| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
January 2nd 07, 03:53 AM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 1 Jan 2007 15:53:49 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in .com: Frank Gilliland wrote: But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? Correct... that should be the minimum area used. LOL!!! |
|
#12
January 2nd 07, 04:01 AM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... Frank Gilliland wrote: But it's gotta have a 9 square foot ground plane, right Brian? Correct... that should be the minimum area used. www.telstar-electronics.com Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
|
#13
January 2nd 07, 01:53 PM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
U-Know-Who wrote:
Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. No... just that anything smaller will not constitute a massive enough plane to be of any use. www.telstar-electronics.com |
|
#14
January 2nd 07, 03:56 PM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 2 Jan 2007 04:53:09 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in om: U-Know-Who wrote: Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. No... just that anything smaller will not constitute a massive enough plane to be of any use. ROTFLMMFAO!!!!! |
|
#15
January 2nd 07, 04:24 PM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message ps.com... U-Know-Who wrote: Ah yes, the elusive and little known 3 squared ratio for mobile 1/4 wave antennas. No... just that anything smaller will not constitute a massive enough plane to be of any use. www.telstar-electronics.com So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
|
#16
January 3rd 07, 07:16 PM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
U-Know-Who wrote:
So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Sure it does... but remember that antenna thoery is quite complex. Not sure there is any one formula for figuring this. The plane's size and shape will have a large impact on radiation pattern... amoungst other parameters. What's new? Glad you asked... http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...s/WhatsNew.htm |
|
#17
January 4th 07, 04:53 AM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 3 Jan 2007 10:16:42 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in .com: U-Know-Who wrote: So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Sure it does... but remember that antenna thoery is quite complex.... Blah, blah, blah. You are starting to sound like Skippy with his "it's part of a bigger picture" excuse. Stuff the BS and show the math, you hack! |
|
#18
January 4th 07, 05:17 AM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
"Telstar Electronics" wrote in message oups.com... U-Know-Who wrote: So, ya reckon frequency has *any* bearing on this guess? What formula are you using to come to this conclusion? Sure it does... but remember that antenna thoery is quite complex. Not sure there is any one formula for figuring this. The plane's size and shape will have a large impact on radiation pattern... amoungst other parameters. So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
|
#19
January 4th 07, 01:30 PM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
U-Know-Who wrote:
So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. I only said that a 3'x3' area of ground plane would be the minimum size that I would recommend for such an installation. Never hinted there was an exact formula to substantiate that recommendation. What's new? Glad you asked... http://www.telstar-electronics.com/d...s/WhatsNew.htm |
|
#20
January 4th 07, 03:13 PM
posted to rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
VIPER ANTENNAS
On 4 Jan 2007 04:30:21 -0800, "Telstar Electronics"
wrote in . com: U-Know-Who wrote: So, you have decided that 9 square feet is about right based on what theory? I've built yagi's, ground planes, collinear, dipoles, etc. I was just asking you to back up your theory. This is not some cutting edge science that cannot be verified with today's math. Please don't allow yourself to be proven a blowhard again. You made the statement, back it up. I only said that a 3'x3' area of ground plane would be the minimum size that I would recommend for such an installation. Never hinted there was an exact formula to substantiate that recommendation. Actually, there -is- an exact formula for the surface area of a ground plane. And at 11m it's nowhere close to 3' x 3'. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
