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

-SSB

Frank Gilliland wrote:

In ,
(Richard Cranium) wrote:


Frank Gilliland wrote in message . ..

In ,
(killdagger) wrote:


Greetings,
I've got me an RCA CB Co pilot 14T303 with a workman BS-1 dipole
antenna pinnes up in an inverted v outside my window. I recieve just
fine, but my transmit is horrible. I can't get a radio check from any
of the truckers up on the interstate (1/8 mi. from my house). I get a
barely audible signal monitoring from the other side of the house.
When I transmit I'm getting only the tiniest nudge on my s/mod meter.
Is my radio shot? of is it just the cheap antenna?

Any help with this dilemna would be greatly appreaciated.

Killdagger

I'm thinking that the final is shot, and what little RF being transmitted is
coming from the driver. If you have a multimeter, put the meter inline with the
power supply and measure the current being used by the radio in both transmit
and receive (with the volume down). With a good radio, transmit should draw at
least one amp more than receive. If it doesn't, the final is probably bad.

My bad; your guess is at least as good as Doc's was!


Wrong, o brainless troll. Look again at the original question, and think real
hard about the line, "I recieve just fine, but my transmit is horrible." Now if
you knew -anything- about radio (and you don't) you would know that antennas are
'reciprocal', meaning that if his antenna sucks on transmit, it will also suck
on receive. IOW, his problem isn't with the antenna.


So why couldn't
you just post your guess without attacking Doc, who gives freely of
real information without the personal attacks?


Because while -you- are a total imbicile when it comes to anything technical,
Doc is not, and should have known what I had to explain to you.

Now go crawl back under your rock.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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? Or that
a non-resonant dipole will receive just as well as a resonant dipole? 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)? Go right ahead,
Sideband -- educate me as to how balanced antennas work!






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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.

Speaking of wire dipoles..........

Have a look at this one. It's a distributed capacity coaxial wire dipole
antenna. There are no formulas, but it looks interesting.
Should start another interesting thread..........
http://www.k9gd.com/DCCDA.html

CP,
It's actually called a 'Double Bazooka' antenna and has
been around for ever. While it appears to be broaderbanded
than a 1/2 wave dipole, the problem is that the radiation
efficiency tapers off as you get to the extremes of the
frequency coverage. It will still show a low SWR, but because
of several things (reactances mostly), the radiation level
decreases so that you actually aren't radiating any more than
if you were using a 1/2 wave dipole with a high SWR. The
net gain over a common 1/2 wave dipole is zero.
It is a fairly 'quiet' antenna, not quite as much noise as
the
common dipole. At HF the diameter of the conductors make no
difference in the antenna's being broadbanded. The diameter
has to be increased to a sizable percentage of a wave length
before it really makes any appreciable difference. Something
like 6 feet diameter at 80 meters, and around 2 feet at 10/11
meters.
There is a formula for this type of antenna. You need to
know the velocity factor for the kind of coax you use. Cut the
total length of the dipole for (468/f{in Mhz}) = L1. Find the
electrical 1/2 wave length by multiplying this L1 by the coax's
velocity factor = L2. Subtract L2 from L1, divide it by two,
and that's how far from each end to short the inner conductor
and braid. The rest of the antenna is done as in the example.
There's a pretty good examination of coaxial dipoles in one
of
the ARRL's Antenna Compendium books.
'Doc

PS - The 'CCD' or Controled Capacitance Distribution antenna is
a whole 'nuther animal.

In , sideband
wrote:

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.

Wrong. You should know already that any antenna with a high radiation resistance
is an efficient radiator. And it just so happens that a dipole has it's highest
radiation resistance when it is resonant. SWR is not even a factor in this
topic.

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.

I agree to a point. Care to quantify that statement?

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.

I agree. What's your point?

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.

Wrong again. It is DIRECTLY proportional, all other factors being equal (IOW,
you aren't heating the wires with zillions of watts).

The sooner you get THAT out of YOUR head, you might actually stop
spreading bull**** false information.

You need to spend a little time at the library. Find a nice book on
electromagnetics, then search through the index for the terms 'radiation
intensity' and 'effective aperature'. I think you will find them on pages very
close to each other, if not on the same page. And you will notice that the
mathematical definitions of both terms are almost identical -- in fact, I have
one book that provides a formula to convert between the two. Why? Because they
are DIRECTLY RELATED, and that's why antennas are RECIPROCAL. Or maybe you think
that someone came up with the concept out of thin air....

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

My "preconcieved notions" come from the books you want me to read. Read them
yourself.





-----= 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.

Read the directions.







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

killdagger wrote...
Greetings,
I've got me an RCA CB Co pilot 14T303 with a workman BS-1 dipole
antenna pinnes up in an inverted v outside my window. I recieve just
fine, but my transmit is horrible.


Some people seem to believe that some antennas work best for receive and
others for transmit... but it is wrong. An antenna will work just as well
for both, either it is good or it is not.
One issue could be that some people may have their squelch set higher, or
they may not be listening for the weak signals. Another issue is that a
receiver being swamped with many fairly strong signals will have the gain
drop, so a poor antenna will give the radio weaker signals and the RX gain
may go back up.

A few years back, most of the UK TV stations shut down at night. When this
happened, my TV RX gain would go back up and I could pick up remaining
transmitters from 100s of miles away - on a small indoor antenna.

If, on a good antenna, your TX seems to be much worse than your RX, then
have the radio checked.


Well, I checked the SWR. 1.5 @ ch.1 and a hair below 2 on 40.


The readings suggest that the antenna is slightly long, but not enough to
worry about too much. Other nearby objects will affect the SWR.
SWR is not critical, a vertical dipole will normally be about 75 Ohms -
giving a 1.5:1 SWR reading at best.


As for the inverted
dipole, do you reccommend i mount it as an 'L'?


Vertical would be best but, if space is limited, you may need to settle for
something more compact.


Regards,

Peter.

Lance Adair KK4TI wrote:
"Richard Cranium" wrote in message
om...
Frank Gilliland wrote in message
. ..
In , sideband
wrote:

Hrm.. Wonder where Frankie's intelligent reply is...

Oh, wait, I guess this is it, as this is the best he can manage.

-SSB

You need to see someone about your communication deficit, because
I
answered the
OP's question in another post. Now **** off.

Shame on you, Frankie-fag; you've been hanging around with the
perverts (Doggie and Georgie-girl) so long you're starting to post
like them.

well look at dickie cranium your starting to post like dougie too
assclown,
nothing but fag this and gay that in your post dickie boy cranium...

Potty mouth Lance Adair strikes again.