday and Sunday during the contest. > > We should be somewhere around FM07 or FM06 on both 6 & 2, SSB & FM. > > 73's > > Howard W3CQH > Jay K3JAY > and the rest of the Dark Side of The Force Contest Group! > > A quick question: What is FM07 and FM06? Just curious John AB8WH Article: 226625 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BAF4C5.4060705@fuse.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:24:05 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: (OT) : Democrat's Out-Sourcing "Hate America" To Canada ! References: <129m9ijcnshm47f@corp.supernews.com> <129ofcclvejs22f@corp.supernews.com> <0bjo92p0h2dfqcum243lc3u1mqv49nu10h@4ax.com> <1152720850.662591.37690@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1152839909.231750.229790@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152848674.361536.176700@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <3C_tg.191877$IK3.72019@pd7tw1no> J. D. B. wrote: > Sorry John, do some reading for once as that is the reality of the > Canadian system. You'll actually learn something if you do research > yourself and not just listen to NPR and CNN. > > Now, on the other hand, if you live in the U.K., you'll still have > healthcare through the end of the year, but if you are too old, they > just let you die as it is not worth the expenditure to keep someone old > alive even longer. But again, hey, your estate gets to keep the money! > > Come on, this isn't really John now is it? Hillary Clinton, is that you? > > John Barnard wrote: > >> You are one delusional mofo! Lay off the Bush sauce and you'll be able >> to handle reality. > > >> JB >> Oh Brother! Reality check time: Why don't YOU read a bit about Medicare D? Aging baby boomers are about to be screwed in ways they couldn't even imagine. Insurance companies entirely control Congressional debate and actually write the rules. Most of Congress doesn't even READ what they're signing on to. O'Reilly, is that you? Article: 226626 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:25:30 -0400 From: Mike Coslo Subject: Re: Antenna optimization References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Richard Clark wrote: > On 12 Jul 2006 14:41:59 -0700, w0zv@yahoo.com wrote: > > >>Brian's revenue flow is not being broken since he no longer has any >>revenue flow from it. > > > Hi Bill, > > This is NOT a defense against infringement. The author's rights are > total, and the author's monopoly is total. There is nothing in the > law that suspends those rights or monopoly even in the event of death > of the author, so being out of the market place is a specious > argument. > > This, and everything else you've had to offer may in fact be done, I > see folks run red lights frequently too. > > >>If you read his agreement carefully, it only >>prohibits transfer of the software itself. > > > I've read many agreements, but not this one. If you have a means to > render it faithfully here, then perhaps so; otherwise those others > I've read inform me better. Richard, I loved the "irony" comment, but there is nothing preventing the product of a piece of software from being used for something else. It's quite legal, and that's how "things" work. Designing an antenna from a piece of software does not mean that the antenna design belongs to the person who writes the software. That would mean that the person who did the programming for a CAD program owns the rights to all the devices designed with it. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Article: 226627 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BAF5A3.9000409@fuse.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:27:47 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <12bhqgcrmppd4eb@corp.supernews.com> <44B8EBB8.C221285D@milestones.com> dxAce wrote: > > Smokey wrote: > > >>If you want easy...and most of the CW whiners do...why don't you just hook >>your laptop up to your DSL line and stay the hell off the air? >> >>Jeez, you've got a pathetic joke for an exam now with canned questions to >>memorize and no code to learn. Too bad you're not still in your mother's >>womb so you don't have to feed yourselves. Though you have deluded >>yourselves into believing you are "hams," you are hardly believable when you >>wear that title. The only reason you have been able to slip through into the >>dumbed-down requirements and some sort of fcc "license" sham is because your >>appliance manufacturers that make your rigs and the charlatans like the arrl >>are selling out the hobby so they can sell you things. >> >> It's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and you no-coder idiots have fallen for it. >> >>As for traditional, genuine "hams, we may be from the "Stone Age," but once >>the dinosauers became extinct the pristine landscape took on pollution and >>overcrowding. You simpletons have all drank the Kool-Aid and cannot see that >>you are parties to the eventual elimination of ham radio. >> >>Thank God for "stone age hams," for at least there is someone still around >>that knows something about the avocation. > > > Amen. > > dxAce > Michigan > USA > > >> >>"J. D. B." wrote in message >>news:d6d2b$44b8dc47$d06640f9$20723@FUSE.NET... >> >>>John, >>> >>>Just get on digital modes. Don't worry about CW. Digital is where the >>>fun is and the copy is much better. >>> >>>A buddy of mine in St. Louis and I experimented with low power and >>>various digital modes last night on 40 meters. CW was marginal. The >>>best was DominoEX with FEC - just about 100% all the time and it also >>>has a second channel to display additional information. >>> >>>CW can be fun at times, but maybe it's not your thing. Let the >>>stone-age hams continue with CW, and move up and on to the digital modes. >>> >>>MultiPSK, while a bit cluttered and ugly, is a great program you can >>>use. MixW is cleaner looking and very good, but not as many >>>capabilities in the program. >>> >>>Move on and start having fun. >>> >>>JDB >>> >>>JOHN D wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I got nothing against CW, but being kept out of amateur radio for 40+ >> >>years >> >>>>cus I had difficulty learning the code, sucks. >>>>Finally, I got enough right to barely pass the 5 wpm test. Still can't >> >>find >> >>>>anybody slow enough for me to copy on the air. >>>>If I ever get good enough to use it, I'll try a few homebrew transmitter >>>>projects. >>>> >>>>I expect there are some technically competent people who might be >> >>interested >> >>>>in amateur radio, but have no interest in learning code. >>>>John >>>> >>>> > > Lighten up. There's room for everyone. I love CW but I have no illusions about it's ultimate capabilities. It's just FUN! Looking forward to experimenting with digital, too. I'd do more SSB if only I knew what to say. hihi John AB8WH Article: 226628 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BAF717.2090001@fuse.net> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:33:59 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <2JGdnWrribqLwCTZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@crocker.com> <1152999181.249928.78320@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> matthewcoan@hotmail.com wrote: > Dave wrote: > >>your request makes no sense... just what are you trying to do?? >> >> wrote in message >>news:1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>>Hello, >>> >>> Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V >>>Shortwave Antenna circuits? It is for use with a long vertical wire >>>antenna or TV antenna pole. I was wondering if anybody new of any >>>antenna circuits that meat this description. >>> >>>Thank you, >>> Matthew William Coan >>> Sat Jul 15 15:48:04 EDT 2006 >>> > > > I am trying to make a powered shortwave antenna circuit for use with a > shortwave crystal radio. I wanted the circuit to use power directly > from the wall socket (AC 220V) so as to make a powerful and sensitive > antenna out of a TV antenna or just a long wire. > > Thank You, > Matthew William Coan > Sat Jul 15 17:32:10 EDT 2006 > Tell me where to send the flowers for your funeral. Article: 226629 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "J. Mc Laughlin" Subject: Re: Antenna optimization Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:41:21 -0400 Message-ID: <12blu3ejrl94356@corp.supernews.com> References: <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <44b595b8$0$1008$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <12bb6vskrf58l28@corp.supernews.com> <12bbedm11d1eubd@corp.supernews.com> Dear Owen: I was indicating a contract that was specific to the intellectual property involved. As you know very well: to have a contract, certain things must exist. Often with software, a meeting of the minds between the two parties is absent ("agreement" is inside of the software package or is too vague) or at least highly attenuated because of no chance to bargain. A license is usually a contract. One of the best such agreements that I have seen is one that was used by WordPerfect. It was short, clear, and provided for the natural needs of both parties. One of the worst was a proffered contract (for the purchase of a quantity of computers plus software) by a very major computer company that was long, convoluted, and essentially wanted your first born son it there were any deviation from the terms. At the same time, a contract was proffered by a then major Midwestern company. It was on one side of a piece of paper, clear, and said that as long as good faith was shown to comply with all of the terms, there would be no penalties assessed. The effects on comparing these two documents is obvious. Of course, if the subject matter is lawful, parties may contract anything. However, the courts may not enforce some contracts depending on the nature of the clause at issue and the manner in which the contract was presented. The contracts least likely to have problems are those between parties of roughly equal bargaining power. No matter what the issue is, I always advise clients to practice the golden-rule. Do not ask for too much. Do not promise too much. Be reasonable. Be clear. I an not sure, but I do not think that I disagree with what you have presented. I will be off to bed with one more example of what the law is and should be: the contract provisions of an insurance contract were being contested in court: the judge took judicial notice that a reasonable person would find a contradiction between what was on one page and what was on another page, thus that clause means whatever the plaintiff thinks it means. After that judgment, that type of contract became much more clear. There is more to a contract than the words of the contract - sometimes. 73, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: JCM@Power-Net.Net "Owen Duffy" wrote in message news:ggfbb2dilagfnns7lssmioqnjku64bse6t@4ax.com... > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:12:20 -0400, "J. Mc Laughlin" > wrote: > > > > Absent a specific contract to the contrary, one who legally purchases a > >copyrighted work may sell it, destroy it, read it if it can be read, and run > >it on a computer if it is software. Such a lawful copy may be used to > >facilitate the crafting of another work (such as using WordPerfect to write > >a letter) or may be used to facilitate the fabrication of useful articles > >(such as the use of EZNEC to design an antenna that is improved in some > >way). > > Mac, I am not sure of you meaning of a "specific contract". > > It is often the case that we acquire software (being a copyright work) > under a licence that is an agreement between the licensor and the > licensee. > > The agreement may be in the form of a general license, for instance an > end user licence that the user is deemed to have accepted in using the > software, or it could be in the form of a specific formal agreement > executed by the parties. > > That agreement may limit the licensee's rights, including the purpose > for which software is used. > > I give an example, the BestOne mainframe performance evaluation suite > licence limited it use to execution a specific computer and explicitly > only for analysis of performance data collected from that computer. > > Isn't the license agreement like any contract in that the parties can > agree to anything lawful. > > It seems to me that one has to read the relevant licence agreement to > form a view on what is or isn't permitted by the licence in addition > to any rights under copyright statutes. > > Owen > -- Article: 226630 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 each. Date: 16 Jul 2006 19:47:04 -0700 Message-ID: <1153104424.497450.62710@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: Michael A. Terrell wrote: > an_old_friend wrote: > > > > AAA RF Products wrote: > > > For Sale: Finest quality PL-259's silver plated contact & body, Teflon > > > insulation, nickel plated coupling nut. Unlimited quantity available. > > > > > > 1 to 99 ------ $1.67 each > > > > > > 100 to 499----$1.50 each > > > > > > 500+----------$1.40 each > > > > > > Immediate shipment, FOB: San Clemente, CA > > > > > > No minimum order. > > > > > > No handling charges. > > > > > > Please email sales@AAARFProducts.com > > > > > > or call 949 481 3154 (San Clemente, CA, USA) > > > > > > See our catalog @ www.aaarfproducts.com > > spam perhaps but at least it is better than most of the posting these > > days > > > Look at the crappy no name coax and super cheap connectors on their > website before you decide anything. BTW, they have a very bad > attitude. One of their salesmen was on one of the sci.electronics > groups telling people off. why should I I just did not care for the action of another in trying to jam a post that yea is spam is at least ontopic instead all the posters trying to make issues out of people sexlife his product can be totaltrash but total trashis better than a post that consists entily of "you are faggot" as many post here do you don't like his product don't buy it > > > -- > 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: 226631 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:55:53 -0400 From: Mike Coslo Subject: Re: Antenna optimization References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: w0zv@yahoo.com wrote: > Richard Clark wrote: > >>On 11 Jul 2006 13:45:49 -0700, w0zv@yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >>>Ben AD7GD wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On 2006-07-11, w0zv@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>Unfortunately K6STI no longer markets his software to hams (due to >>>>>software piracy issues). Hopefully you can find someone with a copy >>>>>who can optimize your initial results. >>>> >>>>Careful, you're pegging my irony meter. >>> >>>Why? The documentation says: >>> >>>************************************************************************ >>> This software is copyrighted. It has been provided to >>> you on the condition that you will not sell, rent, lend, give >>> away, or otherwise transfer the software to others. >>>************************************************************************ >>> >>>As I read it, there is no problem if I use it to optimize a model >>>for someone else. I'm NOT volunteering to do that however. >> >>Hi Bill, >> >>Strange as it may seem, yes you would be in violation. >> >>Copyright is the author's total monopoly to insure his revenue from >>his creation. If you disrupt that revenue flow you are breaking the >>law. You said it yourself, he doesn't market to amateurs - rather >>professionals who will pay for the LICENSE to use it professionally. >>If they choose to do someone a favor, and drop their fee, that is >>their hit, not his. He granted them the right, by LICENSE and at a >>cost, to lose money if they wish. > > > Hi Richard, > > 1. I paid for the non-professional version of K6STI's software while he > WAS selling to amateurs. If you read his agreement carefully, it only > prohibits transfer of the software itself. > > 2. I am not sure Brian markets YO to professionals any longer. There > was apparently one well-known antenna manufacturer who bought his > non-professional version and used it to design commercial antennas. I > understand that this contributed to Brian's decision to exit the > amateur business, but the main reason was someone in Europe hacked his > RITTY program and posted it publicly. I don't get it. A professional uses a piece of software designed for non-professionals to design antennas, so the writer of the software stops offering the software to the non-professionals? Seems backwards. > 3. If I were to do a gratis optimization for someone today, that would > not violate the original license (i.e. transfer of the software itself) > and Brian's revenue flow is not being broken since he no longer has any > revenue flow from it. If a professional consultant were involved, they > would have to show they sustained actual damages (i.e. lost business) > which might be difficult to prove (not to mention the time and cost of > doing so). You are correct of course, but I don't understand the basic premise. Let us use say, Mathcad instead of YO. Mathcad sells it's software with the full knowledge that people are going to do things with it. Like design things, and make money with them - or research dollars. It is exactly what the program is designed to do. Mathcad's authors do not own or have copyright to those things designed with it. If the gentleman gets angry because people use his software, that is his right, but it seems odd. >>Hence the irony meter being pegged. > > > No, that's the too-much-time-on-their-hands troll meter pegging. :-) > > It's a shame the piracy issue drove K6STI from the ham business. He is > truly a genius and I love his AO, YO and DSP Blaster programs. I > believe he's now doing something in the audiophile business...their > gain and our loss. Audiophiles!!!!! OMG! Did ya ever see those rocks for audiophiles that are supposed to make their sound systems sound better?.... or http://www.musicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=ABEDDBEAM and: http://www.musicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=AAILUMINATOR and of course: http://www.musicdirect.com/products/detail.asp?sku=ACARCD rant off Oh well, as you can see, its an easier group to please.... Sorry for taking this OT thread even further OT... - 73 de Mike KB3EIA Article: 226632 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "lu6etj" Subject: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 16 Jul 2006 20:10:45 -0700 Message-ID: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Dear friends It is usually said (in my country) that the double bazooka antenna is less noisy than a standard dipole. I think that there are not good reasons that endorse such a statement for noises coming from the far field (maybe it has some advantage with near field noises or maybe because its frequency response cures some pitfails of the associated receiver). I have looked for information in the net about this topica but I have not been lucky. I suppose that you have treated this topic at some time. If you can point me to a link to read about I would be very grateful to you. Also if you can give me your opinion in this respect. Thank you very much in advance Miguel (LU 6ETJ) Article: 226633 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Antenna optimization Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:24:27 -0700 Message-ID: <480mb2tqbai6r3tcpuea9fgu7qfogq6ql1@4ax.com> References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:25:30 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: >Richard, I loved the "irony" comment, but there is nothing preventing >the product of a piece of software from being used for something else. >It's quite legal, and that's how "things" work. > Hi Mike, I thought this topic had died a placid death - George Romero (another PA resident) must have a hand in its continuance.... Anyway, a review of: http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt might give some insight into how industry has created their own rights >from legislation called DRM (Digital Rights Management). "Thinking" something is legal is not always "how" things work. The video presentation of this written document, circulating through Micro$oft for several years, is available at Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904758034876244745&q=cory+doctorow You get to hear one of M$'s ringer lawyers try to pin Cory down, and instead become roadkill. Cory rolled over him like a Lincoln. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226634 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:48:53 -0400 From: Mike Coslo Subject: Re: Antenna optimization References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <480mb2tqbai6r3tcpuea9fgu7qfogq6ql1@4ax.com> Message-ID: Richard Clark wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:25:30 -0400, Mike Coslo > wrote: > > >>Richard, I loved the "irony" comment, but there is nothing preventing >>the product of a piece of software from being used for something else. >>It's quite legal, and that's how "things" work. >> > > > Hi Mike, > > I thought this topic had died a placid death - George Romero (another > PA resident) must have a hand in its continuance.... Sorry about that, Richard - I shudda looked at the date before diving in (half of a mixed metaphor), that was from the 12th > Anyway, a review of: > http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt > might give some insight into how industry has created their own rights > from legislation called DRM (Digital Rights Management). > > "Thinking" something is legal is not always "how" things work. Of course not. I've no doubt that a person can be sued for anything, and nothing can prevent that. > > The video presentation of this written document, circulating through > Micro$oft for several years, is available at Google Video: > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904758034876244745&q=cory+doctorow > > You get to hear one of M$'s ringer lawyers try to pin Cory down, and > instead become roadkill. Cory rolled over him like a Lincoln. Okay, you got even with me, Richard! Sending me hours of interesting stuff at 11:30 at night! ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Article: 226635 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Subject: Re: Need help on QRM rejection ( WITHOUT A BEAM !!) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:56:13 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1152961826.302703.238610@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> nm5k@wt.net wrote: > >I think the turnstile is slightly better than the loop, or the dipole >for 75m NVIS. >It's pretty much my favorite lower band NVIS antenna. The turnstile is >real >good on 40m in the daytime. Your memories of a quiet 75m were probably > >in the winter...Wait about 4 months.. It'll get quiet again.. >MK was listening to the Trader Net on 7245 this am about 1000H CDT and the band was simply winter like. by 1100 though it was getting squirrely as the propagation shifted... almost like an ocean wave NCS was in Odessa and I was hearing MO, LA, MS, OK and all over Texas to include Lubbock. I was even hearing a station in Conroe, another in Bryan, etc. all of these qso's were at S5-S9+20 Like being on a cell phone. This is again a DX-CC with the center at about 40', one end at 20' and the other at about 12' (4' above the roof with its metal lined plywood decking under the shingles). http://www.alphadeltacom.com/pg1.htm Again, I think that this reinforces that I have no in house QRM but that my problem as you have said is plain old July/August QRN. live with it. thanks a lot for your input. obviously I do not have an antenna problem, I likely have a familiarity problem with this 736. I need to use it a lot more and learn how to use the various features. thank you again, Mark. you have been very kind to this OM who has come back to HAM after being out of it since the 1950s. Since you are here in Houston also, perhaps we can get together and see what can be done to improve this rig or get me into one of the local clubs . 73s K5DAM -- Charles L Hamilton Houston, TX chasm@texas.net If you are reading this in English, Thank a Vet!! If you are reading this in Spanish, Thank the US Senate!! Article: 226636 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Frank" References: <1153081386.607703.302640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Limited space horizontal loop for local 80M ops Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:35:51 GMT "ferrymanr" wrote in message news:LZ6dnU8kycObLifZRVnyiA@bt.com... > Dan > > Remember that this has to be a 'stealth' antenna as I live dead center in > the town with a lady councillor opposite, the town council office 75 yards > away and town hall about 150 yards away. This rules out low loss copper > pipe etc. Most of the small 'magnetic loop' antennas are intended for > vertical use which would also stand out like a sore thumb here. The > advantage of the wire loop is that many buildings here have wire around > the > roof to deter seagulls, that means my wire would not be conspicuous. > > When I modelled my 21' x 24' horizontal square loop with loading coils of > about 90uH in each side leg I got a feed impedance of over 300 ohms but > with -j5000 or thereabouts. The swr curved dipped nicely at 3.65 MHz to a > manageable level if I used a 4:1 balun and 300 ohm line feed. I reasoned > that as the natural loop resonance was between 20M band and 30M band I > could > link out the coils and operate those bands too, although that would means > climbing up a ladder out of the rooflight rather more often than my old > bones like. > > Richard (Dick) G4BBH Just feed it with ladder line. You will be able to match it with a tuner. On 3.5 MHz, if you use a 30 ft feed line, you can match it with a shunt 12.6 uH followed by a series 45 pF -- split series element, and double value for a balanced tuner. Follow it with a balun. With 100 W the voltage on the transmission line varies between 1.9 and 2.7 kV peak. Transmission line and tuner loss totals at near 3 dB (Unloaded inductor Q = 200). Design of tuner trivial for higher frequencies. Any commercial balanced tuner should handle the load. Regards, Frank Article: 226637 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BB2933.D6C61A01@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 References: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 06:08:16 GMT "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" wrote: > > why should I I just did not care for the action of another in trying to > jam a post that yea is spam is at least ontopic instead all the posters > trying to make issues out of people sexlife > > his product can be totaltrash but total trashis better than a post > that consists entily of "you are faggot" as many post here do > > you don't like his product don't buy it I've thrown away better wire and connectors, but you can use whatever garbage you want to. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Article: 226638 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: Attic antenna: rotator upside-down work? Message-ID: <0vamb2t72legsgdc5l8tb9k034jklvkeqp@4ax.com> References: <10heb2dufe5sd8hhct2cf2p3p88n7j0p4i@4ax.com> <42D850C8.2CD33D24@yahoo.com> <12bgib4diaqpce2@corp.supernews.com> <_zYtg.49007$VE1.20073@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:20:49 -0400 On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 02:39:54 GMT, Jim - NN7K wrote: > > > > "Bob B." bravely wrote to "All" (24 Jun 05 >11:01:20) >on the heady topic of "Attic antenna: rotator >upside-down work?" > >My oppinion would be: that while it May, or May >Not work (depending on the bearings in it), The >MAIN consideration, tho, as I see it would be >WATER in the Control Cable connections, when a >Rotor is upside down (obviously NOT a factor ,when >mounted under a cover, roof, ect)! Probably will >work fine! >just DONT try this if EXPOSED to the Weather! Jim >NN7K Rotors are made for use on tall towers. There quickly reaches a point in which rain rises as well as falls. Rotors have to be made water safe from any angle so that shouldn't be an issue. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226639 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Message-ID: References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:25:07 -0400 On 15 Jul 2006 12:48:44 -0700, matthewcoan@hotmail.com wrote: >Hello, > > Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V >Shortwave Antenna circuits? It is for use with a long vertical wire >antenna or TV antenna pole. I was wondering if anybody new of any >antenna circuits that meat this description. > >Thank you, > Matthew William Coan > Sat Jul 15 15:48:04 EDT 2006 There used to be radio antennas that plugged into the wall outlets. They had a three pronged connector, but only one side was actually electrically connected, the other prongs were plastic. I am not sure what they did to isolate the electrical from the radio, but the antenna used the house wiring for an antenna extension. This may be what he is looking for, something that coupled with the electrical wires for a longer antenna. -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226640 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 06:31:45 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: Limited space horizontal loop for local 80M ops References: <1153081386.607703.302640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: ferrymanr wrote: > Dan > > Remember that this has to be a 'stealth' antenna as I live dead center in > the town with a lady councillor opposite, the town council office 75 yards > away and town hall about 150 yards away. This rules out low loss copper > pipe etc. Most of the small 'magnetic loop' antennas are intended for > vertical use which would also stand out like a sore thumb here. The > advantage of the wire loop is that many buildings here have wire around the > roof to deter seagulls, that means my wire would not be conspicuous. > > When I modelled my 21' x 24' horizontal square loop with loading coils of > about 90uH in each side leg I got a feed impedance of over 300 ohms but > with -j5000 or thereabouts. The swr curved dipped nicely at 3.65 MHz to a > manageable level if I used a 4:1 balun and 300 ohm line feed. I reasoned > that as the natural loop resonance was between 20M band and 30M band I could > link out the coils and operate those bands too, although that would means > climbing up a ladder out of the rooflight rather more often than my old > bones like. > > Richard (Dick) G4BBH > > In 'G' land what is the concern regarding public officials and radio antennas? Here in W/K land public officials and radio antennas are not a concern. Public safety issues are a matter of local building codes. Private contracts, known as CC&Rs, are a problem. Article: 226641 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <+v59wCUjf3uEFA+0@ifwtech.co.uk> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 12:43:31 +0100 From: Ian White GM3SEK Subject: Re: Limited space horizontal loop for local 80M ops References: ferrymanr wrote: > >Remember that this has to be a 'stealth' antenna as I live dead center >in the town with a lady councillor opposite, the town council office 75 >yards away and town hall about 150 yards away. This rules out low loss >copper pipe etc. Most of the small 'magnetic loop' antennas are >intended for vertical use which would also stand out like a sore thumb >here. It's surprising what can be done, with a bit of determination that you *are* going to get on the air. I know a ham who lives in a Listed building, which means he can hardly even paint a door without consulting the local Council's Conservation Officer. To make life interesting, he lives right next to the Council offices, and there's a perfect view into his backyard from the Conservation Officer's desk! Now that's what I'd call really living with restrictions... yet he has still found ways to get out well on 80m. (His antenna would be very unlikely to suit your situation, so there's no point in describing it in detail.) Always remember that you have rights too. With certain exceptions, most UK householders have the right to put up a garden shed without asking anybody's permission at all. A surprisingly large shed, too - with a pitched roof, the ridge could be up to 4 metres high. Check how that would apply to you. And then, if anyone objects to you using a 4m high vertical loop, ask them if they'd seriously prefer that you build a whole big shed around it? >The advantage of the wire loop is that many buildings here have wire >around the roof to deter seagulls, that means my wire would not be >conspicuous. > That would certainly be another option to explore; but whatever you do, be sure to make the best use of all your rights. -- 73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek Article: 226642 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: w8ji@akorn.net Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: 17 Jul 2006 04:55:24 -0700 Message-ID: <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> lu6etj wrote: > Dear friends > > It is usually said (in my country) that the double bazooka antenna is > less noisy than a standard dipole. > I think that there are not good reasons that endorse such a statement > for noises coming from the far field (maybe it has some advantage with > near field noises or maybe because its frequency response cures some > pitfails of the associated receiver). I tested an IAC double bazooka, and it is no different than a regular dipole. It has very slightly less signal level, and very slightly more bandwidth. Not enough to worry about. No measurable difference in noise. 73 Tom Article: 226643 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:07 GMT lu6etj wrote: > I have looked for information in the net about this topica but I have > not been lucky. Try http://www.w2du.com/r2ch18.pdf Being lossy reduces the noise but not the signal to noise ratio. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226644 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:06:01 +1000 From: Zen Subject: Re: Limited space horizontal loop for local 80M ops References: <1153081386.607703.302640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <+v59wCUjf3uEFA+0@ifwtech.co.uk> Message-ID: <44bb7d2b_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Ian White GM3SEK wrote: > ferrymanr wrote: >> >> Remember that this has to be a 'stealth' antenna as I live dead center >> in the town with a lady councillor opposite, the town council office >> 75 yards away and town hall about 150 yards away. This rules out low >> loss copper pipe etc. Most of the small 'magnetic loop' antennas are >> intended for vertical use which would also stand out like a sore thumb >> here. > > It's surprising what can be done, with a bit of determination that you > *are* going to get on the air. > > I know a ham who lives in a Listed building, which means he can hardly > even paint a door without consulting the local Council's Conservation > Officer. To make life interesting, he lives right next to the Council > offices, and there's a perfect view into his backyard from the > Conservation Officer's desk! Now that's what I'd call really living with > restrictions... yet he has still found ways to get out well on 80m. > > (His antenna would be very unlikely to suit your situation, so there's > no point in describing it in detail.) > > Always remember that you have rights too. With certain exceptions, most > UK householders have the right to put up a garden shed without asking > anybody's permission at all. A surprisingly large shed, too - with a > pitched roof, the ridge could be up to 4 metres high. > > Check how that would apply to you. And then, if anyone objects to you > using a 4m high vertical loop, ask them if they'd seriously prefer that > you build a whole big shed around it? > > >> The advantage of the wire loop is that many buildings here have wire >> around the roof to deter seagulls, that means my wire would not be >> conspicuous. >> > That would certainly be another option to explore; but whatever you do, > be sure to make the best use of all your rights. > > > I would transmit on an efficient short vertical, and use a magnetic loop on Receive. For that matter any low noise receive antenna like a Flag or K9AY. I would also look at something like the Welbrooke Active loop. I wont get into the debate of "magnetic" and noise! Just go to Welbrookes web page and read some of the reviews from a EMC expert on noise and comparing the Welbrooke to 20,000 Dollar R&S EMC antennas E and H plane antennas. If W8JI and others can work DX on 160meters from an efficient mobile antenna, you should have no trouble getting out. There was a guy on 80 meters from the west coast K6MB who used to beat stations with dipoles in the 80 meter DX window with a coil loaded mobile antenna! Dont believe all the high angle low angle nonsense, the difference in real terms amounts to one deep fade. I would never feel at a disadvantage running a vertical versus a low dipole. There was a interesting article in QST by Some PA hams who used a R&S super resolution DF antenna and measured incoming arrival angles across Europe, oh how i would like to have one of those setups! They use cross loops too. Zen Article: 226645 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 each. Date: 17 Jul 2006 05:30:27 -0700 Message-ID: <1153139427.894267.305350@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: Michael A. Terrell wrote: > "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" wrote: > > > > why should I I just did not care for the action of another in trying to > > jam a post that yea is spam is at least ontopic instead all the posters > > trying to make issues out of people sexlife > > you don't like his product don't buy it > > > I've thrown away better wire and connectors, but you can use whatever > garbage you want to. grow up Article: 226646 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 17 Jul 2006 05:39:49 -0700 Message-ID: <1153139989.393054.210140@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> an old freind wrote: > Not Cocksucker Lloyd wrote: > > an old freind wrote: > > > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > > > get help sicko > > > > STFU, stupid. > no > > and you howl accroos the ngs becuase you can't make me And you whine across the internet because you are an owned bitch. E-mail Markie's local law enforcement: bmclean@houghtonsheriff.com Article: 226647 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 17 Jul 2006 06:05:51 -0700 Message-ID: <1153141551.054772.179920@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: get help sicko Article: 226648 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BB97DE.10B7D27E@earthlink.net> From: "Michael A. Terrell" Subject: Re: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 References: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:00:28 GMT an old freind wrote: > > grow up Grow up? Its you that appears to have never grown up. You seem to have almost no grasp of the English language, or the concept of not supporting spammers. -- 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: 226649 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: FS: PL-259 silver plated contact & body, Teflon insulation $1.67 each. Date: 17 Jul 2006 07:12:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1153145562.073368.220120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: Michael A. Terrell wrote: > an old freind wrote: > > > > grow up > > > Grow up? yes grow up > Its you that appears to have never grown up. You seem to > have almost no grasp of the English language, or the concept of not > supporting spammers. disagreing with you is not a lack of aturity nor is is a sign of any lack of language skills I frankly don't see it as as pam (and BTW I am sure the original poste thanks you for the attentionyou are helping his prodcut to) spam is preferable to sexual inuendo which has become the NGs sock in trade I would rather see an ad for something that might be usefull in the gruop than what what we see as far as I am concerned to be spam it is has to e non related to the NG that you disagree or have personal issues with the poster is your proble OTOH I welcome the thread and even your as a rcahnce to talk about somthing related to radio > > > -- > Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to > prove it. as have I Article: 226650 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 10:57:48 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF References: <44BAF290.6060607@fuse.net> Message-ID: <44bbb37d$0$1005$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> jawod wrote: > A quick question: > What is FM07 and FM06? > Just curious > > John > AB8WH No explanation needed, a picture works better - http://www.icomamerica.com/downloads/usgridsq.pdf or an explanation plus links to pictures - http://www.arrl.org/locate/gridinfo.html Grids are a handy thing. tom K0TAR Article: 226651 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Higgins Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <62e$44b92d9a$d06640f9$32377@FUSE.NET> <10lkb21ntkbdobai87o092m7vo484sv256@4ax.com> <12bktikg7r3huc9@corp.supernews.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:39:20 GMT On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:24:36 -0000, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote: > >In article <10lkb21ntkbdobai87o092m7vo484sv256@4ax.com>, >Jim Higgins wrote: > >>I think everyone should be tested on use of RTTY and PSK modes as a >>condition of receiving a license. > >Ability to copy by ear, ability to create high-quality modulation by >whistling, or both? I guess I should have given more detail. Entry level - demonstrate ability to set up typical equipment used to operate these modes and conduct both a RTTY and PSK31 QSO on the air. General - demonstrate ability to copy Baudot RTTY and PSK31 by ear and send Baudot RTTY by whistling or by hand keyed FSK. One minute solid copy and accurate sending required. Extra - must also be able to receive ASCII RTTY by ear and send by whistling or hand keyed FSK. One minute solid copy and accurate sending required. Packet at 300 baud - receive by ear only - may be substituted for both ASCII RTTY and PSK31 if the applicant wishes. Current licensees have 1 year to meet new requirements or they will lose their licenses. Article: 226652 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Jim Higgins Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <12bhqgcrmppd4eb@corp.supernews.com> <44B8EBB8.C221285D@milestones.com> <44BAF5A3.9000409@fuse.net> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:42:08 GMT On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 22:27:47 -0400, jawod wrote: >Lighten up. There's room for everyone. I love CW but I have no >illusions about it's ultimate capabilities. It's just FUN! >Looking forward to experimenting with digital, too. I'd do more SSB if >only I knew what to say. hihi Strike up a conversation about code vs no-code? Sure seems to keep the ball rolling here. ;-) Article: 226653 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: jakdedert Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500 Al Klein wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 00:49:00 GMT, Hymie_slowbotski@yah00.net (Hymie) > wrote: > >> Very well put. Every mode is useful, important and valuable in different >> situations. What's unfortunate, is that the only modes the anti-CW crowd >> wants and supports are "Lazy Mode" and "Retard mode" > > Even those who tout digital modes - they want to buy an interface and > software and "be" on digital. Then they wonder why the signal they're > hearing, that sounds just like the digital mode they use, doesn't work > on their setup. Maybe because a PSK program won't decode SSTV? > > Reminds me of the GPRS "exerts" who can't understand why changing the > "code" on their radios doesn't eliminate the interference from the guy > next door. > > The anti-CW crowd wants no code and a written test you can memorize > the answers to. It's their "right" to be on the air, isn't it? Even > if they need 2 more clues to be totally clueless? > There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge and ability to decipher code. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. I don't care about the code, whether it lives or dies. If you enjoy brass pounding, then do it. Just don't equate that ability with another that is not even slightly related. jak Article: 226654 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:31:36 -0000 Message-ID: <12bnls86c2ci3f5@corp.supernews.com> References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> In article , Buck wrote: >There used to be radio antennas that plugged into the wall outlets. >They had a three pronged connector, but only one side was actually >electrically connected, the other prongs were plastic. I am not sure >what they did to isolate the electrical from the radio, but the >antenna used the house wiring for an antenna extension. > >This may be what he is looking for, something that coupled with the >electrical wires for a longer antenna. Ugh. Those things. "Turn your entire house into a gigantic television antenna!" These devices usually just couple one of the wires in the outlet to the antenna lead, using a small high-voltage capacitor. Component parts cost was a few cents, plus the cost of the plug, and (usually) some intricately-shaped plastic case meant to make the device look sophisticated. The case probably cost more than the guts, and the advertised price was far greater than either. >From all I've heard, they generally gave poor performance for at least two reasons: - A house's power wiring is an excellent vehicle for RF noise and hash... harmonics from power-supply rectifier, broadband impulse noise from any AC motor with brushes, and so forth. Result: lots of static in the picture. - Multipath. The house wiring is of a complex shape, much larger than a typical TV antenna. The TV or radio signal is likely to be picked up by several different portions of the wiring, which will mix (with varying amounts of time delay) at the coupler. Result: a ghosty picture. To paraphrase a Monty Python sketch concerning a particular Australian table wine: "This is not a technology for using. This is a technology for laying down and avoiding." -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 226655 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: 17 Jul 2006 18:42:44 -0000 Message-ID: From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (An Old Friend) Subject: I have nude pictures of little boys I have molested! Mark C. Morgan P.O. Box 212 Chassell, MI 49916 konstans@hotmail.com -=- This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services. Article: 226656 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "H. Adam Stevens, NQ5H" Subject: Re: Is It double bazooka less noisy? Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:50:17 -0500 Message-ID: <12bnmv728399a54@corp.supernews.com> References: <1153105845.609970.257280@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote in message news:1153137324.594379.153720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > lu6etj wrote: >> Dear friends >> >> It is usually said (in my country) that the double bazooka antenna is >> less noisy than a standard dipole. >> I think that there are not good reasons that endorse such a statement >> for noises coming from the far field (maybe it has some advantage with >> near field noises or maybe because its frequency response cures some >> pitfails of the associated receiver). > > I tested an IAC double bazooka, and it is no different than a regular > dipole. It has very slightly less signal level, and very slightly more > bandwidth. Not enough to worry about. No measurable difference in > noise. > > 73 Tom > We beat bazookas to death here years ago. Don't waste your time. 73 H. NQ5H Article: 226657 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Buck Subject: Re: Does anyone know of any AC (alternating current) 220V or 350V Shortwave Antenna circuits? Message-ID: <0vrnb29675p1mcgqgdeljvbbbkji3vkbhl@4ax.com> References: <1152992924.187331.312250@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12bnls86c2ci3f5@corp.supernews.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:17:38 -0400 On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:31:36 -0000, dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote: >In article , >Buck wrote: > >>There used to be radio antennas that plugged into the wall outlets. >>They had a three pronged connector, but only one side was actually >>electrically connected, the other prongs were plastic. I am not sure >>what they did to isolate the electrical from the radio, but the >>antenna used the house wiring for an antenna extension. >> >>This may be what he is looking for, something that coupled with the >>electrical wires for a longer antenna. > >Ugh. Those things. "Turn your entire house into a gigantic >television antenna!" > >These devices usually just couple one of the wires in the outlet to >the antenna lead, using a small high-voltage capacitor. Component >parts cost was a few cents, plus the cost of the plug, and (usually) >some intricately-shaped plastic case meant to make the device look >sophisticated. The case probably cost more than the guts, and the >advertised price was far greater than either. > >From all I've heard, they generally gave poor performance for at least >two reasons: > >- A house's power wiring is an excellent vehicle for RF noise and > hash... harmonics from power-supply rectifier, broadband impulse > noise from any AC motor with brushes, and so forth. Result: lots > of static in the picture. > >- Multipath. The house wiring is of a complex shape, much larger > than a typical TV antenna. The TV or radio signal is likely to be > picked up by several different portions of the wiring, which will > mix (with varying amounts of time delay) at the coupler. Result: > a ghosty picture. > >To paraphrase a Monty Python sketch concerning a particular Australian >table wine: "This is not a technology for using. This is a >technology for laying down and avoiding." That sounds like what I was describing. I had an experience once where there was a drop cord hanging in a loop shape from a power line that lit up a boat pier about 100 feet long or so. When I put my shortwave radio near it, I had tremendous reception on MW or SW. I didn't need to even use the antenna on the radio. I figure there was about 300 total feet of wire the way it was run. Had a great night fishing and listening to SWB. Buck -- 73 for now Buck N4PGW Article: 226658 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Howard W3CQH" References: <44BAF290.6060607@fuse.net> <44bbb37d$0$1005$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:29:14 -0400 Message-ID: GRID squares "Tom Ring" wrote in message news:44bbb37d$0$1005$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net... > jawod wrote: > >> A quick question: >> What is FM07 and FM06? >> Just curious >> >> John >> AB8WH > > No explanation needed, a picture works better - > > http://www.icomamerica.com/downloads/usgridsq.pdf > > or an explanation plus links to pictures - > > http://www.arrl.org/locate/gridinfo.html > > Grids are a handy thing. > > tom > K0TAR Article: 226659 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing. From: Slow Code References: <44B309A6.44A7CD72@earthlink.net> <44B44705.F4A86462@earthlink.net> <44B643D0.36FCD8D4@earthlink.net> <1152804424.282270.207560@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1152922269.163065.154080@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1152984844.086415.203380@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:11 GMT "an old freind" wrote in news:1152984844.086415.203380@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > you are dishonest but most of the CW advocates are you are a Lazy, but most of the CW haters are SC Article: 226660 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. From: Slow Code References: <9e847$4482def6$d06640f9$28274@FUSE.NET> <1149441418.531073.162560@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9937b$44969457$d06640f9$14348@FUSE.NET> <44969559.30D72920@milestones.com> <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <4niug.538$157.336@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1fc5a$44ba43c6$d06640f9$8681@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:10 GMT "J. D. B." wrote in news:1fc5a$44ba43c6$d06640f9$8681@FUSE.NET: > Sorry Blow Code, but you cannot turn back the hands of time. The 13 & 20 > WPM tests are gone forever. And soon, the CW testing requirement will > be eliminated completely. It's the will of the majority. It's > evolution. You can whine, cry and carry on all you want about the CW > testing requirement. It is going the way of the buggy whip, the Ford > Model-T, dinosaurs, the carrier pigeons, and a host of other old, > outdated, and unnecessary things of the past. Good Bye and Good > Riddance. Spoken like a true appliance operator. If there is any crying and whining after CW is gone, it will be by phonies wondering why their bands sound like CB. SC Article: 226661 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? From: Slow Code References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:14 GMT fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote in news:fmmck-1607061316520001@ac9bfd05.ipt.aol.com: > In article , "Alun L. > Palmer" wrote: > >> Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to >> send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on. > > I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was > based. > > Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating > a digital camera user: > > "If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save > him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film. Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an improvement. SC Article: 226662 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing. Date: 17 Jul 2006 17:14:13 -0700 Message-ID: <1153181653.650897.179520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > "an old freind" wrote in > news:1152984844.086415.203380@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > > > > you are dishonest but most of the CW advocates are > > > you are a Lazy, but most of the CW haters are better lazy than dishonest > > SC Article: 226663 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing Date: 17 Jul 2006 17:14:30 -0700 Message-ID: <1153181670.923668.113610@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > jawod wrote in news:44BAEB96.7010107@fuse.net: > > slow code is lo-co > > > LOL, Good one jawod. Did you come up with that all by yourself > or did you have to copy & paste one of Markie's spelling mistakes. you are loco > > SC Article: 226664 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 17 Jul 2006 17:16:10 -0700 Message-ID: <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Slow Code wrote: > fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote in > news:fmmck-1607061316520001@ac9bfd05.ipt.aol.com: > > > In article , "Alun L. > > Palmer" wrote: > > "If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save > > him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" > > > Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film. > > Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it > bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an > improvement. nobody is talking about dummbing anything down you are indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the unintelgent > > SC Article: 226665 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "kb9rqz@hotmail.com" Subject: get help sicko forger Date: 17 Jul 2006 17:22:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1153182128.297901.213820@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: An Old Friend wrote: get help sicko forger > This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services. Article: 226666 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:26:07 -0400 On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert wrote: >There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge >and ability to decipher code. Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. >FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. Article: 226667 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 17 Jul 2006 17:31:11 -0700 Message-ID: <1153182670.896804.262380@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert > wrote: > > >There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge > >and ability to decipher code. > > Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics > can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no > longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. whta is needed and why? > > >FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. > > Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. nope he has full standing he is an american that means the FCC is suposed serve not the ARS but the people of the USA. the problem with you procoders is that you think the ARS owns the bandwidth not the poeple of the USA Article: 226668 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: jakdedert Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> Message-ID: <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500 Al Klein wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert > wrote: > >> There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge >> and ability to decipher code. > > Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics > can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no > longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. > >> FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. > > Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. > Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do with the other. jak Article: 226669 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 17 Jul 2006 17:45:56 -0700 Message-ID: <1153183556.166041.153660@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: jakdedert wrote: > Al Klein wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:55:28 -0500, jakdedert > > wrote: > > > >> There's a world of difference between technical electronics knowledge > >> and ability to decipher code. > > > > Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics > > can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no > > longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. > > > >> FWIW, I don't even have a ham license anymore. > > > > Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. > > > Ahh...but I did, once, at 15 years old; and I've picked up a fair amount > of electronics knowledge as well...proving that one has little to do > with the other. you still do don't let this bozo tell you otherwise (unless you are an ilgeal alien or something) > > jak Article: 226670 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Brian Denley" References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:28:52 -0400 Message-ID: an old friend wrote: > Slow Code wrote: >> fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote in >> news:fmmck-1607061316520001@ac9bfd05.ipt.aol.com: >> >>> In article , "Alun L. >>> Palmer" wrote: > >>> "If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to >>> save him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" >> >> >> Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film. >> >> Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think >> tossing it bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is >> never an improvement. > nobody is talking about dummbing anything down > > you are > indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the > unintelgent > >> >> SC Knowing CW is NO indication of any level of intelligence, technical or otherwise! BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak! -- Brian Denley http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html Article: 226671 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Yuri Blanarovich" References: <1152631289.594334.34440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152643960.102707.230980@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152645952.257578.20580@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152651970.397776.294700@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152657212.158640.43920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152736765.706079.169140@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1152982153.622999.283230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153049946.945606.107650@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153077576.701721.63440@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <74yug.68427$Lm5.26094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:41:08 -0400 "Cecil Moore" wrote to W8JI: > > Again you divert the issue. Will you never learn to > admit a simple mistake and move on? You were ignorant > of the definition of the word "rationalize" but you > are unlikely ever to admit it. > > If you simply change your bad boy ways, the world will > be a much better place for all the rest of us. > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp No can do Cecil. That goes back to his high school days and it only got worse. The best way is to state your wisdom against his and let the in-know judge and blind followers, worship. Too bad, but that is the reality. Makes Freaktenna look like a school boy. Add to it pretending to be an engineer and you get the picture. He will never admit to be wrong (never happened yet), if he realizes he was wrong, he will just go QRT on the subject for a while and then reemerge shemelessly as guru on the subject, without giving credit where is due. "Discussions" turn into obfuscating the subject, mumbo-jumbo and end with personal attacks and ridicule. Oh, wait, it culminates with threats of lawsuit. Such a shame, so many decent and knowledgeable people get turned off by this crap and ham community misses great resources. 73 bada BUm Article: 226672 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:41:29 GMT Al Klein wrote: > Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics > can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no > longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. The Morse code exam is a test of the ability to memorize. No knowledge of electronics required. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226673 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Yuri Blanarovich" References: <44b3afc1$0$990$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <44b3d3d0$0$819$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr> <1152639085.369972.127940@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1152650749.420397.51760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152740519.671520.212240@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Antenna optimization Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:47:35 -0400 "Mike Coslo" wrote > > If the gentleman gets angry because people use his software, that is his > right, but it seems odd. > > No, it is the case where they made copies of his software and offered it for free on the web site. Yuri, K3BU Article: 226674 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:20:58 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <44bc458b$0$6144$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Brian Denley wrote: > Knowing CW is NO indication of any level of intelligence, technical or > otherwise! > > BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak! > "Seen" except for special needs. And those that do special needs will likely be making millions. There will be about 12 of them that make it, and thousands that don't, but wish they could. I know quite a few in the photo biz, and film is, to put it very bluntly, dead. tom K0TAR Article: 226675 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:22:00 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF References: <44BAF290.6060607@fuse.net> <44bbb37d$0$1005$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> Message-ID: <6bf0c$44bc4615$453d9423$26396@FUSE.NET> Howard W3CQH wrote: > GRID squares > > "Tom Ring" wrote in message > news:44bbb37d$0$1005$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net... > >>jawod wrote: >> >> >>>A quick question: >>>What is FM07 and FM06? >>>Just curious >>> >>>John >>>AB8WH >> >>No explanation needed, a picture works better - >> >>http://www.icomamerica.com/downloads/usgridsq.pdf >> >>or an explanation plus links to pictures - >> >>http://www.arrl.org/locate/gridinfo.html >> >>Grids are a handy thing. >> >>tom >>K0TAR > > > Thanks, Tom. I should have known. Still a little new to things. Article: 226676 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:28:09 -0500 From: Tom Ring Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF References: <44BAF290.6060607@fuse.net> <44bbb37d$0$1005$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> <6bf0c$44bc4615$453d9423$26396@FUSE.NET> Message-ID: <44bc4739$0$6144$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net> jawod wrote: > Thanks, Tom. I should have known. Still a little new to things. Live and learn. Good luck. Have fun. tom K0TAR Article: 226677 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Tom Donaly" Subject: Re: Voltage feeding a VHF yagi References: <1152631289.594334.34440@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152643960.102707.230980@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152645952.257578.20580@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152651970.397776.294700@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152657212.158640.43920@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1152736765.706079.169140@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1152982153.622999.283230@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1153049946.945606.107650@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1153077576.701721.63440@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <74yug.68427$Lm5.26094@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:44:36 GMT Yuri Blanarovich wrote: > "Cecil Moore" wrote to W8JI: > >>Again you divert the issue. Will you never learn to >>admit a simple mistake and move on? You were ignorant >>of the definition of the word "rationalize" but you >>are unlikely ever to admit it. >> >>If you simply change your bad boy ways, the world will >>be a much better place for all the rest of us. >>-- >>73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp > > > No can do Cecil. > That goes back to his high school days and it only got worse. > The best way is to state your wisdom against his and let the in-know judge > and blind followers, worship. Too bad, but that is the reality. Makes > Freaktenna look like a school boy. Add to it pretending to be an engineer > and you get the picture. > He will never admit to be wrong (never happened yet), if he realizes he was > wrong, he will just go QRT on the subject for a while and then reemerge > shemelessly as guru on the subject, without giving credit where is due. > "Discussions" turn into obfuscating the subject, mumbo-jumbo and end with > personal attacks and ridicule. Oh, wait, it culminates with threats of > lawsuit. > Such a shame, so many decent and knowledgeable people get turned off by this > crap and ham community misses great resources. > > 73 bada BUm > > Speaking of personal attacks... 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Article: 226678 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing. Message-ID: References: <44B643D0.36FCD8D4@earthlink.net> <1152804424.282270.207560@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1152922269.163065.154080@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1152984844.086415.203380@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1153181653.650897.179520@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:47:47 -0400 On 17 Jul 2006 17:14:13 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: >better lazy than dishonest Dishonesty is a personality quirk - laziness is a choice. Article: 226679 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Email this to your Senators and Congressmen. make the FCC do the right thing. Date: 17 Jul 2006 19:54:24 -0700 Message-ID: <1153191264.842557.94620@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <44B643D0.36FCD8D4@earthlink.net> Al Klein wrote: > On 17 Jul 2006 17:14:13 -0700, "an old friend" > wrote: > > >better lazy than dishonest > > Dishonesty is a personality quirk - laziness is a choice. interesting to see you support dishonesty over laziness why then should trustwhat you post Article: 226680 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Eliminating CW will just give retards HF, it won't modernize the service. Message-ID: <67job2hlik3rc0o0bdlpou4p779aga2h7u@4ax.com> References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <1153074398.607078.121310@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:53:10 -0400 On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:08 GMT, Slow Code wrote: >"an_old_friend" wrote in >news:1153074398.607078.121310@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: >> according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS >> unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution >> I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect >> for that document >Proof: You actually expected him to be able to differentiate between "has the power to" and "is forced to"? Article: 226681 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:54:01 -0400 On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:14 GMT, Slow Code wrote: >Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it >bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an >improvement. It is for those who can't rise to the current level. Like someone we both know. Article: 226682 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:55:24 -0400 On 17 Jul 2006 17:16:10 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: >Slow Code wrote: >> Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it >> bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an >> improvement. >nobody is talking about dummbing anything down Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would expect you to be able to understand that. >you are >indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the >unintelgent That's YOUR stance - giving HF to those not intelligent enough to actually learn things. Article: 226683 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Eliminating CW is just the lying of those afraid of change Date: 17 Jul 2006 19:58:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1153191487.202998.224030@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:05:08 GMT, Slow Code wrote: > > >"an_old_friend" wrote in > >news:1153074398.607078.121310@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > > >> according the Govt lost the POWER to impose Morse Code test on the ARS > >> unless it can be justified under some other powere of the Constitution > > >> I find it interesting that the ProCode tes crowd has such disrespect > >> for that document > > >Proof: > > You actually expected him to be able to differentiate between "has the > power to" and "is forced to"? the Govt lacks the power to test anymore if chalanced it it only had the power while it was forced by the treaty Article: 226684 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 17 Jul 2006 20:00:37 -0700 Message-ID: <1153191637.682724.240470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Al Klein wrote: > On 17 Jul 2006 17:16:10 -0700, "an old friend" > wrote: > > >Slow Code wrote: > > >> Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it > >> bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an > >> improvement. > > >nobody is talking about dummbing anything down > > Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. bullshit > But no one would > expect you to be able to understand that. you mean be fooled by that lie > > >you are > >indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the > >unintelgent > > That's YOUR stance - giving HF to those not intelligent enough to > actually learn things. nope I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written idealy an improved written test you want to keep a frat house game in place but you favor dishonesty Article: 226685 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <06Wug.5006$ly.1271@bignews6.bellsouth.net> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:59:28 -0400 On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:52 -0500, jakdedert wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Then, as the courts would say, you have no standing in the matter. >Ahh...but I did, once But you don't now, and it's now now, it's not once. >proving that one has little to do with the other. And that you have little to do with this conversation. Article: 226686 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:01:31 -0400 On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:41:29 GMT, Cecil Moore wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics >> can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no >> longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. >The Morse code exam is a test of the ability to memorize. >No knowledge of electronics required. For most people, he written test is also a test of the ability to memorize. Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a schematic and ask them to find a component by function. "Knowledge of electronics"? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Article: 226687 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old feind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1153192328.628332.204860@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Al Klein wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:41:29 GMT, Cecil Moore > wrote: > > >Al Klein wrote: > >> Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics > >> can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no > >> longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. > > >The Morse code exam is a test of the ability to memorize. > >No knowledge of electronics required. > > For most people, he written test is also a test of the ability to > memorize. when did the test aquire gender > Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a > schematic and ask them to find a component by function. I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the component > "Knowledge of > electronics"? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. if you are that depressed about give it up go fishing but please trying to killthe ARS with your bile Article: 226688 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> Message-ID: <1mYug.69288$fb2.61157@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 03:14:05 GMT Al Klein wrote: > For most people, he written test is also a test of the ability to > memorize. Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a > schematic and ask them to find a component by function. "Knowledge of > electronics"? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. In 1953, as a sophomore in high school, I didn't know any electronics and was therefore forced to memorize the ARRL License Manual in order to get my Conditional license. People like me have been memorizing License Manuals for more than half a century. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226689 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 17 Jul 2006 20:40:20 -0700 Message-ID: <1153194019.945604.76570@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > Al Klein wrote: > > For most people, he written test is also a test of the ability to > > memorize. Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a > > schematic and ask them to find a component by function. "Knowledge of > > electronics"? It would be funny if it weren't so sad. > > In 1953, as a sophomore in high school, I didn't know any > electronics and was therefore forced to memorize the ARRL > License Manual in order to get my Conditional license. > People like me have been memorizing License Manuals for > more than half a century. at the risk of seeming foolish but the answer will make a point here I think tyour license did PRECEED your becoming an EE didn't it, by some many years > -- > 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226690 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:48:16 -0500 Message-ID: <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > Al Klein wrote: > >> Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics >> can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no >> longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. > > > The Morse code exam is a test of the ability to memorize. > No knowledge of electronics required. Rules and regulations are just an exercise in memorization also. They require no knowledge of electronics either. The CW text requirement is like the requirement for a foreign language requirement for some college degrees, it rounds out the amateur skills. Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226691 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 17 Jul 2006 21:02:11 -0700 Message-ID: <1153195331.269986.118500@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: David G. Nagel wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: > > Al Klein wrote: > > > >> Considering that someone with absolutely no knowledge of electronics > >> can memorize enough to pass the test in about 8 hours, there's no > >> longer any real test of anything but the ability to memorize. > > > > > > The Morse code exam is a test of the ability to memorize. > > No knowledge of electronics required. > > > Rules and regulations are just an exercise in memorization also. They > require no knowledge of electronics either. > > The CW text requirement is like the requirement for a foreign language > requirement for some college degrees, it rounds out the amateur skills. an improvement over the drivel most of the procoders are posting although the analogy streches a bit if I ask what college in the wolrd has a requirement for one foreign lang and only one did you submit it in your coments to the FCC? all in all not bad > > Dave WD9BDZ Article: 226692 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:04:18 -0700 Message-ID: <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> All antennas consist of conductors which have current conducted to them >from sources and induced in them by coupling to fields from other conductors or other parts of the same conductor. These currents create fields. Ground plane antennas work exactly the same as all others. In that way they're simple to understand. Yes, you can view it this way or that, with various degrees of accuracy and inaccuracy. The problem is that people begin to believe that the alternate views are really what happens, rather than attempts at simplifying and understanding things. Before you know it, you've got mirrors, "ground" high above the Earth, impossible reflections, and other dubious concepts which end up leading people farther and farther >from really understanding the basic principles involved. Roy Lewallen, W7EL David wrote: > One of the earlier postings suggested that the quarterwave vertical antenna > with radials was elementary and easy to understand. I have never found this > antenna easy to understand. > > RF experts on this newsgroup cannot agree on whether i) the radials reflect > the wave or ii) the field from the radials cancels out. The standard > academic books show that the principle behind the vertical ground plane > antenna is that the vertical radiating element emits the wave, and is > reflected by the ground plane. > > You can view a conductor as having current pushed through it by a RF source, > or the current can be induced in the conductor by the wave. This is a > boundary condition in Maxwell's equations, referred to in theory of > transmission lines and guided waves. > > You can view the radials as reflecting the wave and having current induced > in them, or they can have current pushed through them by the RF source. This > is probably the same thing, due to the arrangement of all antenna parts > forming the antenna impedance. In image theory, the impedance comes from > both the self impedance and the mutual impedance. > . . . Article: 226693 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:16:32 +1000 From: Zen Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Zen Roy Lewallen wrote: > All antennas consist of conductors which have current conducted to them > from sources and induced in them by coupling to fields from other > conductors or other parts of the same conductor. These currents create > fields. Ground plane antennas work exactly the same as all others. In > that way they're simple to understand. > > Yes, you can view it this way or that, with various degrees of accuracy > and inaccuracy. The problem is that people begin to believe that the > alternate views are really what happens, rather than attempts at > simplifying and understanding things. Before you know it, you've got > mirrors, "ground" high above the Earth, impossible reflections, and > other dubious concepts which end up leading people farther and farther > from really understanding the basic principles involved. > > Roy Lewallen, W7EL > > David wrote: >> One of the earlier postings suggested that the quarterwave vertical >> antenna >> with radials was elementary and easy to understand. I have never found >> this >> antenna easy to understand. >> >> RF experts on this newsgroup cannot agree on whether i) the radials >> reflect >> the wave or ii) the field from the radials cancels out. The standard >> academic books show that the principle behind the vertical ground plane >> antenna is that the vertical radiating element emits the wave, and is >> reflected by the ground plane. >> >> You can view a conductor as having current pushed through it by a RF >> source, >> or the current can be induced in the conductor by the wave. This is a >> boundary condition in Maxwell's equations, referred to in theory of >> transmission lines and guided waves. >> >> You can view the radials as reflecting the wave and having current >> induced >> in them, or they can have current pushed through them by the RF >> source. This >> is probably the same thing, due to the arrangement of all antenna parts >> forming the antenna impedance. In image theory, the impedance comes from >> both the self impedance and the mutual impedance. >> . . . Article: 226694 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:00:08 +0000 From: Scott Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF References: <44BAF290.6060607@fuse.net> Message-ID: Those are called grid squares. The world is divided up into squares, each being 2 degrees of longitude by 1 degree of latitude. Search google on "Maidenhead Grid" and you will find many pages that explain it. On VHF, we try to work as many grids, world-wide, as possible. If you listen on 6M (or any other VHF and above band), you will hear most people exchange grid information at the beginning of the QSO...something like "I'm in Fox November 02" or "Please copy Echo November 45" It's kind of like State or County hunters on HF... Scott N0EDV EN45 jawod wrote: > Howard W3CQH wrote: > >> Please LQQK for us on Saturday and Sunday during the contest. >> >> We should be somewhere around FM07 or FM06 on both 6 & 2, SSB & FM. >> >> 73's >> >> Howard W3CQH >> Jay K3JAY >> and the rest of the Dark Side of The Force Contest Group! >> >> > A quick question: > What is FM07 and FM06? > Just curious > > John > AB8WH Article: 226695 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: billy_shittydrawers_smith@yahoo.com Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing Date: 18 Jul 2006 04:28:00 -0700 Message-ID: <1153222080.096555.197930@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: an old friend wrote: > Slow Code wrote: > > jawod wrote in news:44BAEB96.7010107@fuse.net: > > > slow code is lo-co > > > > > > LOL, Good one jawod. Did you come up with that all by yourself > > or did you have to copy & paste one of Markie's spelling mistakes. > you are loco PKB, retard. Article: 226696 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 18 Jul 2006 04:38:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1153222719.097047.12500@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> an old freind wrote: > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > get help sicko Poor Markie. Article: 226697 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <1mYug.69288$fb2.61157@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <1153194019.945604.76570@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:54:31 GMT an old freind wrote: > Cecil Moore wrote: >> In 1953, as a sophomore in high school, I didn't know any >> electronics and was therefore forced to memorize the ARRL >> License Manual in order to get my Conditional license. >> People like me have been memorizing License Manuals for >> more than half a century. > at the risk of seeming foolish but the answer will make a point here I > think your license did PRECEED your becoming an EE didn't it, by some > many years My amateur radio license, obtaining by memorizing the ARRL License Manual in 1952-1953, was the catalyst that caused me to seek and obtain a EE degree later in 1959. The point is that an amateur radio license is a learner's permit to exercise certain privileges during a lifetime of learning. It is a permit, not a graduation certificate. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226698 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:00:09 GMT David G. Nagel wrote: > The CW text requirement is like the requirement for a foreign language > requirement for some college degrees, ... I carefully avoided any foreign language requirement for my BS EE. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226699 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "John Passaneau" Subject: Re: CQ WW VHF Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:22:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <44BAF290.6060607@fuse.net> Note also that each grid square are also subdivided into 2.5 minute by 5 minute sub squares. They are given 2 more letters. Thus the full grid square for my QTH is FN10bs. -- John Passaneau, W3JXP State College Pennsylvania jxp16@psu.edu "Scott" wrote in message news:WvGdnUKk6OmnIiHZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@bright.net... > Those are called grid squares. The world is divided up into squares, each > being 2 degrees of longitude by 1 degree of latitude. Search google on > "Maidenhead Grid" and you will find many pages that explain it. On VHF, > we try to work as many grids, world-wide, as possible. If you listen on > 6M (or any other VHF and above band), you will hear most people exchange > grid information at the beginning of the QSO...something like "I'm in Fox > November 02" or "Please copy Echo November 45" It's kind of like State or > County hunters on HF... > > Scott > N0EDV > EN45 > > > > jawod wrote: > >> Howard W3CQH wrote: >> >>> Please LQQK for us on Saturday and Sunday during the contest. >>> >>> We should be somewhere around FM07 or FM06 on both 6 & 2, SSB & FM. >>> >>> 73's >>> >>> Howard W3CQH >>> Jay K3JAY >>> and the rest of the Dark Side of The Force Contest Group! >>> >>> >> A quick question: >> What is FM07 and FM06? >> Just curious >> >> John >> AB8WH Article: 226700 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:33:50 -0400 From: Dave Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Brian Denley wrote: SNIPPED > > BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak! I use a digital for my family memories type shooting. I use FUJI roll film in 120 size for my serious MF work. It is either Fuji VELVIA for transparencies or NPH for formal portraits. In either case, digital or film, they have nothing to do with ham radio in general or CW in particular. CW is! Article: 226701 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" Subject: Length & number of radials Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:04:35 +0100 Message-ID: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> If you are considering a new vertical antenna, instead of guesswork and copying somebody else's un-thought-out efforts, download program RADIAL_3 from website below. The program assists with choosing an economic length and number of shallow-buried ground radials. It takes a new look at how radials work by considering them to be lossy, single-wire transmission lines, open-circuit at the other end. RADIAL_3 is a self contained file, 55 kilibytes. Easy to use. No training needed. Download in a few seconds and run immediately. ---- ........................................................... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp ........................................................... Article: 226702 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:08:34 -0400 From: jawod Subject: deployable antenna Message-ID: Now, I hope I get some reasonable responses to this (along with the usual crap). I recall a toy my kids used to have and it made think of similar technology to creating a "deployable" antenna. In this particular toy, a series of slightly S-shaped plastic bars were linked together such that the entire ball could be collapsed into a spider-like ball with all bars positioned radially from the center. When pulled apart, all bars positioned circumferentially in a bucky-ball-like sphere. I thought that was cool. Has anyone come across an antenna design with similar mechanism? I can envision a loop antenna that could be deployed after dark, for example. It could be rotatable vertically or stationary horizontally. I have more trouble visualizing a planar version but probably possible. I link this in my own mind with SteppIR technology, in which the resonant freq length is continuously variable...varying circumference as the diameter of the loop is varied. Perhaps someone can respond with an open mind. Plenty of reasons this idea is impractical but I thought it would be fun to speculate. John AB8WH Article: 226703 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old friend" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 18 Jul 2006 10:53:44 -0700 Message-ID: <1153245224.320558.107960@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: get help sicko Article: 226704 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: OT: Outsourcing Date: 18 Jul 2006 11:13:10 -0700 Message-ID: <1153246390.770389.263750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: billy_shittydrawers_smith@yahoo.com wrote: get help sicko > PKB, retard. althought I was temted to recyve your own there just this once wismen Article: 226705 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: deployable antenna Date: 18 Jul 2006 11:36:20 -0700 Message-ID: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: It's a cool idea. Not sure the 2D version can be made stable, that is in the 3D version all of the nodes are constrained enough by the links around them that there's only one position they can be in relative to each other. Maybe you could build a hoberman-sphere antenna by having some conductive parts and some nonconductive ones. That is, have the full sphere mechanically but only a small fraction be electrically active... it'd sure be an amusing antenna. A hard part with any antenna that physically changes shape and/or size to get a different resonance (including the SteppIR!) is that it's hard to envision a system that doesn't require sliding electrical contacts somewhere, and it's hard to do a sliding electrical contact that has low resistance... SteppIR gets around it by using totally enclosed elements and beryllium copper which is good for wiping contacts. That's certainly not to say it can't be done, just takes some thought and realistic expectations about performance. Let's say you have a 200 ohm feedpoint impedance for a continuous copper full wave loop. If you have 1 ohm of resistance at every joint in an loop antenna that has 200 joints, you're down to 50% efficiency once you match the 400 ohm feedpoint impedance that results. If you can take that down to 0.1 ohm per joint, then you're better off... If you have an antenna that has geometric-looking linear loading, you might have to deal with an irate Fractenna too... dunno. Seriously, though, as long as you can figure out how to ensure low resistance, reliable electrical connections through mechanical joints, all sorts of adjustable-length antennas would be possible. Dan www.n3ox.net Article: 226706 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:50:50 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> n3ox.dan@gmail.com wrote: > It's a cool idea. Not sure the 2D version can be made stable, that is > in the 3D version all of the nodes are constrained enough by the links > around them that there's only one position they can be in relative to > each other. > > Maybe you could build a hoberman-sphere antenna by having some > conductive parts and some nonconductive ones. That is, have the full > sphere mechanically but only a small fraction be electrically active... > it'd sure be an amusing antenna. > > A hard part with any antenna that physically changes shape and/or size > to get a different resonance (including the SteppIR!) is that it's hard > to envision a system that doesn't require sliding electrical contacts > somewhere, and it's hard to do a sliding electrical contact that has > low resistance... SteppIR gets around it by using totally enclosed > elements and beryllium copper which is good for wiping contacts. > > That's certainly not to say it can't be done, just takes some thought > and realistic expectations about performance. Let's say you have a 200 > ohm feedpoint impedance for a continuous copper full wave loop. If you > have 1 ohm of resistance at every joint in an loop antenna that has 200 > joints, you're down to 50% efficiency once you match the 400 ohm > feedpoint impedance that results. > > If you can take that down to 0.1 ohm per joint, then you're better > off... > > If you have an antenna that has geometric-looking linear loading, you > might have to deal with an irate Fractenna too... dunno. > > Seriously, though, as long as you can figure out how to ensure low > resistance, reliable electrical connections through mechanical joints, > all sorts of adjustable-length antennas would be possible. > > Dan > > www.n3ox.net > How about a slinky-like coil that is attached to the undeployed ball as a tightly wound coil but then stretches "flat" with increasing circumference. So, thereby decreasing inductance with increasing size? John AB8WH Article: 226707 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Paladin" Subject: Re: get help sicko forger Date: 18 Jul 2006 12:35:41 -0700 Message-ID: <1153251341.289479.313570@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: kb9rqz@hotmail.com wrote: > An Old Friend wrote: > get help sicko forger > > This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services PLEASE.............you belong elsewhere. Not here. Find some help BUILD something instead of destroying . Article: 226708 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David" References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:34:32 +0100 Message-ID: The vertical element is connected to the centre conductor (RF live). The radials are connected to 0V on the transceiver. If only the vertical is connected, the antenna still radiates although not as well. If only the radials are connected, the antenna does not radiate because the radials are connected to 0V and not a varying voltage. With both vertical and radials connected, the vertical element radiates the wave. The wave is reflected by the radials as boundary condition of Maxwell's equations. The reflection induces a current in the radials. This current has a standing wave on it. Do you think the above is correct? All parts of the antenna form the impedance. Without radials, the impedance is poor and the vertical element does not radiate well. Other explanations say that displacement currents go through the air and terminate on the radials. The displacement currents then becomes conduction current in the radials. Displacement current is another anomaly with electromagnetic theory. I notice that two people have simulated the vertical antenna with radials using EZNEC, and obtained different results. One simulation shows that the radials radiate, the other shows that they do not. Article: 226709 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: dplatt@radagast.org (Dave Platt) Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:57:19 -0000 Message-ID: <12bqf8vmi3trj73@corp.supernews.com> References: <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> >The vertical element is connected to the centre conductor (RF live). The >radials are connected to 0V on the transceiver. No. They're connected to the shield/braid of the feedline. There's no assurance that this point will be at "0V" with respect to anything in particular except itself, and in particular it usually won't be at 0 volts with respect to the transceiver's chassis / output jack (except perhaps momentarily, twice per RF cycle). >If only the vertical is connected, the antenna still radiates although not >as well. ... because the outside of the feedline will tend to act as a poorly-tuned radial/counterpoise. > If only the >radials are connected, the antenna does not radiate because the radials are >connected to 0V and not a varying voltage. > >With both vertical and radials connected, the vertical element radiates the >wave. The wave is reflected by the radials as boundary condition of >Maxwell's equations. The reflection induces a current in the radials. This >current has a standing wave on it. > >Do you think the above is correct? Not really, no. It's a mistake to think that the radials "are connected to 0V and not a varying voltage". You're falling into the trap of thinking that "ground" is some sort of magical "zero volt" reference which is the same everywhere. That isn't true even at DC, and it's certainly not true at RF! > All parts of the antenna form the >impedance. Without radials, the impedance is poor and the vertical element >does not radiate well. The vertical element radiates very well indeed... it'll radiate all of the power which is fed into it, except for a small amount of loss. The problem isn't that it doesn't radiate. The problem is that it's difficult to feed power into it, much of the time. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! Article: 226710 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:57:28 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:34:32 +0100, "David" wrote: >If only the vertical is connected, the antenna still radiates although not >as well. If only the >radials are connected, the antenna does not radiate because the radials are >connected to 0V and not a varying voltage. snip >I notice that two people have simulated the vertical antenna with radials >using EZNEC, and obtained different results. One simulation shows that the >radials radiate, the other shows that they do not. Hi Dave, Your statements above show a serious problem with understanding the operation of antennas. The radials are not potted plants merely arranged along the ground (or in the air) to give a sense of symmetry and balance. You would go further to engage more in dialogue rather than simply posting statements. Much of the utility of radials has been discussed, revisited, and rehashed to no apparent effect against what you offer above. The last sentence is outrageously wrong for any of a number of reasons (or proof of some pretty stupid simulation). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226711 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David" References: <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:32:13 +0100 Message-ID: <1NGdnQQ77PmQ2iDZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@bt.com> Agreed, the centre junction of the radials is not always at 0V. Current flows along the coax braid on the inside, meaning that the inside part of the coax braid and radials junction can be any voltage. The radials have a voltage gradient along them because of the standing wave. Because the return current flows on the inside of the coax braid, it is normally safe to touch or go near the outside of the braid. For permanent low installations in a public area, coax should be used instead of twin feeder. The fact that the return current flows on the inside of the braid gives coax its shielding properties. Article: 226712 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Koikus" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:01:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> > I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written > idealy an improved written test > > you want to keep a frat house game in place > > but you favor dishonesty . -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-. Article: 226713 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:01:42 -0700 Message-ID: <1153256502.857930.147640@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> an old friend wrote: > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > get help sicko Poor Markie, he's the reason the country is dumbing down. Article: 226714 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: deployable antenna Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:35:58 -0700 Message-ID: <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> References: Decreasing inductance will raise the resonant frequency as increasing size lowers it. One will be faster than the other, so maybe you can get some tuning range out of it. Hard to say how much without trying it, but you do have competing changes in the wire if you do that. One thing to think about: A reel of wire coiled up at the high voltage end of an antenna where little current flows adds very little to the electrical length whether or not it's insulated (insulated intentionally by plastic or unintentionally by oxides...) The inductance of the coil formed is fairly inconsequential because almost no current is flowing through it. 73, Dan > How about a slinky-like coil that is attached to the undeployed ball as > a tightly wound coil but then stretches "flat" with increasing > circumference. So, thereby decreasing inductance with increasing size? > > John > AB8WH Article: 226715 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Message-ID: <45lqb2569ph5f3vnpqhm287chma94billt@4ax.com> References: <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153191637.682724.240470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:38:07 -0400 On 18 Jul 2006 14:01:07 -0700, "Koikus" wrote: >> I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written >> idealy an improved written test >> >> you want to keep a frat house game in place >> >> but you favor dishonesty > >. -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-. Neither does anyone else, once you destroy the attributions. Article: 226716 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Al Klein Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Message-ID: References: <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <1153192328.628332.204860@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:44:59 -0400 On 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700, "an old feind" wrote: >Al Klein wrote: >> Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a >> schematic and ask them to find a component by function. >I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the >component I said "by function". Not "locate the resistor", but "locate the balanced modulator circuitry". You used to have to draw a few schematics on blank paper - no hints. Now you have to be able to identify a resistor. Big deal - that should take all of 3 seconds to memorize. Memorizing which side of the heart sends out the oxygenated blood doesn't make you a cardiac surgeon. Article: 226717 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:46:10 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> <1NGdnQQ77PmQ2iDZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@bt.com> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:32:13 +0100, "David" wrote: >Agreed, the centre junction of the radials is not always at 0V. Hi David, In isolation, this statement offers nothing at all, unless, of course, you are talking about an unexcited system. The notion that 0V inhabits some greater portion of the antenna, or its radials, or its junction is a strange concept to its normal operation. David, AE6EO, has similar concerns that you are presenting what I would call a naive representation of radiators. >Current >flows along the coax braid on the inside, meaning that the inside part of >the coax braid and radials junction can be any voltage. The radials have a >voltage gradient along them because of the standing wave. In that sense, 0V does reside at some favored points, but this is not an explanation of anything. >Because the return >current flows on the inside of the coax braid, it is normally safe to touch >or go near the outside of the braid. For permanent low installations in a >public area, coax should be used instead of twin feeder. The fact that the >return current flows on the inside of the braid gives coax its shielding >properties. Is this germane to a particular point? Again, these are simply statements, and they appear unconnected to any kind of dialog. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Article: 226718 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:50:52 -0700 Message-ID: <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Reg, a bit confused by these results from RADIAL_3 96 radials, 7MHz, antenna height 10.72m. Soil 500ohm*m, permittivity 13\ Radials and antenna 1.024mm (18AWG), radials 3mm deep(surface) Radial Length, %Efficiency 2m, 93.19% 3m, 93.83% 4m, 92.47% 5m, 86.01% 6m, 80.39% 7m, 85.92% 8m, 89.06% 9m, 89.59% 10m, 88.22% 11m, 85.99% 12m, 85.51% 13m, 86.67% ?? Dan Article: 226719 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Warning: New Usenet ModeratorTo Shut Down Abusers IfNecesssary. Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:53:35 -0700 Message-ID: <1153259615.258778.282520@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <4n6ql.jaf.19.1@news.alt.net> markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > an old friend wrote: > > markie_morgan_rapesboys@yahoo.com wrote: > > get help sicko > > Poor Markie, he's the reason the country is dumbing down. LOL get help sicko Article: 226720 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "n3ox.dan@gmail.com" Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: 18 Jul 2006 14:53:38 -0700 Message-ID: <1153259618.307275.164250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> BTW, love your programs... tried this one out because I've bought 4 kilofeet of 18 gauge wire for a vertical antenna when I get a backyard in a couple of weeks. 73, Dan Article: 226721 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith other. Date: 18 Jul 2006 15:04:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1153260241.240723.217480@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> References: Al Klein wrote: > On 17 Jul 2006 20:12:08 -0700, "an old feind" > wrote: > > >Al Klein wrote: > > >> Just show most hams licensed in the past 10 years a > >> schematic and ask them to find a component by function. > > >I can even my wife who frankly does not the why ofof it can tel the > >component > > I said "by function". Not "locate the resistor", but "locate the > balanced modulator circuitry". you were vague not my fault you can't express yourself > > You used to have to draw a few schematics on blank paper - no hints. so? you used to have as purely pacitcal matter build at at least some of your station > Now you have to be able to identify a resistor. Big deal - that > should take all of 3 seconds to memorize. Memorizing which side of > the heart sends out the oxygenated blood doesn't make you a cardiac > surgeon. nor is a EE needed to be ham and contrube to advancing the state of the radio art the tests needed to cover those things THEN THEN they more os less needed to inculde Morse code (lathough it could have been avoided but for the treaty) times change adapt or die Article: 226722 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an old freind" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 18 Jul 2006 15:07:01 -0700 Message-ID: <1153260421.724125.141020@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: a thread related not I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in that Morse encoded spark Article: 226723 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Ben Jackson Subject: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:37:29 -0500 I've used a couple programs (vertload.exe and I think LODI) to design a shortened, single band dipole antenna for 30m. Specifically I'm interested in 10.149MHz. The result is: --1m wire--[~34t 1.5" form 2" long, ~24uH]----2m wire----[center]--... The center would be a 1:1 current balun, twisting the wires together and then taking 10-12 turns on FT50-61 (or if that won't fit, fewer turns on FT50-43). The predicted resistive input impedance is 22 ohms. Vertload is just simulating half the antenna (with 0 ohm ground loss) so its match info is not useful. The other program called for a ".71uH matching coil" for 50 feed, which I assume is to cancel a calculated -j45 reactive component?? I would like to pre-calculate an approximate match to Z=50ohms which I can put directly at the feed point and shrink-wrap with the balun. Is there a way to do that, or is it too touchy to do without measuring the actual antenna? -- Ben Jackson AD7GD http://www.ben.com/ Article: 226724 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: Quarterwave vertical with radials References: <12b560umsqr7033@corp.supernews.com> <1Jysg.129184$dW3.5355@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> <1152578023.253600.314910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1152609735.071204.264590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <34ydnZdtyundZy7ZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <12bone4ol8me4a2@corp.supernews.com> <44bc60a1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:16:04 GMT David wrote: > I notice that two people have simulated the vertical antenna with radials > using EZNEC, and obtained different results. One simulation shows that the > radials radiate, the other shows that they do not. My simulation indicated that the horizontal radials radiate hardly any horizontally polarized radiation, unlike a horizontal dipole antenna. But there's no way for me to separate the vertical radiation of the radials from the vertical radiation of the monopole. However, the method of moments will indicate why two in-line segments carrying the same current in the same direction interfere constructively while two in-line segments carrying the same current in opposite directions interfere destructively. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226725 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Cecil Moore Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question References: Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:22:29 GMT Ben Jackson wrote: > I would like to pre-calculate an approximate match to Z=50ohms which > I can put directly at the feed point and shrink-wrap with the balun. > Is there a way to do that, or is it too touchy to do without measuring > the actual antenna? If you were within 20%, you would be lucky. Best to fine tune it before shrink-wrapping it. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Article: 226726 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Roy Lewallen Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <12bqs2thi4219c8@corp.supernews.com> References: Well, let's see. The radiation resistance is about 9.2 ohms, so the efficiency is about 42%, or 3.8 dB down from a 100% efficient antenna (a full size dipole is nearly that). With that much loss, the bandwidth will be about 180 kHz, so you might be able to get by with a calculated network. I'd measure it, but making a good measurement isn't simple at all, so you're likely to do better working from model results than measurements unless you're experienced and have good equipment. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Ben Jackson wrote: > I've used a couple programs (vertload.exe and I think LODI) to design > a shortened, single band dipole antenna for 30m. Specifically I'm > interested in 10.149MHz. > > The result is: > > --1m wire--[~34t 1.5" form 2" long, ~24uH]----2m wire----[center]--... > > The center would be a 1:1 current balun, twisting the wires together > and then taking 10-12 turns on FT50-61 (or if that won't fit, fewer > turns on FT50-43). > > The predicted resistive input impedance is 22 ohms. Vertload is just > simulating half the antenna (with 0 ohm ground loss) so its match info > is not useful. The other program called for a ".71uH matching coil" > for 50 feed, which I assume is to cancel a calculated -j45 reactive > component?? > > I would like to pre-calculate an approximate match to Z=50ohms which > I can put directly at the feed point and shrink-wrap with the balun. > Is there a way to do that, or is it too touchy to do without measuring > the actual antenna? > Article: 226727 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question Message-ID: <8dsqb2lm7p0nnvqbhtkesoh54f3lhtkkph@4ax.com> References: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:56:06 GMT On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:37:29 -0500, Ben Jackson wrote: >I've used a couple programs (vertload.exe and I think LODI) to design >a shortened, single band dipole antenna for 30m. Specifically I'm >interested in 10.149MHz. > >The result is: > >--1m wire--[~34t 1.5" form 2" long, ~24uH]----2m wire----[center]--... > >The center would be a 1:1 current balun, twisting the wires together >and then taking 10-12 turns on FT50-61 (or if that won't fit, fewer >turns on FT50-43). > >The predicted resistive input impedance is 22 ohms. Vertload is just >simulating half the antenna (with 0 ohm ground loss) so its match info >is not useful. The other program called for a ".71uH matching coil" >for 50 feed, which I assume is to cancel a calculated -j45 reactive >component?? This is not very clear, you say 22 ohms then seem to say it is half the antenna, is the input resistance to the dipole ~22 ohms or ~44 ohms? Whichever, it is a relatively simple matter to calculate the components of an L match, where you detune the dipole to get a small capacitive reactance and shunt the feedpoint with a coil to match to 50 ohms. If the R component is around 44 ohms, you need to detune the dipole to about -18 ohms of reactance and shunt the feedpoint with about 2uH. If the R component is around 22 ohms, you already know the answer, you need to detune the dipole to about -25 ohms of reactance and shunt the feedpoint with about 0.7uH. > >I would like to pre-calculate an approximate match to Z=50ohms which >I can put directly at the feed point and shrink-wrap with the balun. >Is there a way to do that, or is it too touchy to do without measuring >the actual antenna? An adventurous approach. You seem uncertain about the calculated design, doesn't that suggest trying it before committing it permanently? Owen -- Article: 226728 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BD7B78.9010703@fuse.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:23:20 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: deployable antenna References: <1153247780.886791.10340@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <44BD2D8A.5020908@fuse.net> <1153258558.151675.122500@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> n3ox.dan@gmail.com wrote: > Decreasing inductance will raise the resonant frequency as increasing > size lowers it. One will be faster than the other, so maybe you can > get some tuning range out of it. > > Hard to say how much without trying it, but you do have competing > changes in the wire if you do that. > > One thing to think about: A reel of wire coiled up at the high > voltage end of an antenna where little current flows adds very little > to the electrical length whether or not it's insulated (insulated > intentionally by plastic or unintentionally by oxides...) The > inductance of the coil formed is fairly inconsequential because almost > no current is flowing through it. > > 73, > Dan > > > >>How about a slinky-like coil that is attached to the undeployed ball as >>a tightly wound coil but then stretches "flat" with increasing >>circumference. So, thereby decreasing inductance with increasing size? >> >>John >>AB8WH > > Dan, Thanks for your input. I'm just free-forming ideas here. I would think that the tightly coiled position would only be for storage, when not used. But, think about a 2 meter diameter sphere, the circumf would be 6.28 meters, divide that by 30 "loops" and each loop is about .21 meters per loop and having a diam. of 6 cm. i.e., a 30 turn coil, 6 cm wide. More "loops", smaller diameter coil. When opened completely, the circular loop is "flat" and 6.28 meters long with a 2 meter diameter. When half opened (diam = 1 meter), the loop is partially coiled. How many turns would that be? I don't know how to solve for this. How would I fashion an approach to calculate resonance for any given diameter under these circumstances? Yes, I'm probably not the brightest bulb in the pack, but it's still fun to speculate...this is an AMATEUR group, afterall. John AB8WH Article: 226729 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? From: Slow Code References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153181770.231461.15160@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1153191637.682724.240470@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 00:25:48 GMT "Koikus" wrote in news:1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > >> I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written >> idealy an improved written test >> >> you want to keep a frat house game in place >> >> but you favor dishonesty > > . -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-. > You just gave him another headache, Shame on you. Sc Article: 226730 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: Re: If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? Date: 18 Jul 2006 17:38:34 -0700 Message-ID: <1153269514.075272.321550@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> Slow Code wrote: > "Koikus" wrote in > news:1153256467.794008.257210@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > > . -.. --- -. - --. . - .. - . .. - .... . .-. > > > > > You just gave him another headache, Shame on you. not realy I did not listen to the "transmision" > > Sc Article: 226731 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "an_old_friend" Subject: get help sicko Date: 18 Jul 2006 17:38:43 -0700 Message-ID: <1153269523.855201.219990@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> References: Slow Code wrote: > Sorry, CB'ers already got dibs on the bands after CW goes away. > > SC you are sicko get help and you will feel better you are surely suffring >from the long terms effects of narrow band rf expousure Article: 226732 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "David G. Nagel" Subject: Re: Elimination of CW is a loss in the number of ways we can communicatewith Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:21:22 -0500 Message-ID: <12br28hjeron7d@corp.supernews.com> References: <1151356286.883560.56280@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <44a05784$0$15331$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net> <29GdnQxiI6gLuSTZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com> <34kdfo.sdf04sffs@devner.net> <2nvkb2hl674dhilld10b4ed1iohvib6ff4@4ax.com> <12bomg19hdotvfa@corp.supernews.com> Cecil Moore wrote: > David G. Nagel wrote: > >> The CW text requirement is like the requirement for a foreign language >> requirement for some college degrees, ... > > > I carefully avoided any foreign language > requirement for my BS EE. Computer program was substituted for foreign language where I went to college. Dave Article: 226733 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Reg Edwards" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> <1153259452.591861.270510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 01:46:38 +0100 Message-ID: > Reg, a bit confused by these results from RADIAL_3 > > 96 radials, 7MHz, antenna height 10.72m. Soil 500ohm*m, permittivity > 13\ > > Radials and antenna 1.024mm (18AWG), radials 3mm deep(surface) > > Radial Length, %Efficiency > > 2m, 93.19% > 3m, 93.83% > 4m, 92.47% > 5m, 86.01% > 6m, 80.39% > 7m, 85.92% > 8m, 89.06% > 9m, 89.59% > 10m, 88.22% > 11m, 85.99% > 12m, 85.51% > 13m, 86.67% > > ?? > > Dan ======================================== Dan, The up-and-down change in efficiency versus radial length is due to resonance effects. With a high value of soil resistivity of 500 ohm-meters resonance is not completely damped down. This is also indicated by the relatively small decibels per 1/4-wavelength figure. As radial length is varied the input resistance of the 96 radials changes. Look at the wavelength of 1 wire figure. It will be seen that length passes through 0.5 wavelength resonance at 6.0 metres. It passes through 1.0 wavelength resonance at 11.6 metres. At both these lengths the input resistance is at a maximum and so efficiency is at a minimum. At 2.9 metres and 8.8 metres the radials are in 1/4-wave and 3/4-wave resonant and the input resistance is at a minimum and efficiency is at a maximum. Vary length while watching the resistive component of input impedance to see what happens. It's highlighted in red. If you reduce soil resistivity from 500 to 50 ohm metres the resonance effects will probably disappear and the decibels per quarter wavelength will increase. All resonant effects will have disappeared when radial attenuation is about 18 or 20dB or greater. The effects of resonance are not observed so well when frequency is varied because so many other things change as frequency is varied over an octave or more. Resonant effects are much greater at 20 MHz and above with very high resistance soils such as desert sand. The radials then behave very similarly to the elevated variety. I trust your confusion has now gone away. ;o) ---- Reg, G4FGQ Article: 226734 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "RHF" Subject: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? Date: 18 Jul 2006 19:20:16 -0700 Message-ID: <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> SC, Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ? - - - The Times They Are A Changing ! While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator for Mastering Morris Code (CW). Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service. Morris Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO" http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM -but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag "Semaphore" Signals Too ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication) Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout. just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF . . . . Slow Code wrote: > fmmck@aol.com (Fred McKenzie) wrote in > news:fmmck-1607061316520001@ac9bfd05.ipt.aol.com: > > > In article , "Alun L. > > Palmer" wrote: > > > >> Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to > >> send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on. > > > > I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was > > based. > > > > Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating > > a digital camera user: > > > > "If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save > > him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?" > > > Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film. > > Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it > bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an > improvement. > > SC Article: 226735 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: "Yuri Blanarovich" References: <16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com> Subject: Re: Length & number of radials Message-ID: <_5hvg.146$OQ2.57@fe08.lga> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:48:47 -0400 "Reg Edwards" wrote in message news:16WdnY4ZYO8HiCDZnZ2dnUVZ8tOdnZ2d@bt.com... > If you are considering a new vertical antenna, instead of guesswork > and copying somebody else's un-thought-out efforts, download program > RADIAL_3 from website below. > > The program assists with choosing an economic length and number of > shallow-buried ground radials. It takes a new look at how radials work > by considering them to be lossy, single-wire transmission lines, > open-circuit at the other end. > > RADIAL_3 is a self contained file, 55 kilibytes. Easy to use. No > training needed. Download in a few seconds and run immediately. > ---- > ........................................................... > Regards from Reg, G4FGQ > For Free Radio Design Software go to > http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp > ........................................................... > > That is quite a bold statement and looks like trivilializing, ignoring the real workings of vertical antennas and radials! What would NEC4 say? 73 Yuri, K3BU Article: 226736 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna Message-ID: <44BDA4F3.7000706@fuse.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 23:20:19 -0400 From: jawod Subject: Re: Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- References: <30954.oidi09.d0904.ddoi0@qkd.org> <1152929851.865986.4740@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_AVug.9493$PE1.1406@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1153275616.225575.252170@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> RHF wrote: > SC, > > Morris Code uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it (and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore) Article: 226737 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Ben Jackson Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question References: <8dsqb2lm7p0nnvqbhtkesoh54f3lhtkkph@4ax.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:23:53 -0500 On 2006-07-18, Owen Duffy wrote: > This is not very clear, you say 22 ohms then seem to say it is half > the antenna, is the input resistance to the dipole ~22 ohms or ~44 > ohms? When I use vertload.exe to model one HALF of the dipole, I get a radiation resistance of about 12 ohms plus wire loss of about 1.5 for an input resistance of 13.5 ohms. I am assuming that if I put two of these shortened quarter-wave verticals back to back I get a dipole with performance (but not radiation pattern) similar to the quarter wave vertical over a near-perfect ground. [and I'm going to stick with those numbers and ignore the other program for this post] > Whichever, it is a relatively simple matter to calculate the > components of an L match, where you detune the dipole to get a small > capacitive reactance and shunt the feedpoint with a coil to match to > 50 ohms. Ok, so the math would go like this: At 10.149MHz, my input resistance would be 13.5*2 (two verticals back- to-back) or 27 ohms. It's got no reactive component at all because it's tuned perfectly. So if I added -25j capacitive reactance, for example with about 620p in series with feed point, then transformed the series impedance Z=27-25j into parallel admittance Y=0.02+0.018j, then I see my equivalent parallel resistive component is 50 ohms (ok!) and I am left with a -54j parallel capacitive reactive component, which I can cancel with a 54j parallel inductive component, which is my ~85uH inductor across the feedpoint. Now, to save money on capacitors, I could alternatively detune the dipole by shortening it until it was Z=27-25j at my 10.149MHz center frequency, and then shunt as before to get the same effect. Is that right? I guess I also don't understand what happened to my resonance point when the changes were made to a tuned antenna to produce the desired feedpoint impedance. > An adventurous approach. You seem uncertain about the calculated > design, doesn't that suggest trying it before committing it > permanently? Well, I know relatively nothing about building antennas, and I have no relevant test equipment (except an SWR meter, but no transmitter as yet) and no antenna tuner. Getting the antenna built was a side project while I wait for transmitter parts. Perhaps building a quick and dirty L-match would be a better use of my time! -- Ben Jackson AD7GD http://www.ben.com/ Article: 226738 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Owen Duffy Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question Message-ID: References: <8dsqb2lm7p0nnvqbhtkesoh54f3lhtkkph@4ax.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:39:28 GMT On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:23:53 -0500, Ben Jackson wrote: >On 2006-07-18, Owen Duffy wrote: >> This is not very clear, you say 22 ohms then seem to say it is half >> the antenna, is the input resistance to the dipole ~22 ohms or ~44 >> ohms? > >When I use vertload.exe to model one HALF of the dipole, I get a >radiation resistance of about 12 ohms plus wire loss of about 1.5 for >an input resistance of 13.5 ohms. I am assuming that if I put two >of these shortened quarter-wave verticals back to back I get a dipole >with performance (but not radiation pattern) similar to the quarter >wave vertical over a near-perfect ground. > >[and I'm going to stick with those numbers and ignore the other >program for this post] > >> Whichever, it is a relatively simple matter to calculate the >> components of an L match, where you detune the dipole to get a small >> capacitive reactance and shunt the feedpoint with a coil to match to >> 50 ohms. > >Ok, so the math would go like this: > >At 10.149MHz, my input resistance would be 13.5*2 (two verticals back- >to-back) or 27 ohms. It's got no reactive component at all because >it's tuned perfectly. > >So if I added -25j capacitive reactance, for example with about 620p >in series with feed point, then transformed the series impedance >Z=27-25j into parallel admittance Y=0.02+0.018j, then I see my >equivalent parallel resistive component is 50 ohms (ok!) and I am >left with a -54j parallel capacitive reactive component, which I can >cancel with a 54j parallel inductive component, which is my ~85uH >inductor across the feedpoint. > You probably meant ~0.85uH. >Now, to save money on capacitors, I could alternatively detune the >dipole by shortening it until it was Z=27-25j at my 10.149MHz center >frequency, and then shunt as before to get the same effect. Is >that right? Yes, though the R will change a little... that is one reason why my response was liberally filled with "about". > >I guess I also don't understand what happened to my resonance point >when the changes were made to a tuned antenna to produce the desired >feedpoint impedance. Resonance of the "radiator" is not a prerequisite of performance. The changes that you are likely to make to introduce -25 ohms or so of reactance will not impact the losses in the radiator much or the pattern. > >> An adventurous approach. You seem uncertain about the calculated >> design, doesn't that suggest trying it before committing it >> permanently? > >Well, I know relatively nothing about building antennas, and I have >no relevant test equipment (except an SWR meter, but no transmitter >as yet) and no antenna tuner. Getting the antenna built was a side >project while I wait for transmitter parts. Perhaps building a quick >and dirty L-match would be a better use of my time! With your guestimates of the starting point, why don't you wind the 0.85uH inductor so that you can adjust it a little, build the dipole and loading coils and tune the dipole for least SWR (length or loading coil adjustment). If the least SWR is not low enough, tweak the 0.8uH inductor higher or lower and repeat the process, and follow the clues. Owen -- Article: 226739 of rec.radio.amateur.antenna From: Richard Clark Subject: Re: 30m Shortened Dipole, matching question Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:39:40 -0700 Message-ID: <96arb29m8pcbc2bkcr11ncdbnl61uv576k@4ax.com> References: <8dsqb2lm7p0nnvqbhtkesoh54f3lhtkkph@4ax.com> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:23:53 -0500, Ben Jackson wrote: >Perhaps building a quick >and dirty L-match would be a better use of my time! Hi Ben, You are on the right track. Put up the tallest stick you can, plant a dozen radials around it of approximately the same length, and match it with a gamma match. You don't really stand to gain much by making it any more "efficient." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC