On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:44:57 -0000, "Frank"
wrote:

|Wes Stewart ...
|
|^ Antennas are reciprocal, if they wouldn't work well for
|^ transmitting, they will work equally poorly for receiving.
|
|I don't believe that. It's been my experience that an antenna used for
|receiving will function satisfactorily over a much broader range of
|conditions (environment, antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for
|transmitting under those same conditions.

Mmm. In the case of atmospheric limited SNRs that is true. A trailing
wire under sea water receives just fine at ELF and doesn't work worth
a damn for transmitting. But those are special cases that can always
be manufactured. Beverage antennas are also not something to be used
for transmitting but you won't be disguising one as a chimney cap
either

In the general sense of h-f to microwave, I stand by my claim.

Wes

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:47:29 -0600, "Stinger"
wrote:

|just as it is clear your intent is to act like
|an asshole.


No, just having a little fun, but some folks take this stuff waaaay
too seriously.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:17:33 +0500, "John Doty" wrote:

|In article , "w4jle" W4JLE(remove this
|to wrote:
|
| Believe what you will, the law of reciprocity will ignore your beliefs
| and continue to function.
|
|1. It's only a "law" for scalar radiation (like sound), not vector
|radiation (radio). To be sure, it's a fine approximation for most HF
|antenna systems, but watch out a microwave frequencies, especially if your
|antenna system contains a "circulator".

Heh heh. When the guys from MIT come out to argue with you, you know
you're in trouble. But fools rush in...

I have made thousands of measurements in anechoic antenna ranges and I
have never seen a difference between measuring s21 and s12. (Without
the circulators, and accounting for mismatch effects of course)

Where did I go wrong?


|2. In the cases where reciprocity applies you would be correct to say that
|it requires that the antenna directivity and efficiency are the same for
|transmitting and receiving. It does not follow, however, that a poor
|transmitting antenna is necessarily a poor receiving antenna. Efficiency
|matters much more when transmitting than it does when receiving.

It also does not follow that a lousy receiving antenna is good enough.

For example, I *always* got better moon echos on 2-meter EME using the
same antenna for transmit and receive. When I tried a wet string on
receive I didn't hear nuthin' g

I have observed the same on 20 meters. My Yagi at a modest height of
50 feet is *always* better than an indoor wire.

|
|Franks's observations are correct, and can be verified if you do a
|detailed signal to noise calculation. You could also try the experiment
|yourself.

Two experiments cited above.

Hi,

For ongoing topic on antenna restrictions and related subject go he

http://www.eham.net/forums/AntennaRestrictions


I also live in a restricted lower middle class working guy/gal development (
PUD)

all new construction in the area had these restricted covenants. No way
around it
unless you buy older homes in older neighborhoods and you may pay a lot of
money
for smaller home but well built and no restrictions.

Most restrictions duplicate local rules, like letting the lawn grow a foot
tall or parking
any cars on the front lawn or backyard, etc...

a few crazy people on our board, one rides his mobility scooter and takes
photos of any
and all things he don't like, get a life pal ! he is crazy.

As you will read in the above eham topic, one poster points out that the
homes in the
big buck area like beverly hills etc, have NO RESTRICTIONS and many are hams
!

he also writes that these restrictions do nothing to increase home values.

do visit the above link very informative

73 and keep it stealth !


"A.Pismo Clam" wrote:

Hello All!

I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An
article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The
article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv
station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too
good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you
might find a copy in your local library.

In essence he says that the:

"...[Federal] government will defend your right to crawl up on the roof
and put up a BIG, HONKING antenna, despite the protests of nosy
neighbors, community planners, rental management companies, local
governemnt bureaucrats and other meddlesome busybodies."

Want to know how? Here is the URL:

www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Now you may have to prove to "the opposition" that the antenna you have
erected can indeed receive "local" television stations, but that should
not be that difficult to do...

Hi,

For ongoing topic on antenna restrictions and related subject go he

http://www.eham.net/forums/AntennaRestrictions


I also live in a restricted lower middle class working guy/gal development (
PUD)

all new construction in the area had these restricted covenants. No way
around it
unless you buy older homes in older neighborhoods and you may pay a lot of
money
for smaller home but well built and no restrictions.

Most restrictions duplicate local rules, like letting the lawn grow a foot
tall or parking
any cars on the front lawn or backyard, etc...

a few crazy people on our board, one rides his mobility scooter and takes
photos of any
and all things he don't like, get a life pal ! he is crazy.

As you will read in the above eham topic, one poster points out that the
homes in the
big buck area like beverly hills etc, have NO RESTRICTIONS and many are hams
!

he also writes that these restrictions do nothing to increase home values.

do visit the above link very informative

73 and keep it stealth !


"A.Pismo Clam" wrote:

Hello All!

I live in San Diego and have been a PBS supporter for many years. An
article in this months "On Air" PBS magazine has made my day! The
article is on page #3. It is written by the General Manager of the tv
station. I have not read the document in question, but it does sound too
good to be true. How curious are you? If you live in San Diego, you
might find a copy in your local library.

In essence he says that the:

"...[Federal] government will defend your right to crawl up on the roof
and put up a BIG, HONKING antenna, despite the protests of nosy
neighbors, community planners, rental management companies, local
governemnt bureaucrats and other meddlesome busybodies."

Want to know how? Here is the URL:

www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Now you may have to prove to "the opposition" that the antenna you have
erected can indeed receive "local" television stations, but that should
not be that difficult to do...

Big BIG mistake, its all over for him.
Nothing worse then board members of these associations, I rather live in an
airplane fuselage with livestock.
I suggest this guy try and get out of the lease
Show up to a meeting babbling in pajamas and pee on the floor !!!
-RP
"'Doc" wrote in message ...

The only one you can blame for this problem is your
self. You signed the lease...
'Doc

In article , "Wes Stewart"
wrote:

|Seriously, for your purposes you did nothing wrong. Just don't call
|reciprocity a "law", OK? It's a useful idea of wide applicability, but
|physics does not require it in general. Calling it a law confuses
people.

I never made that statement.

Oops, you're right.. It was "w4jle". But you took his side :-)

See, one of the groups this got cross-posted to is an *Amateur Radio
Antenna* group. I'm reading and writing it from this group and
commenting from that perspective. I normally don't cross post but did
the first one by accident and since I've developed such a loyal
following I didn't want to lose anybody G.

But we were discussing Frank's observation:

It's been my experience that an antenna used for receiving will function
satisfactorily over a much broader range of conditions (environment,
antenna length, etc.) than it will if used for transmitting under those
same conditions.

Certainly below 30 MHz this is represents a correct observation,
verifiable both by calculation and experiment. Why should this reality
change with the newsgroup?

Tall tree? What's a tall tree? The best I have is some 35 foot tall
Saguaro cactii. They're a bitch to climb, although when the coyotes
went after the cat, she managed. Let's see, I could tie a string to the
cat's tail and find a coyote.....

Sounds like you're in "Beverage on the ground" territory. That works too,
I'm told (I live next to a swamp, so the tall maples are my friends :-).
I've never tried a Beverage on the ground, although I have used a long
skinny island as a slot antenna (worked very well from longwave through
tropical bands, useless above 10 MHz).

--
| John Doty "You can't confuse me, that's my job."
| Home:
| Work:

"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .
Different strokes for different folks, Frank.

In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood
with
restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the
neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to
covenants
that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well.

Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights
arguments
isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights
are just
fine, thank you.

This probably doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it crossed
my mind some weeks ago, with all the controversy over the removal of
Judge Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments. After the removal, I
pretty much expected Judge Moore would put the monument on his front
lawn. It's his property, and he should be free to do so. Well, maybe
Judge Moore rents an apartment or lives in a condo and doesn't own a
front lawn. But wouldn't be ironic if Judge Moore negligently signed
onto a list of restrictions which effectively banned any such monument
on his own property?


However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public
sector
(government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners.
I am
vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private
property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who
will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax
revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all
over the
United States. It' just plain wrong.

-- Stinger


If it's government using eminent domain to effectivly transfer private
property from one owner to another private owner, yeah, there's a big
problem there. Even if it's not a Constitutional problem, the voters
should be deeply skeptical of all the promises the politicians make
about these wasteful projects. But we have a long history of being
negligent with our votes, as well.

Frank Dresser

"RP Jones" wrote in
:


I work with a guy that is the president of a Home Owners Association.
Talk about an asshole. A woman in his area approached him to get
permission to have a yard sale. Of course he vacillated, and she grew
angry. He reassured her that her request would be considered by the
council.

Of course, her request was denied. All those cars parking in front of
other people's property would not be fair to the other people.

Fair, fair, fair. boy have I tired of this word.

This guy seems severely traumatized by the fact that these neighborhood
associations no longer have the ability to regulate satellite antennas
39.37" or smaller in diameter.

We have trouble with our interloping neighbor even though we don't live
in an area covered by these prohibitions. The neighbor is the vice
president of the city council in the small borough that we live in near
Pittsburgh. We first moved here, she expressed a desire for us to cut
down (for safety reasons of course LOL), every freakin tree on our
property. She made sure to tell us that the leaves on our property were
"our responsibility" to rake up. (hell, I didn't put them there, the
trees should have to rake them up). We had the diseased trees removed at
a considerable cost, and had the others trimmed.

You think that she would have had a geriatric orgasm. Noooo, she found
more things to harp about. My son had bought a 1967 Chevy that we parked
at the top of our driveway, even though the car was not licensed, as it
needed work before it was roadworthy. We were away for the weekend when
the local police drove onto our property and tagged our car as abandoned,
we had a week to get the car licensed. Enter Classic car plates. We had
to get regular plates for our car, then subsequently applied and were
issued classic car plates. The car was legal, they couldn't tow it, and
there it sat as before her interloping started.

But she never quits. We wanted to erect a privacy fence, but in this
relatively dilapidated neighborhood, believe it or not, there is an
ordinance against them. We had to resort to a shadow box fence. Prior to
this, we had the property surveyed, and the front of our property
includes a small part of what the neighbors assumed were theirs.
Apparently the loss of a small part of their property was too much to
bear, as the survey spike was removed and moved closer to our property.

Imagine this woman in charge of a homeowners association? I'd rather
live in the country in West Virginia (I like West Virginia, very pretty
country) with a refrigerator on the front porch and a small junk yard in
my front yard than to live in a neighborhood covered by a covenant.
Years ago in a telecommunications magazine, I read an article in which an
amateur had crafted an antenna, essentially a pole with a narrow skirt,
and placed it in the yard. He told the neighbors that it was a
birdfeeder, and that the design was to preclude squirrels from climbing
it. The only problem was that other neighbors began to ask if he could
help them construct similar birdfeeders. Well, at least theirs won't
require a buried wire running to them.


http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/reg...trictions.html




Big BIG mistake, its all over for him.
Nothing worse then board members of these associations, I rather live
in an airplane fuselage with livestock.
I suggest this guy try and get out of the lease
Show up to a meeting babbling in pajamas and pee on the floor !!!
-RP
"'Doc" wrote in message
...

The only one you can blame for this problem is your
self. You signed the lease...
'Doc

That's how much you know about me. I don't sign leases.

'Doc wrote:

The only one you can blame for this problem is your
self. You signed the lease...
'Doc