On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how smart
you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out, enlighten the group. You
already said I didn't know, so explain it.

BTW, you just made a point for Tnom's data that he posted.

Go figure.

In , lancer wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how smart
you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out.....

No, I'm the one that pointed it out a long time ago. And there are several
reasons why it happens, but the most significant is because nothing in a mobile
installation is perfectly grounded. The RF ground in a vehicle is the vehicle
itself, and at the frequency of interest (27 MHz), it rarely shows the nice low
impedance needed for a good ground plane, or 1/4 wave resonance to work as a
counterpoise. So your meter might show a perfect 1:1 match, but the meter will
be wrong because it, too, is referenced to the same imperfect ground. The -only-
way to be sure you are getting the most signal from your antenna is to actually
measure the signal, and you do that with a field strength meter. You can see the
difference for yourself by doing your own test. Assuming you don't have a dummy
load for an antenna, you will see that the best match does not necessarily mean
the best field strength.

I thought this topic was already hashed out a long time ago.....







-----= 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! =-----

lancer wrote:




Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

It has to do with the radiation resistance of the antenna, suggest you
get some books on antenna theroy and read about it.

Are you saying a recieve antenna tuned for 49 mhz will give the same
meter reading from a 49 mhz antenna as one tuned for 27 mhz. If that was
true why the different need for recieve antennas just hook up any length
of wire. Now will it be a night and day difference I don't know but here
you have a guy testing antennas trying to eliminate variables, looking at
a meter on a 31" tv. Is that the best you can do is argue this point? why
not tell us how max FS doesnt mean lowest SWR.

How dense...or is it argumentive can one be? Let me clarify.

The receive beams gamma was adjusted for a best match around the
CB ssb channels. A typical way to set up a antenna.

The transmitting antennas where all set for the best (nulled) SWR
at the same CB ssb channels. All the antennas achieved a 1.5
to 1 or better match at the SWR null. A typical way to adjust a
antenna.

Even if I replaced the resonant beam with a coathanger the S-meter
would still yield the same gain ranking of the antennas.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:21:06 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in
:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:08:42 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in
:

It sure does matter an antenna may have a low swr on channel
20(under 1.5) but be resonant on 26.835, and if the recieve antenna
is resonant at or near 26.835 what have you got? Was the recieve
antenna tested?


Explain that dumbass, the same receive antenna was used for all the
tests. The SWR or resonant frequency doesn't matter as long as its
not changed during the tests.

Let me phrase it in a way that your simple mind would understand;

Do you think the receive antenna knew which antenna was transmitting
and some how changed its parameters?





wow thats all you could find wrong with what i said?
Let me educate you assclown, the recieve antenna is resonant on 26.835
antenna "a" has a low swr across the band but is actually resonant on
26.835, rememebr resonance is not lowest swr. Antenna B has a low swr
across the band but is resonant on 27.405, which antenna will the
recieve antenna hear better?

No, now go back and read what you originally wrote, and what Tnom
wrote that you responded too. It doesn't matter what frequency the
receive antenna is resonant at as long as you don't change anything
with the receive antenna during the test. The receive antenna could
care less what frequency the transmit antenna is resonant at.

So you trying to everyone that anytime some changes their tuning on
their antenna, everyone else has to retune their antenna to receive
them properly?



Are you saying a recieve antenna tuned for 49 mhz will give the same
meter reading from a 49 mhz antenna as one tuned for 27 mhz. If that was
true why the different need for recieve antennas just hook up any length
of wire. Now will it be a night and day difference I don't know but here
you have a guy testing antennas trying to eliminate variables, looking at
a meter on a 31" tv. Is that the best you can do is argue this point? why
not tell us how max FS doesnt mean lowest SWR.


Do you have a comprehension problem? Thats not what I said dumbass.
He did eliminate a variable, he used the same receive antenna for all
his tests. It doesn't matter what he used for a receive antenna as
long as he used the same one every time. Are you really that damn
dense?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:11:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , lancer wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how smart
you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out.....

No, I'm the one that pointed it out a long time ago. And there are several
reasons why it happens, but the most significant is because nothing in a mobile
installation is perfectly grounded. The RF ground in a vehicle is the vehicle
itself, and at the frequency of interest (27 MHz), it rarely shows the nice low
impedance needed for a good ground plane, or 1/4 wave resonance to work as a
counterpoise. So your meter might show a perfect 1:1 match, but the meter will
be wrong because it, too, is referenced to the same imperfect ground. The -only-
way to be sure you are getting the most signal from your antenna is to actually
measure the signal, and you do that with a field strength meter. You can see the
difference for yourself by doing your own test. Assuming you don't have a dummy
load for an antenna, you will see that the best match does not necessarily mean
the best field strength.

I thought this topic was already hashed out a long time ago.....



No Frank, Neil said it he

Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.

I wanted him to explain it too me, since he acted like he knew the
answer and wanted to explain it too, since according to him, I didn't
know it. Quit bailing him out, let him back his big mouth up.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:15:31 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

In , lancer
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in
news:kcobpvcfh95lkjo845230puh96dikk3osk@4ax. com:


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only
assume that they were different. Regardless, what was the
forward power with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength
or lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer
doesn't know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how
smart you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out.....

No, I'm the one that pointed it out a long time ago. And there are
several reasons why it happens, but the most significant is because
nothing in a mobile installation is perfectly grounded. The RF ground
in a vehicle is the vehicle itself, and at the frequency of interest
(27 MHz), it rarely shows the nice low impedance needed for a good
ground plane, or 1/4 wave resonance to work as a counterpoise. So your
meter might show a perfect 1:1 match, but the meter will be wrong
because it, too, is referenced to the same imperfect ground. The
-only- way to be sure you are getting the most signal from your
antenna is to actually measure the signal, and you do that with a
field strength meter. You can see the difference for yourself by doing
your own test. Assuming you don't have a dummy load for an antenna,
you will see that the best match does not necessarily mean the best
field strength.

I thought this topic was already hashed out a long time ago.....


I thought so to Frank, as he asked me to explain, perhaps he doesn't
understand. I also see he did not provide any info to prove that what I
said was wrong.

Sure I did, your just don't undesrtand. Isn't that nice that Frank
bailed you out?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:19 -0600, JJ
wrote:

lancer wrote:




Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

It has to do with the radiation resistance of the antenna, suggest you
get some books on antenna theroy and read about it.


Will you please quit answering for him? I suggest you keep up with
the thread.

In , Lancer
wrote:

snip
I wanted him to explain it too me, since he acted like he knew the
answer and wanted to explain it too, since according to him, I didn't
know it. Quit bailing him out, let him back his big mouth up.

Gee, I didn't know this was your private thread. I'll ask before I reply next
time, ok?






-----= 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! =-----

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:56:00 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Lancer
wrote:

snip
I wanted him to explain it too me, since he acted like he knew the
answer and wanted to explain it too, since according to him, I didn't
know it. Quit bailing him out, let him back his big mouth up.

Gee, I didn't know this was your private thread. I'll ask before I reply next
time, ok?



Come on, you know thats not what I meant. If it sounded that way,
sorry, thats wasn't my intention.

He made a remark, and I just wanted him to back up his post.

ok?