Oh, goodie.. time to clean up the trash.

Frank Gilliland wrote:

In , sideband
wrote:


Seems to me old Frankie has a bit to learn about how balanced antennas
work.


Oboy, here we go again.... are you about to say something really stupid, like
balanced antennas receive the same regardless of how well they transmit?

No, you said that. I didn't have to. However, a non resonant antenna
showing a high SWR and a high RADIATION resistance will receive better
than it transmits, regardless of what phunkiephysics you're trying to
apply.

Or that
a non-resonant dipole will receive just as well as a resonant dipole?

Nope.. again.. you said that.. However, you should know that the
difference between an antenna receiving in resonance and one receiving
out of resonance (depending on how far out of resonance) is in the
nanovolt to miccrovolt range... so you might lose an s-unit or two on
receive. However a dipole showing a 2:1 SWR, as the op has presented,
isn't going to make that much of a difference in either transmit or
receive. Read some ARRL books, Frankie.

Or that
balanced antennas are -not- reciprocal (which would conflict with everything
that has been learned in the field of radio for over a century)?

No antenna is 1:1 "reciprocal" (as you call it).. The ability of the
antenna to radiate RF is not proportional to its ability to receive.
The sooner you get THAT out of YOUR head, you might actually stop
spreading bull**** false information.

Go right ahead,
Sideband -- educate me as to how balanced antennas work!



Again, go read a book, if you can get past your preconceived notions
that you know it all, you might actually learn something





-----= Posted via Newsfags.Com, Uncensored Usenet Homosexuality =-----
http://www.newsfags.com - The #1 Newfag Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsfags - 19 Different Servers! =-----

-SSB


P.S. My spellchecker keeps wanting to replace "Frankie" with
"France"... Go figure.