Rather, they
continue to debate, ad nauseum and without any meaningful data, whether
one antenna is better than the other, or at best quote differences in
"S-units" read from their meters, without the foggiest idea how many dB
it might represent or how different it is from someone else's meter (or
from the same meter on a different band or a different part of the
scale). The conclusion I've reached is that A) Hams would much rather
argue than actually determine the facts, or B) The vast majority are
unable to build a homebrew project consisting of slide switches,
circuit
board material, and resistors. I'm afraid both are probably true.
.................
.................................................. .................................................. .........

In my case, I suppose I could build one. I am capable. But the honest
truth is I really don't care exactly how many DB's a certain antenna is
vs
another when testing on the air. Or how many DB's my S meter reads.
All I care about is which is better. A or B. The ionosphere will skew
any
measurements, so to me, not much point. Now, if I were testing
antennas against each other on a antenna testing range, I wouldn't be
without one.
As an example, if I were to measure the DB increase of a GP vs dipole
on 40m, the difference would increase as the path got farther and
farther.
I wouldn't really be measuring the antennas per say, I'd be measuring
the overall big picture including the propogation effects. So I don't
see
much need to put an exact number on it. As long as I can tell which is
better, I'm a happy camper. I'd use the attenuator when doing fine
comparions of antennas in a controlled envionement. IE: good for
measuring the gain of a homebrew 2m yagi, vs a dipole, etc in a
space wave envionment.
When quoting S meter readings, I never try to equate those with
any numerical gain.. It's just a relative method of seeing which one
is best.
MK

Tnxs Reg

The angle of the 'horizontal' dipole relative to the horizontal,
whether it is an inverted-V or not, makes negligible difference to the
amount of noise it collects. It is non-critical in this respect.

"Reg Edwards" wrote
Regardless of its noise properties, a quarter-wave and higher vertical
radiates more low-angle power than a half-wave horizontal dipole.
_______________

That depends on its r-f ground. Horizontal plane radiation from a 1/4-wave
vertical could be worse than the horizontal 1/2-wave dipole if all of the
induced ground currents around the vertical aren't collected and returned to
the tx/antenna system.

And verticals of some heights have zero radiation in the horizontal plane --
one wavelength, for example.

RF

//sympathy flag set//



Discussion of technical subjects between some hams can be frustrating to
listen to when you are accustomed to a lifetime of technical discussions and
experience with a sound understanding of the basics in the field. It is
indeed baffling to them, with all the seemingly black magic rules,
semi-truths and misconceptions they have heard over the years. Couple this
with one or two personal experiences which provide anecdotal "evidence" and
you can here some truly interesting interpretations. Some of it is amusing;
some is sad and some degrades to childish. A genuine interest is a jewel and
when someone expresses this, it is a joy to pass along the knowledge you
have gained over the years.

Roy,

While somewhat experienced in the field, I always enjoy your
knowledgeable and clear explanations. Some are informative, some are what I
already understand and some serve to affirm what I believe to be true based
on some related, but not direct experience. The latter is a joy as it
affirms that your (my) basics haven't failed you (me).



Thanks, Keep a stiff upper, and all that.



//sympathy flag cleared// (:-)

73, Steve, K9DCI



Hmmm. Interesting that MSoft Word wants to convert my smiley into some
obscure block character...sigh



and some of it is difficult to listen to without wanting to join-in and add
some correction.
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:


A step attenuator which is completely adequate for HF and can easily
resolve 1 dB can be made from a few cheap slide switches, some PC
board material, and a handful of ordinary 5% quarter watt resistors.
Detailed instructions can be found in numerous sources, including the
Web -- a Google search brought a large number of hits, the first of
which was http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/9506033.pdf. But I'm afraid
that this level of homebrewing is beyond the interest if not the
ability of the majority of today's amateurs.


Got it - Thanks, Roy!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

You're very welcome.

The reason for my rather grumpy comment at the end is that I've
recommended countless times for many years that people interested in
evaluating antennas build a simple step attenuator -- an evening
project. It allows you to make direct, quantitative comparisons between
two antennas -- yours or someone else's, as well as calibrate your "S"
meter. But to date, I've never gotten an iota of feedback that a single
person has actually taken the trouble to build one. Rather, they
continue to debate, ad nauseum and without any meaningful data, whether
one antenna is better than the other, or at best quote differences in
"S-units" read from their meters, without the foggiest idea how many dB
it might represent or how different it is from someone else's meter (or
from the same meter on a different band or a different part of the
scale). The conclusion I've reached is that A) Hams would much rather
argue than actually determine the facts, or B) The vast majority are
unable to build a homebrew project consisting of slide switches, circuit
board material, and resistors. I'm afraid both are probably true.

Maybe you'll be the first to actually build one. If so, please drop me
an email and let me know -- it'll make my day!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:


A step attenuator which is completely adequate for HF and can easily
resolve 1 dB can be made from a few cheap slide switches, some PC
board material, and a handful of ordinary 5% quarter watt resistors.
Detailed instructions can be found in numerous sources, including the
Web -- a Google search brought a large number of hits, the first of
which was http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/9506033.pdf. But I'm
afraid that this level of homebrewing is beyond the interest if not
the ability of the majority of today's amateurs.



Got it - Thanks, Roy!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


You're very welcome.

The reason for my rather grumpy comment at the end is that I've
recommended countless times for many years that people interested in
evaluating antennas build a simple step attenuator -- an evening
project. It allows you to make direct, quantitative comparisons between
two antennas -- yours or someone else's, as well as calibrate your "S"
meter. But to date, I've never gotten an iota of feedback that a single
person has actually taken the trouble to build one. Rather, they
continue to debate, ad nauseum and without any meaningful data, whether
one antenna is better than the other, or at best quote differences in
"S-units" read from their meters, without the foggiest idea how many dB
it might represent or how different it is from someone else's meter (or
from the same meter on a different band or a different part of the
scale). The conclusion I've reached is that A) Hams would much rather
argue than actually determine the facts, or B) The vast majority are
unable to build a homebrew project consisting of slide switches, circuit
board material, and resistors. I'm afraid both are probably true.

Maybe you'll be the first to actually build one. If so, please drop me
an email and let me know -- it'll make my day!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

I built one, on reading your advice, many moons ago. I'm glad I did.
Thanks, Roy.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Hi Roy,

MFJ makes a nice 81 dB step attenuator for a very reasonable price (about
$70.00 as I recall) for those who don't want to build. In either case (build
or buy), one still has to know how to make good use of it, which to my
experience is more demanding than either pocket book or soldering solutions.

There are a LOT of neat things one can do with a 2 position switch and a
step attenuator. For one thing, a lot of myths can be summarily dismissed
(after getting enough data points...another problem that gets lost in the
shuffle). One simple measurement on anything sky-wave based is completely
meaningless. Things like path-length, time of day, etc. need to be "washed
out" or "isolated" in order to come to anything even resembling a meaningful
conclusion, and one is likely to arrive and multipe conclusions based on the
array of variables one investigates. A step attenuator is an absolute
essential for anyone who plays with gain antennas or wants to compare
antennas. If expense is an issue, you have provided a great solution,
otherwise, the MFJ works rather well for not a lot of money.

73,

....hasan, N0AN

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Mike Coslo wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:


A step attenuator which is completely adequate for HF and can easily
resolve 1 dB can be made from a few cheap slide switches, some PC board
material, and a handful of ordinary 5% quarter watt resistors. Detailed
instructions can be found in numerous sources, including the Web -- a
Google search brought a large number of hits, the first of which was
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/9506033.pdf. But I'm afraid that this
level of homebrewing is beyond the interest if not the ability of the
majority of today's amateurs.


Got it - Thanks, Roy!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

You're very welcome.

The reason for my rather grumpy comment at the end is that I've
recommended countless times for many years that people interested in
evaluating antennas build a simple step attenuator -- an evening project.
It allows you to make direct, quantitative comparisons between two
antennas -- yours or someone else's, as well as calibrate your "S" meter.
But to date, I've never gotten an iota of feedback that a single person
has actually taken the trouble to build one. Rather, they continue to
debate, ad nauseum and without any meaningful data, whether one antenna is
better than the other, or at best quote differences in "S-units" read from
their meters, without the foggiest idea how many dB it might represent or
how different it is from someone else's meter (or from the same meter on a
different band or a different part of the scale). The conclusion I've
reached is that A) Hams would much rather argue than actually determine
the facts, or B) The vast majority are unable to build a homebrew project
consisting of slide switches, circuit board material, and resistors. I'm
afraid both are probably true.

Maybe you'll be the first to actually build one. If so, please drop me an
email and let me know -- it'll make my day!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL