On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:59:47 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Maybe you had difficulty, but there are a very large number of hams
-and- CBers who don't share your ineptitude.

A dipole is a dipole. It has 0 db of gain,


Wrong. A 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole has a gain of roughly +3 dBi in free
space. It has 0 dB when referenced to itself.


and that assumes a resonant
dipole .


That's an assumtion -you- made, and it's also wrong: A resonant dipole
can be any multiple of 1/2-wave, and has a gain that differs depending
upon the length and directionality.


If the dipole is non-resonant and requires a tuner to force
an impedance match, it will have further losses.


Wrong again. A tuner only adds insertion loss, which is usually quite
small if it's built with quality components. The insertion loss is
easily overcome by slightly increasing the length of the elements,
which is no big deal since the antenna is already non-resonant.


It won't stand a
chance against a commercially produced (or home made if you are
so-inclined) 5/8th wave vertical (with proper radials, not an Imax).


Well guess what, Dave -- a 5/8-wave antenna is a non-resonant antenna
and requires some method of impedance matching. Thank you.


I've done this type of
antenna myself and never had any problems with local contacts -- in
fact, it worked a lot better than the 9' whip on the truck.

I find that very hard to believe, assuming identical height and
conditions, as my own experiences prove otherwise.


Oh, the humanity.....


I ran a home brewed wire dipole on CB years ago, and used it in
addition to my main 5/8th wave antenna. While the dipole worked well
when the skip was running, locally, the signal from the dipole was a
few "S" units less than the ground plane. With 4 watts of power, you
don't get much range on a horizontal wire dipole strung in a tree.


Well there's your problem, Dave -- I didn't say anything about
horizontal. On the contrary, it's better if it isn't.

Yea, if you're talking local. For DX, horizontal is usually better for
a number of reasons, most notably a lower noise floor and better take
off angle.


A horizontal dipole can have a wide variation in take-off angle
depending on height above ground, ground resistance, proximity to
other structures or objects, etc. And the noise floor may be slightly
lower but that's a product of it's directivity, as compared to a
vertical which is omnidirectional. A pair of phased verticals, as well
as any other directional antenna or antenna array, will also have the
effect of lowering the noise floor.


Like I said
before, just throw some wire up into the trees (or whatever tall
object happens to be available). Didn't you read the link I posted?

Of course. But a dipole is a basic antenna. It has no gain.


Wrong again. As I said before, a 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole in free
space has about 3 dB gain over an isotropic antenna; but a dipole is
merely an antenna with two elements and is not limited to a 1/2-wave
Hertzian configuration. Not only that, but a tuner isn't limited to
dipole antennas -- they can load up a long-wire just as easily.


A properly
made purpose built CB antenna will out perform it.


Get a clue, Dave. You're an Extra, right? What's the name of that tech
school you claim to have attended?


Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. If a non-resonant,
tuner fed dipole worked so well, then why aren't all CB'ers using one?
Why would people want huge 5/8th wave antennas then? Better tell Jay
to forget about selling his Interceptor, since a simple non-resonant
dipole will work just as well and for far less money.


This resounds back to your argument that roger-beeps were illegal
because most radios didn't include them. The problem is that a tuner
requires a little skill and practice to use, which is beyond the scope
of the intended purpose of the service (a plug-n-play radio service).
A tuner requires readjustment when changing channels within the CB,
and most CBers don't want to deal with the hassle. Regardless, there
are still many CBers that do indeed use a tuner, not just with prefab
antennas but also with homebrew and beverage-can hooks. And just about
every CBer who runs a tube linear uses a tuner because it's built into
the amp, which by itself blows big holes in your "practical" argument.
Then there is the issue of the non-resonant 5/8-wave antenna..... oh,
Dave, when will you learn?


A non-resonant dipole has ONE big advantage. It's a compromise antenna
that will work on all the HF bands. That's great if you don't have the
room to put up single band antennas for each band. But like any
compromise, it will not work as well as a dedicated antenna for each
band. Such a compromise is usually acceptable for a ham who has 1500
watts on tap. But for a 4 watt CB'er, who needs to squeeze every watt
of ERP he can for best local range, he needs a high gain efficient
antenna.


If that were the case then every CBer would have a 5-el yagi on a 30'
mast and a 9' whip on their vehicles.


For ham band use, I agree with you, just not for CB.


What's the name of that tech school, Dave?

What's your call sign Frank?


I'm not a ham. I answered your question, now you answer mine: what's
the name of your tech school, Dave?


Frank, your experience with both ham and CB radio is sorely lacking.
You read a few books and web sites and think you have all the answers.
OTOH, I've walked the walk for the last 30+ years and have played with
more antennas and equipment than I can remember. I have also been in
contact with people in the know when it comes to antennas. What I
know, I know through experience, and that's worth 10X what you read in
any book.


Which explains why your theory is severely lacking. If you took the
time to actually learn why these things work and -then- applied them
to your experiences, you could be the guru you think you already are.
But you don't and you're not. Instead you do things backwards: you
theorize about radio based on your own experience, then read only
enough to validate your own conclusions whether they are right or not.

Check this out, Dave: Education doesn't come from a textbook that some
geek sat down and wrote just for ****s and giggles. It's a compendium
of knowledge that has been collected from over a century of research,
experimentation and practical experience by experts in all aspects of
the field. Those experts didn't become experts simply by playing with
CB radios as a hobby for 30 years. And an education doesn't include a
couple textbooks, a few lectures and a test -- it also includes years
of experience with the practical application of that knowledge. When
you mock those that have a formal education and extensive experience
in electronic communication then you mock the same people who made the
television set you watch way too much, the telephone and cell-phone
infrastructure that keeps this world talking, the NASA and JPL
engineers who communicate with space probes billions of miles away,
etc, etc, etc. While I may not have participated in any world-changing
technology, I certainly have an education and the experience in the
field that puts you to shame. Yet -you- try to teach -me- theory based
on your education from a third-rate vocational tech school, a few
years in a CB shop, and your experience in =amateur= radio.

And here's the kicker: Do you have any idea where I came up with the
idea to just throw a couple wires in the air and load them up with a
tuner? A ham.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:27:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:59:47 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Maybe you had difficulty, but there are a very large number of hams
-and- CBers who don't share your ineptitude.

A dipole is a dipole. It has 0 db of gain,


Wrong. A 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole has a gain of roughly +3 dBi in free
space.

Isotropic is a theoretical spherical reference model which does not
exist in reality. A dipole is THE reference antenna, by which most
credible gain claims are based against.


It has 0 dB when referenced to itself.

Isn't that what I just said?


and that assumes a resonant
dipole .


That's an assumtion -you- made, and it's also wrong: A resonant dipole
can be any multiple of 1/2-wave, and has a gain that differs depending
upon the length and directionality.

Then it's no longer a half wave dipole. You are now talking double
ended zepp designs, which do exhibit gain over a 1/2 wave dipole



If the dipole is non-resonant and requires a tuner to force
an impedance match, it will have further losses.


Wrong again. A tuner only adds insertion loss, which is usually quite
small if it's built with quality components. The insertion loss is
easily overcome by slightly increasing the length of the elements,
which is no big deal since the antenna is already non-resonant.

You fail to consider the standing waves which will still be present in
the feedline due to the mismatch. A tuner only presents a proper match
to the transmitter. With a high mismatch in the feedline, losses
increase as well and creating a tendency to radiate from the feedline.
In order to compensate for this the tuner should be mounted at the
feedpoint of the 4:1 balun that is normally used to feed 450 Ohm
ladder line to such designs. But such is impractical for guys who
change bands and frequency often, unless the tuner is automatic.

But keeping with the original perspective, of a simple antenna system
for Vinnie, this falls far short of that objective.




It won't stand a
chance against a commercially produced (or home made if you are
so-inclined) 5/8th wave vertical (with proper radials, not an Imax).


Well guess what, Dave -- a 5/8-wave antenna is a non-resonant antenna
and requires some method of impedance matching. Thank you.

A 5/8 wave is most certainly resonant. It's just that the feedpoint
impedance is high and needs to be transformed. It's a different issue
than forcing a match from something that is not resonant naturally.

You can have a 1:1 SWR but not be 50 Ohms.

Time to read some more books. Or better yet, befriend an experienced
ham to show you.


I've done this type of
antenna myself and never had any problems with local contacts -- in
fact, it worked a lot better than the 9' whip on the truck.

I find that very hard to believe, assuming identical height and
conditions, as my own experiences prove otherwise.


Oh, the humanity.....

This coming from someone who looks at people who share healthy
relationships as being "co-dependant", and prefers instead the
isolation of "independence".


I ran a home brewed wire dipole on CB years ago, and used it in
addition to my main 5/8th wave antenna. While the dipole worked well
when the skip was running, locally, the signal from the dipole was a
few "S" units less than the ground plane. With 4 watts of power, you
don't get much range on a horizontal wire dipole strung in a tree.


Well there's your problem, Dave -- I didn't say anything about
horizontal. On the contrary, it's better if it isn't.

Yea, if you're talking local. For DX, horizontal is usually better for
a number of reasons, most notably a lower noise floor and better take
off angle.


A horizontal dipole can have a wide variation in take-off angle
depending on height above ground, ground resistance, proximity to
other structures or objects, etc.

Yea, so?

And the noise floor may be slightly
lower but that's a product of it's directivity, as compared to a
vertical which is omnidirectional.

No, it's a product of the fact that most atmospheric and man-made
noise tends to be vertically polarized.


A pair of phased verticals, as well
as any other directional antenna or antenna array, will also have the
effect of lowering the noise floor.

Not if the noise isn't concentrated in a single direction.


Like I said
before, just throw some wire up into the trees (or whatever tall
object happens to be available). Didn't you read the link I posted?

Of course. But a dipole is a basic antenna. It has no gain.


Wrong again. As I said before, a 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole in free
space has about 3 dB gain over an isotropic antenna; but a dipole is
merely an antenna with two elements and is not limited to a 1/2-wave
Hertzian configuration. Not only that, but a tuner isn't limited to
dipole antennas -- they can load up a long-wire just as easily.

Ah, so you're changing the parameters of the discussion. Long wires
are inefficient on CB as well. Been there, done that.





A properly
made purpose built CB antenna will out perform it.


Get a clue, Dave. You're an Extra, right? What's the name of that tech
school you claim to have attended?

What's your call sign Frank?

Frank, all the king's horses and all the books you read will not make
up for your glaring lack of experience. Get out from behind the table
and DO something, and then report back.




Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. If a non-resonant,
tuner fed dipole worked so well, then why aren't all CB'ers using one?
Why would people want huge 5/8th wave antennas then? Better tell Jay
to forget about selling his Interceptor, since a simple non-resonant
dipole will work just as well and for far less money.


This resounds back to your argument that roger-beeps were illegal
because most radios didn't include them. The problem is that a tuner
requires a little skill and practice to use, which is beyond the scope
of the intended purpose of the service (a plug-n-play radio service).

Antenna tuners were available as an accessory for CB for less than the
cost of a good SWR meter. Granted they were simple coaxial in and out
tuners.

A tuner requires readjustment when changing channels within the CB,
and most CBers don't want to deal with the hassle.

So you are now claiming that CB'ers are too "dumb" to handle that?

And to add further evidence to your lack of experience with CB, it was
common that "matchboxes" were often used by CB'ers to "correct" a
mismatch within their antennas. Instead of taking the time to properly
tune the antenna, they forced the match with the tuner. The radio was
happy, as it saw a 1:1 SWR, but the signal was not so good. When a
more knowledgable person would finally retune the antenna, and the
tuner was removed, signal improved considerably.


Regardless, there
are still many CBers that do indeed use a tuner, not just with prefab
antennas but also with homebrew and beverage-can hooks.

None of which are work a tinker's dam for local CB communications.


And just about
every CBer who runs a tube linear uses a tuner because it's built into
the amp, which by itself blows big holes in your "practical" argument.

Not at all. A tube amplifier requires a tuner because the impedance of
a tube is much higher than 50 ohms, and needs to be transformed. It's
not practicality, it's necessity.


Then there is the issue of the non-resonant 5/8-wave antenna..... oh,
Dave, when will you learn?

The question is Frank, when will you start?


A non-resonant dipole has ONE big advantage. It's a compromise antenna
that will work on all the HF bands. That's great if you don't have the
room to put up single band antennas for each band. But like any
compromise, it will not work as well as a dedicated antenna for each
band. Such a compromise is usually acceptable for a ham who has 1500
watts on tap. But for a 4 watt CB'er, who needs to squeeze every watt
of ERP he can for best local range, he needs a high gain efficient
antenna.


If that were the case then every CBer would have a 5-el yagi on a 30'
mast and a 9' whip on their vehicles.

Most high performance CB'ers do.


For ham band use, I agree with you, just not for CB.


What's the name of that tech school, Dave?

What's your call sign Frank?


I'm not a ham.

Yet you are trying to impart your opinion on a subject you have not
participated in?



I answered your question, now you answer mine: what's
the name of your tech school, Dave?

The fact that you keep asking, makes me all the less likely to tell
you.


Frank, your experience with both ham and CB radio is sorely lacking.
You read a few books and web sites and think you have all the answers.
OTOH, I've walked the walk for the last 30+ years and have played with
more antennas and equipment than I can remember. I have also been in
contact with people in the know when it comes to antennas. What I
know, I know through experience, and that's worth 10X what you read in
any book.


Which explains why your theory is severely lacking. If you took the
time to actually learn why these things work and -then- applied them
to your experiences, you could be the guru you think you already are.
But you don't and you're not. Instead you do things backwards: you
theorize about radio based on your own experience, then read only
enough to validate your own conclusions whether they are right or not.

If the evidence supports the theory, then it's valid. If not, then the
theory is wrong. You are a perfect example of someone who is
book-smart and street foolish. You will sit there and tell people, who
do these things every day, exactly why they can't possibly work. While
we sit here and laugh at you, because we've been there and done that.


Check this out, Dave: Education doesn't come from a textbook that some
geek sat down and wrote just for ****s and giggles. It's a compendium
of knowledge that has been collected from over a century of research,
experimentation and practical experience by experts in all aspects of
the field. Those experts didn't become experts simply by playing with
CB radios as a hobby for 30 years. And an education doesn't include a
couple textbooks, a few lectures and a test -- it also includes years
of experience with the practical application of that knowledge.

No kidding. You seemed to have failed the "practical application"
aspect. Hell, you never even heard of the term "drying out" in
reference to electrolytic capacitor aging, and you try to cover this
glaring hole by claiming a pompous, superior attitude as if this was
beneath you.

When
you mock those that have a formal education and extensive experience
in electronic communication then you mock the same people who made the
television set you watch way too much, the telephone and cell-phone
infrastructure that keeps this world talking, the NASA and JPL
engineers who communicate with space probes billions of miles away,
etc, etc, etc.

I'm not mocking them. They know what they are doing. And I work with
many of them on a daily basis. You probably have products in your home
(or will) that I have had a part to play in their development. I
work in the field every day. I am not mocking them, I am mocking you.
You who CLAIM to be educated, but evidence suggests you are sorely
lacking in practical application of whatever it is you might have
learned.

While I may not have participated in any world-changing
technology, I certainly have an education and the experience in the
field that puts you to shame.

While you tend bar and drive a 20+ year old truck......

Yet -you- try to teach -me- theory based
on your education from a third-rate vocational tech school, a few
years in a CB shop, and your experience in =amateur= radio.

As far as you know. But it is evidently light years ahead of those
internet websites you lift your information from while you sit at home
alone with no other people to "relate" to.


And here's the kicker: Do you have any idea where I came up with the
idea to just throw a couple wires in the air and load them up with a
tuner? A ham.

Not all hams are mensa candidates. And most hams know that one antenna
solution, which may be great in one application, is not necessarily
good in another. In ham radio, there is no "one size fits all" answer.
But then again, you wouldn't know that. You're not a ham (or CB'er).

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:02:09 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:27:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:59:47 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Maybe you had difficulty, but there are a very large number of hams
-and- CBers who don't share your ineptitude.

A dipole is a dipole. It has 0 db of gain,


Wrong. A 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole has a gain of roughly +3 dBi in free
space.

Isotropic is a theoretical spherical reference model which does not
exist in reality. A dipole is THE reference antenna, by which most
credible gain claims are based against.


Antennas are referenced to either or both because both are constants.


It has 0 dB when referenced to itself.

Isn't that what I just said?


Unfortunately, yes, that's exactly what you said, and it's absolutely
dumb since -every- antenna has 0 dB gain in reference to itself.


and that assumes a resonant
dipole .


That's an assumtion -you- made, and it's also wrong: A resonant dipole
can be any multiple of 1/2-wave, and has a gain that differs depending
upon the length and directionality.

Then it's no longer a half wave dipole. You are now talking double
ended zepp designs, which do exhibit gain over a 1/2 wave dipole


But you didn't say "half wave dipole". You said only "dipole" which
could be any kind of dipole, be it a double-ended Zepp or the rabbit
ears perched on top of your overused television set.


If the dipole is non-resonant and requires a tuner to force
an impedance match, it will have further losses.


Wrong again. A tuner only adds insertion loss, which is usually quite
small if it's built with quality components. The insertion loss is
easily overcome by slightly increasing the length of the elements,
which is no big deal since the antenna is already non-resonant.

You fail to consider the standing waves which will still be present in
the feedline due to the mismatch. A tuner only presents a proper match
to the transmitter. With a high mismatch in the feedline, losses
increase as well and creating a tendency to radiate from the feedline.
In order to compensate for this the tuner should be mounted at the
feedpoint of the 4:1 balun that is normally used to feed 450 Ohm
ladder line to such designs. But such is impractical for guys who
change bands and frequency often, unless the tuner is automatic.


-YOU- failed to notice that I made no mention of a transmission line,
although I -did- reference a page from a ham that used ladder line. A
lot of inexpensive tuners include a 4:1 balun for a balanced output,
and SWR losses on ladder line are negligible. The only SWR you need to
worry about is between the radio and tuner.


But keeping with the original perspective, of a simple antenna system
for Vinnie, this falls far short of that objective.


Simplicity dictates buying an Imax or Antron and sticking it in a tree
or on a pole. Plug-n-play. You can't get much simpler than that. The
complexity arose when you threw a fit after my suggestion that Vinnie
might want to try and make his own antenna.


It won't stand a
chance against a commercially produced (or home made if you are
so-inclined) 5/8th wave vertical (with proper radials, not an Imax).


Well guess what, Dave -- a 5/8-wave antenna is a non-resonant antenna
and requires some method of impedance matching. Thank you.

A 5/8 wave is most certainly resonant. It's just that the feedpoint
impedance is high and needs to be transformed. It's a different issue
than forcing a match from something that is not resonant naturally.


You never fail to amaze me with your repeated offerings of technical
ignorance. Time for your next lesson:

A tuner is a device that is used to transform impedances. It has two
ends: an input and an output. Therefore, it connects to two devices: a
source (transmitter in Tx) and a load (antenna in Tx). The input of
the tuner is adjusted to match the output impedance of the source, and
the output of the tuner is adjusted to match the input impedance of
the load. And I hope it's safe to assume that you already know that
much.

But what you fail to realize is that impedance can be resistive,
reactive, or both. And since a tuner isn't limited to transformation
of resistances only, you can use a tuner to compensate for the
reactive component of the load (e.g, a feedline with SWR or a
non-resonant antenna).

Now what happens when you use a tuner to cancel the reactive component
of a load? Think hard, Dave..... reactive components cancel..... can
you figure it out by yourself? No, I didn't think so. The tuner and
the load become RESONANT. So you use a tuner to make a resonant
antenna -system- using a non-resonant antenna! And that's exactly what
is happening when the input impedance of a 5/8-wave antenna is
"transformed" so it can be driven from a resistive source -- a
non-resonant antenna is brought to resonance with a tuner.

Geez Dave, you sure are a dumbass.


You can have a 1:1 SWR but not be 50 Ohms.


Where did I suggest anything of the sort?


Time to read some more books. Or better yet, befriend an experienced
ham to show you.


Speak for yourself, dummy.


I've done this type of
antenna myself and never had any problems with local contacts -- in
fact, it worked a lot better than the 9' whip on the truck.

I find that very hard to believe, assuming identical height and
conditions, as my own experiences prove otherwise.


Oh, the humanity.....

This coming from someone who looks at people who share healthy
relationships as being "co-dependant", and prefers instead the
isolation of "independence".


I ran a home brewed wire dipole on CB years ago, and used it in
addition to my main 5/8th wave antenna. While the dipole worked well
when the skip was running, locally, the signal from the dipole was a
few "S" units less than the ground plane. With 4 watts of power, you
don't get much range on a horizontal wire dipole strung in a tree.


Well there's your problem, Dave -- I didn't say anything about
horizontal. On the contrary, it's better if it isn't.

Yea, if you're talking local. For DX, horizontal is usually better for
a number of reasons, most notably a lower noise floor and better take
off angle.


A horizontal dipole can have a wide variation in take-off angle
depending on height above ground, ground resistance, proximity to
other structures or objects, etc.

Yea, so?

And the noise floor may be slightly
lower but that's a product of it's directivity, as compared to a
vertical which is omnidirectional.

No, it's a product of the fact that most atmospheric and man-made
noise tends to be vertically polarized.


Wrong. Noise "tends" to have the polarity of the sources. The sources
of noise can be mostly vertical -or- horizontal depending on a number
of factors, not the least of which are geographic location, time of
day (as well as season), solar activity, band of operation......


A pair of phased verticals, as well
as any other directional antenna or antenna array, will also have the
effect of lowering the noise floor.

Not if the noise isn't concentrated in a single direction.


.......and direction of the antenna.


Like I said
before, just throw some wire up into the trees (or whatever tall
object happens to be available). Didn't you read the link I posted?

Of course. But a dipole is a basic antenna. It has no gain.


Wrong again. As I said before, a 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole in free
space has about 3 dB gain over an isotropic antenna; but a dipole is
merely an antenna with two elements and is not limited to a 1/2-wave
Hertzian configuration. Not only that, but a tuner isn't limited to
dipole antennas -- they can load up a long-wire just as easily.

Ah, so you're changing the parameters of the discussion. Long wires
are inefficient on CB as well. Been there, done that.


I changed nothing. You probably had a problem with the long-wire
antenna because you were expecting an omnidirectional pattern, which a
long-wire does not have. It -does- have very sharp lobes with high
gain, and if you know where to point them then a long-wire antenna
works just dandy; as you say, "been there, done that".


A properly
made purpose built CB antenna will out perform it.


Get a clue, Dave. You're an Extra, right? What's the name of that tech
school you claim to have attended?

What's your call sign Frank?


I understand that you have a problem with reading comprehension, but
what part of "I am not a ham" did you not understand? You are starting
to sound like Twisty -- are you going to start accusing me of being
five different hams?


Frank, all the king's horses and all the books you read will not make
up for your glaring lack of experience. Get out from behind the table
and DO something, and then report back.


Are you suggesting that after being a CBer since I was a kid, serving
several years in the USMC working on radios from LF to microwaves,
several more years in a commercial radio shop, several -more- years as
a BE, being self-employed as a both a tech and an engineer for most of
my life, and currently experimenting with weak-signal reception on the
1750m band and below 9khz, that I don't have any experience in radio?

Dave, you're an idiot.


Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. If a non-resonant,
tuner fed dipole worked so well, then why aren't all CB'ers using one?
Why would people want huge 5/8th wave antennas then? Better tell Jay
to forget about selling his Interceptor, since a simple non-resonant
dipole will work just as well and for far less money.


This resounds back to your argument that roger-beeps were illegal
because most radios didn't include them. The problem is that a tuner
requires a little skill and practice to use, which is beyond the scope
of the intended purpose of the service (a plug-n-play radio service).

Antenna tuners were available as an accessory for CB for less than the
cost of a good SWR meter. Granted they were simple coaxial in and out
tuners.

A tuner requires readjustment when changing channels within the CB,
and most CBers don't want to deal with the hassle.

So you are now claiming that CB'ers are too "dumb" to handle that?


Where did I suggest anything of the sort?


And to add further evidence to your lack of experience with CB, it was
common that "matchboxes" were often used by CB'ers to "correct" a
mismatch within their antennas. Instead of taking the time to properly
tune the antenna, they forced the match with the tuner. The radio was
happy, as it saw a 1:1 SWR, but the signal was not so good. When a
more knowledgable person would finally retune the antenna, and the
tuner was removed, signal improved considerably.


Wrong. Those little matchboxes (I still have a couple Johnsons) were
popularized during a time when a 1:1 SWR was widely considered to be
the holy grail of antenna tuning, that you needed to squeeze every
milliwatt from the radio. That attitude changed, and fewer CB tuners
were built, as more and more CBers learned that a few points on the
meter make very little difference.


Regardless, there
are still many CBers that do indeed use a tuner, not just with prefab
antennas but also with homebrew and beverage-can hooks.

None of which are work a tinker's dam for local CB communications.


You say that as if you have evaluated every antenna ever built. Yet
you haven't been here to evaluate -my- antennas..... have you been
playing with your crystal ball again, Dave?


And just about
every CBer who runs a tube linear uses a tuner because it's built into
the amp, which by itself blows big holes in your "practical" argument.

Not at all. A tube amplifier requires a tuner because the impedance of
a tube is much higher than 50 ohms, and needs to be transformed. It's
not practicality, it's necessity.


It's not "necessity" since the amp is not a necessity -- there is
always the alternative of using a solid-state amp, or no amp at all.


Then there is the issue of the non-resonant 5/8-wave antenna..... oh,
Dave, when will you learn?

The question is Frank, when will you start?


What's the name of your tech school, Dave?


A non-resonant dipole has ONE big advantage. It's a compromise antenna
that will work on all the HF bands. That's great if you don't have the
room to put up single band antennas for each band. But like any
compromise, it will not work as well as a dedicated antenna for each
band. Such a compromise is usually acceptable for a ham who has 1500
watts on tap. But for a 4 watt CB'er, who needs to squeeze every watt
of ERP he can for best local range, he needs a high gain efficient
antenna.


If that were the case then every CBer would have a 5-el yagi on a 30'
mast and a 9' whip on their vehicles.

Most high performance CB'ers do.


So most high performance CBers spend their time and money on equipment
designed to maximize their 4 watts?


For ham band use, I agree with you, just not for CB.


What's the name of that tech school, Dave?

What's your call sign Frank?


I'm not a ham.

Yet you are trying to impart your opinion on a subject you have not
participated in?


Antennas are reciprocal. What's the name of your tech school, Dave?


I answered your question, now you answer mine: what's
the name of your tech school, Dave?

The fact that you keep asking, makes me all the less likely to tell
you.


Yet another cop-out. You probably sent in for one of those mail-order
schools and never finished it.


Frank, your experience with both ham and CB radio is sorely lacking.
You read a few books and web sites and think you have all the answers.
OTOH, I've walked the walk for the last 30+ years and have played with
more antennas and equipment than I can remember. I have also been in
contact with people in the know when it comes to antennas. What I
know, I know through experience, and that's worth 10X what you read in
any book.


Which explains why your theory is severely lacking. If you took the
time to actually learn why these things work and -then- applied them
to your experiences, you could be the guru you think you already are.
But you don't and you're not. Instead you do things backwards: you
theorize about radio based on your own experience, then read only
enough to validate your own conclusions whether they are right or not.

If the evidence supports the theory, then it's valid. If not, then the
theory is wrong.


Then where are the facts to support your theories, Dave?

......gee, that sounds familiar..... I seem to recall challenging you
to produce facts in previous discussions, but you never came up with
any. Why should this time be any different?


You are a perfect example of someone who is
book-smart and street foolish. You will sit there and tell people, who
do these things every day, exactly why they can't possibly work.


Where have I -ever- said anything of the sort?


While
we sit here and laugh at you, because we've been there and done that.


Who is "we"? You and your imaginary groupies?


Check this out, Dave: Education doesn't come from a textbook that some
geek sat down and wrote just for ****s and giggles. It's a compendium
of knowledge that has been collected from over a century of research,
experimentation and practical experience by experts in all aspects of
the field. Those experts didn't become experts simply by playing with
CB radios as a hobby for 30 years. And an education doesn't include a
couple textbooks, a few lectures and a test -- it also includes years
of experience with the practical application of that knowledge.

No kidding. You seemed to have failed the "practical application"
aspect. Hell, you never even heard of the term "drying out" in
reference to electrolytic capacitor aging,


Where did I say that I had never heard the term before? I didn't. What
I -did- say was that it was an inappropriate term. And not to forget
that the subject came up because you deviated from the topic of how
you used your crystal ball to divine the cause of a CB malfunction.


and you try to cover this
glaring hole by claiming a pompous, superior attitude as if this was
beneath you.


No, -you- are beneath me, Dave, and that's where you'll stay until you
pull your head out of your ass.


When
you mock those that have a formal education and extensive experience
in electronic communication then you mock the same people who made the
television set you watch way too much, the telephone and cell-phone
infrastructure that keeps this world talking, the NASA and JPL
engineers who communicate with space probes billions of miles away,
etc, etc, etc.

I'm not mocking them.


Of course you are. You mock the very idea that anyone with an
education could know more about radio than what you have learned from
playing with toys for 30 years. You think that just because you
learned something on your own that nobody else has the right to
profess such knowledge, and just because they didn't 'earn' it like
you did. Yet instead of improving yourself by learning something new
you focus on the biggest difference between us -- an education -- and
try to hold it against me as some kind of professional malfeasance.
Well, that has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments that was
ever conceived: "You is dumber'n me cuz you gots a ed-u-kashun."


They know what they are doing. And I work with
many of them on a daily basis. You probably have products in your home
(or will) that I have had a part to play in their development.


You delivered the pizza for the engineers when they were burning the
midnight oil. BFD.


I
work in the field every day.


What "field" is that, Dave? The field of dreams?


I am not mocking them, I am mocking you.
You who CLAIM to be educated, but evidence suggests you are sorely
lacking in practical application of whatever it is you might have
learned.


Shall I make a list of what I have taught you about radio and
electronics since the last list? How long ago was that.... just a
couple months ago, wasn't it?


While I may not have participated in any world-changing
technology, I certainly have an education and the experience in the
field that puts you to shame.

While you tend bar and drive a 20+ year old truck......


Now your memory is failing, Dave -- did you forget so soon that I'm
currently designing and building a studio? It's going to take an extra
week because of the late-season snow in the pass (can't get any decent
acoustic panels in Spokane), but I didn't lose any money because of
the delay -- I still get $5k for the job when it's done, which is a
lot more than you get delivering pizzas in your lime-green Gremlin.


Yet -you- try to teach -me- theory based
on your education from a third-rate vocational tech school, a few
years in a CB shop, and your experience in =amateur= radio.

As far as you know.


Don't even -hint- that you have any kind of technical or engineering
job in the radio/electronics field because I'm not buying it for one
second. You have proven your ignorance on the subject so many times
that it's well beyond the realm of probability.


But it is evidently light years ahead of those
internet websites you lift your information from while you sit at home
alone with no other people to "relate" to.


And here's the kicker: Do you have any idea where I came up with the
idea to just throw a couple wires in the air and load them up with a
tuner? A ham.

Not all hams are mensa candidates.


Finally..... you have provided proof for one of your claims! Ok, so
you provided the proof -before- you made the claim, but at least it's
a start.


And most hams know that one antenna
solution, which may be great in one application, is not necessarily
good in another. In ham radio, there is no "one size fits all" answer.


Who said there was?


But then again, you wouldn't know that. You're not a ham (or CB'er).


Dave, go back to rec.boats and learn how to float -- your boat sank
here a long time ago.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:09:38 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:02:09 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:27:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:59:47 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Maybe you had difficulty, but there are a very large number of hams
-and- CBers who don't share your ineptitude.

A dipole is a dipole. It has 0 db of gain,


Wrong. A 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole has a gain of roughly +3 dBi in free
space.

Isotropic is a theoretical spherical reference model which does not
exist in reality. A dipole is THE reference antenna, by which most
credible gain claims are based against.


Antennas are referenced to either or both because both are constants.

Yes but referencing a theoretical model whose characteristics cannot
be realized in the real world, is somewhat disingenuous. A 1/2 wave
dipole is a standard reference antenna in the real world.

It has 0 dB when referenced to itself.

Isn't that what I just said?


Unfortunately, yes, that's exactly what you said, and it's absolutely
dumb since -every- antenna has 0 dB gain in reference to itself.

But we don't reference an antenna against itself, we reference it
against a 1/2 wave dipole, a reference antenna which has unity gain.



Then it's no longer a half wave dipole. You are now talking double
ended zepp designs, which do exhibit gain over a 1/2 wave dipole


But you didn't say "half wave dipole". You said only "dipole" which
could be any kind of dipole, be it a double-ended Zepp or the rabbit
ears perched on top of your overused television set.

When the facts fail, argue semantics. When that fails, make unfounded
speculations about another's recreational habits.

But that just makes me smile :-)


If the dipole is non-resonant and requires a tuner to force
an impedance match, it will have further losses.


Wrong again. A tuner only adds insertion loss, which is usually quite
small if it's built with quality components. The insertion loss is
easily overcome by slightly increasing the length of the elements,
which is no big deal since the antenna is already non-resonant.

You fail to consider the standing waves which will still be present in
the feedline due to the mismatch. A tuner only presents a proper match
to the transmitter. With a high mismatch in the feedline, losses
increase as well and creating a tendency to radiate from the feedline.
In order to compensate for this the tuner should be mounted at the
feedpoint of the 4:1 balun that is normally used to feed 450 Ohm
ladder line to such designs. But such is impractical for guys who
change bands and frequency often, unless the tuner is automatic.


-YOU- failed to notice that I made no mention of a transmission line,
although I -did- reference a page from a ham that used ladder line. A
lot of inexpensive tuners include a 4:1 balun for a balanced output,
and SWR losses on ladder line are negligible. The only SWR you need to
worry about is between the radio and tuner.

Silly me for assuming that an antenna needs feedline to connect to it.

Only an idiot would run 200 feet or more of open 450 Ohm ladder line.
Unless of course, you don't care about feedline radiation and RFI
issues. Most antennas which are designed to use ladder line, are also
spec'ed for a certain fixed length of the ladder line as part of its
impedance match. At that point a balun is connected and the rest of
the feedline completes the usual configuration. If you were a ham,
you'd know this.


But keeping with the original perspective, of a simple antenna system
for Vinnie, this falls far short of that objective.


Simplicity dictates buying an Imax or Antron and sticking it in a tree
or on a pole. Plug-n-play. You can't get much simpler than that. The
complexity arose when you threw a fit after my suggestion that Vinnie
might want to try and make his own antenna.

I threw a "fit"? Hardly. I have no problem with anyone making their
own antennas. That's what ham radio is all about. BUT, when the
suggestions you made were for antennas which do not perform well for
the intended use, I felt compelled to point this out. You are not
going to throw a couple of wires up in a tree, tune them with a tuner
and expect it to perform as well as a commercial (or homemade if
you're so inclined) gain-type, purpose-built, vertical antenna.

It won't stand a
chance against a commercially produced (or home made if you are
so-inclined) 5/8th wave vertical (with proper radials, not an Imax).


Well guess what, Dave -- a 5/8-wave antenna is a non-resonant antenna
and requires some method of impedance matching. Thank you.

A 5/8 wave is most certainly resonant. It's just that the feedpoint
impedance is high and needs to be transformed. It's a different issue
than forcing a match from something that is not resonant naturally.


You never fail to amaze me with your repeated offerings of technical
ignorance. Time for your next lesson:

Spare me your sanctimony. You still don't get it.


A tuner is a device that is used to transform impedances. It has two
ends: an input and an output. Therefore, it connects to two devices: a
source (transmitter in Tx) and a load (antenna in Tx). The input of
the tuner is adjusted to match the output impedance of the source, and
the output of the tuner is adjusted to match the input impedance of
the load. And I hope it's safe to assume that you already know that
much.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was beginning to wonder if you knew
what a tuner actually did.


But what you fail to realize is that impedance can be resistive,
reactive, or both. And since a tuner isn't limited to transformation
of resistances only, you can use a tuner to compensate for the
reactive component of the load (e.g, a feedline with SWR or a
non-resonant antenna).

My god! An antenna has reactive components? Who'd have thunk it?
That's for sharing yet another revelation.


Now what happens when you use a tuner to cancel the reactive component
of a load? Think hard, Dave..... reactive components cancel..... can
you figure it out by yourself? No, I didn't think so. The tuner and
the load become RESONANT. So you use a tuner to make a resonant
antenna -system- using a non-resonant antenna! And that's exactly what
is happening when the input impedance of a 5/8-wave antenna is
"transformed" so it can be driven from a resistive source -- a
non-resonant antenna is brought to resonance with a tuner.

A tuner forces a resonant load from something which isn't resonant
naturally. That's sort of like keeping someone alive with a
respirator.

You can (and I have) loaded up large metal objects (like rain gutters
and bedsprings), and force them to have a 1:1 SWR. But that doesn't
mean that the antenna is an efficient radiator. That's my whole point.

Now for your lesson in real life application of antenna principles:

I was completely out of CB between 1990 and 1993, and I took down all
of my CB antennas. When I got the bug to get back into CB again, I had
the following antennas: a horizontal 10 meter dipole, a 5/8th wave 2
meter Ringo Ranger 2, a 6 meter 3 element beam (horizontal), a 2 meter
10 element Cushcraft "twistbeam" (horizontal & vertical), and a
Diamond tri-band 146, 220 and 440 Mhz vertical.

Now, I also had at my disposal a tuner. I could load up every antenna
in that list on the CB band, with a less than 1.5:1 SWR. Out of that
list of antennas, the only one which worked somewhat acceptably was
the 2 meter Ringo Ranger, as it was about a 1/4 wave long at CB
frequencies. It was also at the top of my tower. The 10 meter dipole
loaded the easiest, but being horizontal, wasn't much use for local
talking.

Sometime later, I put my Avanti Sigma 4 back up, and it wasabout 2
"S" units stronger transmitting to others, on average, than the 2
meter Ringo through the tuner.

THAT is the difference between theory and practice. Sure you can load
up a non-resonant antenna and it will "work". But it won't work as
well as an antenna designed for the band.

Geez Dave, you sure are a dumbass.

I'm not the one reading a book on antenna theory and trying to pass it
off as actual experience.


A horizontal dipole can have a wide variation in take-off angle
depending on height above ground, ground resistance, proximity to
other structures or objects, etc.

Yea, so?

And the noise floor may be slightly
lower but that's a product of it's directivity, as compared to a
vertical which is omnidirectional.

No, it's a product of the fact that most atmospheric and man-made
noise tends to be vertically polarized.


Wrong. Noise "tends" to have the polarity of the sources. The sources
of noise can be mostly vertical -or- horizontal depending on a number
of factors, not the least of which are geographic location, time of
day (as well as season), solar activity, band of operation......

Time to read another book Frank. Or better yet ask a ham. The greatest
majority of noise is vertically polarized. Maybe if you have been
paying attention in those theory classes instead of "teaching" logic
classes, and trying to book whip your way through psychology 101, you
might know this.


Like I said
before, just throw some wire up into the trees (or whatever tall
object happens to be available). Didn't you read the link I posted?

Of course. But a dipole is a basic antenna. It has no gain.


Wrong again. As I said before, a 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole in free
space has about 3 dB gain over an isotropic antenna; but a dipole is
merely an antenna with two elements and is not limited to a 1/2-wave
Hertzian configuration. Not only that, but a tuner isn't limited to
dipole antennas -- they can load up a long-wire just as easily.

Ah, so you're changing the parameters of the discussion. Long wires
are inefficient on CB as well. Been there, done that.


I changed nothing. You probably had a problem with the long-wire
antenna because you were expecting an omnidirectional pattern, which a
long-wire does not have.

It does (at least in the "H" plane) if it's mounted vertically. But
that's impractical for HF use.


It -does- have very sharp lobes with high
gain, and if you know where to point them then a long-wire antenna
works just dandy; as you say, "been there, done that".

Where Frank? Where have you "been there and done that? You don't have
a ham license. Commercial radio stations don't play with wire
antennas. Wire antennas are awkward and do not work well on CB for
local talking. So where Frank?


What's your call sign Frank?


I understand that you have a problem with reading comprehension, but
what part of "I am not a ham" did you not understand? You are starting
to sound like Twisty -- are you going to start accusing me of being
five different hams?

The point is, as it has always been, that you glaringly lack the
necessary experience to back up your claims.


Frank, all the king's horses and all the books you read will not make
up for your glaring lack of experience. Get out from behind the table
and DO something, and then report back.


Are you suggesting that after being a CBer since I was a kid, serving
several years in the USMC working on radios from LF to microwaves,
several more years in a commercial radio shop, several -more- years as
a BE, being self-employed as a both a tech and an engineer for most of
my life, and currently experimenting with weak-signal reception on the
1750m band and below 9khz, that I don't have any experience in radio?

Exactly. Other than the military (Which doesn't have the time to play
with gimmicky wire antennas) I have had way more experience. I was
playing with the 170 Khz band when I was a kid, along with 35 years
of CB experience, 24 years of ham experience, and being employed as a
tech and engineer for a few high tech firms as well as 30 years of
hands on CB, ham radio, and stereo repair.


Dave, you're an idiot.

Takes one to know one ;-)


Antenna tuners were available as an accessory for CB for less than the
cost of a good SWR meter. Granted they were simple coaxial in and out
tuners.

A tuner requires readjustment when changing channels within the CB,
and most CBers don't want to deal with the hassle.

So you are now claiming that CB'ers are too "dumb" to handle that?


Where did I suggest anything of the sort?

By suggesting tha using a tuner is a "hassle". It's not if you
understand how to use it.

And to add further evidence to your lack of experience with CB, it was
common that "matchboxes" were often used by CB'ers to "correct" a
mismatch within their antennas. Instead of taking the time to properly
tune the antenna, they forced the match with the tuner. The radio was
happy, as it saw a 1:1 SWR, but the signal was not so good. When a
more knowledgable person would finally retune the antenna, and the
tuner was removed, signal improved considerably.


Wrong. Those little matchboxes (I still have a couple Johnsons) were
popularized during a time when a 1:1 SWR was widely considered to be
the holy grail of antenna tuning, that you needed to squeeze every
milliwatt from the radio. That attitude changed, and fewer CB tuners
were built, as more and more CBers learned that a few points on the
meter make very little difference.

Maybe that's what your inexperience has taught you, but that's not
what actually happened. Yes, there were a few people out there who
cringed when their SWR crept above 1.5:1. The difference that a
matchbox provided did not overcome the insertion loss. But that's not
the cases I was making. There were people who had serious mismatch
problems (over 3:1) because they did not know how to properly tune the
antenna. They then compensated for their blunder by forcing the SWR to
1:1 with a tuner. The radio was happy, but the antenna was not
radiating efficiently and their signal potential was cut considerably.
When the real problem was corrected, and the tuner removed, their
signals increased.

The point, of course, is that if what you stated before was correct,
you should be able to radiate a signal just as well with an antenna
which was not in tune (non-resonant) through the use of a tuner to
"force" a resonance, than with a naturally resonant antenna. My own
personal experience in this exact scenario proves exactly the
opposite.


Regardless, there
are still many CBers that do indeed use a tuner, not just with prefab
antennas but also with homebrew and beverage-can hooks.

None of which are worth a tinker's dam for local CB communications.


You say that as if you have evaluated every antenna ever built.

No, but I have played with most of more the common home made antennas
which a CB'er would be most likely to utilize. When you're young and
have a lot of time, you tend to experiment alot. I did.

Yet
you haven't been here to evaluate -my- antennas..... have you been
playing with your crystal ball again, Dave?


What, you have some "miracle" antenna design that no one else has ever
played with? What could possibly be so special about YOUR antennas
Frank? Let me guess, you spray them with Teflon?

You should give up on the crystal ball Frank. It didn't work for you,
so you should know that it wouldn't work for me.

And just about
every CBer who runs a tube linear uses a tuner because it's built into
the amp, which by itself blows big holes in your "practical" argument.

Not at all. A tube amplifier requires a tuner because the impedance of
a tube is much higher than 50 ohms, and needs to be transformed. It's
not practicality, it's necessity.


It's not "necessity" since the amp is not a necessity -- there is
always the alternative of using a solid-state amp, or no amp at all.

It's a necessity if you use a tube amp and want it to work. Please
stop with the semantics. If your argument is that weak, you should
just stop.


A non-resonant dipole has ONE big advantage. It's a compromise antenna
that will work on all the HF bands. That's great if you don't have the
room to put up single band antennas for each band. But like any
compromise, it will not work as well as a dedicated antenna for each
band. Such a compromise is usually acceptable for a ham who has 1500
watts on tap. But for a 4 watt CB'er, who needs to squeeze every watt
of ERP he can for best local range, he needs a high gain efficient
antenna.


If that were the case then every CBer would have a 5-el yagi on a 30'
mast and a 9' whip on their vehicles.

Most high performance CB'ers do.


So most high performance CBers spend their time and money on equipment
designed to maximize their 4 watts?

A typical high performance CB'er will spend his money on the best
antennas that he can afford. Whether he stays at 4 watts is a personal
choice. It makes little sense to spend money on a big "honkin'" amp
and then **** that power into a poor antenna. The name of the game is
ERP, and that's a combination of transmitter power (minus feedline and
other losses) and antenna gain.


The fact that you keep asking, makes me all the less likely to tell
you.


Yet another cop-out. You probably sent in for one of those mail-order
schools and never finished it.

Sort of like that college degree that you allege that you have (yet
you tend bar). I don't have to provide any credentials to you or
anyone else. As long as there are people here who won't even fess up
to their real names, I owe no one any of my personal information.


Frank, your experience with both ham and CB radio is sorely lacking.
You read a few books and web sites and think you have all the answers.
OTOH, I've walked the walk for the last 30+ years and have played with
more antennas and equipment than I can remember. I have also been in
contact with people in the know when it comes to antennas. What I
know, I know through experience, and that's worth 10X what you read in
any book.


Which explains why your theory is severely lacking. If you took the
time to actually learn why these things work and -then- applied them
to your experiences, you could be the guru you think you already are.
But you don't and you're not. Instead you do things backwards: you
theorize about radio based on your own experience, then read only
enough to validate your own conclusions whether they are right or not.

If the evidence supports the theory, then it's valid. If not, then the
theory is wrong.


Then where are the facts to support your theories, Dave?


I provided them. The results of my experience.


.....gee, that sounds familiar..... I seem to recall challenging you
to produce facts in previous discussions, but you never came up with
any. Why should this time be any different?

I've provided plenty of information when I felt you were worthy of
such. But after you discarded them as rubbish due to your intrinsic
bias, I decided that you were not one who wanted any enlightenment.
Your mind was made up and anything I provided, you would simply
categorize as "propaganda". When I provided a link to the usage of the
term "drying out" in reference to electrolytic capacitors, you
similarly discarded that as "erroneous". Therefore I am not about to
waste any of my time trying to prove anything to you. You have
basically joined Twisty in my bucket of punch clowns, a verbal
sparring partner.

Your biggest problem is your pompous arrogance.


You are a perfect example of someone who is
book-smart and street foolish. You will sit there and tell people, who
do these things every day, exactly why they can't possibly work.


Where have I -ever- said anything of the sort?

I would be wasting my time to suggest that you revisit your past
performances here in an objective fashion.


While
we sit here and laugh at you, because we've been there and done that.


Who is "we"? You and your imaginary groupies?

Look around and you'll see. Check the archives Frank. You've been on
the butt end of many other debates with people who possessed clearly
superior knowledge. All of the fancy obscure terminology and tap
dancing you used couldn't hide your lack of experience.


Check this out, Dave: Education doesn't come from a textbook that some
geek sat down and wrote just for ****s and giggles. It's a compendium
of knowledge that has been collected from over a century of research,
experimentation and practical experience by experts in all aspects of
the field. Those experts didn't become experts simply by playing with
CB radios as a hobby for 30 years. And an education doesn't include a
couple textbooks, a few lectures and a test -- it also includes years
of experience with the practical application of that knowledge.

No kidding. You seemed to have failed the "practical application"
aspect. Hell, you never even heard of the term "drying out" in
reference to electrolytic capacitor aging,


Where did I say that I had never heard the term before? I didn't. What
I -did- say was that it was an inappropriate term.

According to you. Many others, who I hold a much higher level of
respect for, don't see it that way.

And not to forget
that the subject came up because you deviated from the topic of how
you used your crystal ball to divine the cause of a CB malfunction.

Based on my own extensive personal experience. A doctor doesn't have
to see a pathogen in a patient to properly diagnose it. He bases his
diagnoses on symptoms and past experience. It's not 100% accurate, but
it's a good start. It's better than random generic suggestions of
checking this and checking that.

and you try to cover this
glaring hole by claiming a pompous, superior attitude as if this was
beneath you.


No, -you- are beneath me, Dave, and that's where you'll stay until you
pull your head out of your ass.

You know, the no-code license is not that hard Frank. A guy with time
on his hands like you, should have no trouble with it....


When
you mock those that have a formal education and extensive experience
in electronic communication then you mock the same people who made the
television set you watch way too much, the telephone and cell-phone
infrastructure that keeps this world talking, the NASA and JPL
engineers who communicate with space probes billions of miles away,
etc, etc, etc.

I'm not mocking them.


Of course you are. You mock the very idea that anyone with an
education could know more about radio than what you have learned from
playing with toys for 30 years.

I'm not mocking them, I am them. I just played in the sandbox of
experimentation before I got my schooling. With that perspective, I
was able to concentrate on practical theory and discard the stuff that
we never use.


You think that just because you
learned something on your own that nobody else has the right to
profess such knowledge, and just because they didn't 'earn' it like
you did.

Now who's projecting with the crystal ball?


Yet instead of improving yourself by learning something new
you focus on the biggest difference between us -- an education -- and
try to hold it against me as some kind of professional malfeasance.

But there is no real difference in education. You ASSUME that I don't
have a comparable education to you because I refuse to devulge that
information. But I can tell you that I'm not the one tending bar right
now. I am putting my education AND experience to work for me.

Well, that has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments that was
ever conceived: "You is dumber'n me cuz you gots a ed-u-kashun."

No, you are not "dumber" than me because you have an education. You
are "less informed" because you have much less practical experience.

My beef with your education is your over reliance on it and how you
hold it up as some sort of badge of honor, not too unlike some hams do
with their licenses. An education, without the ability to apply it, is
almost useless.


They know what they are doing. And I work with
many of them on a daily basis. You probably have products in your home
(or will) that I have had a part to play in their development.


You delivered the pizza for the engineers when they were burning the
midnight oil. BFD.

When all else fails, resort to pure insults. What will you do, when
your bar starts a delivery service and they ask you to participate?
You are far closer to a delivery boy than I'll ever be. You might want
to save now for a 10 year old vehicle that's more dependable.

I
work in the field every day.


What "field" is that, Dave? The field of dreams?

The field of communications technology. I work in the field. You, on
the other hand, are like the farmer, out standing in it.


I am not mocking them, I am mocking you.
You who CLAIM to be educated, but evidence suggests you are sorely
lacking in practical application of whatever it is you might have
learned.


Shall I make a list of what I have taught you about radio and
electronics since the last list? How long ago was that.... just a
couple months ago, wasn't it?

You now arrogantly claim to have taught me something? You're as bad a
Twisty who thinks he teaches me about radio law. Neither one of you do
anything more than dance to smoke and mirrors and the twisting of
words.


While I may not have participated in any world-changing
technology, I certainly have an education and the experience in the
field that puts you to shame.

While you tend bar and drive a 20+ year old truck......


Now your memory is failing, Dave -- did you forget so soon that I'm
currently designing and building a studio?

So you claim. That and 50 cents can't even buy a decent cup of coffee.
I can claim that I'm installing the new digital video links at ABC
too.

It's going to take an extra
week because of the late-season snow in the pass (can't get any decent
acoustic panels in Spokane), but I didn't lose any money because of
the delay -- I still get $5k for the job when it's done, which is a
lot more than you get delivering pizzas in your lime-green Gremlin.

He he heh heeh hoo hooo hoo LOL. I love it when you get personal
Frank. I can almost see the beads of spit on your monitor. My bonus
this year was more than that, and I didn't have to drive through snow
to get it.

Yet -you- try to teach -me- theory based
on your education from a third-rate vocational tech school, a few
years in a CB shop, and your experience in =amateur= radio.

As far as you know.


Don't even -hint- that you have any kind of technical or engineering
job in the radio/electronics field because I'm not buying it for one
second. You have proven your ignorance on the subject so many times
that it's well beyond the realm of probability.

Yet it is a true fact nonetheless , which only outlines just how far
off you are.


But it is evidently light years ahead of those
internet websites you lift your information from while you sit at home
alone with no other people to "relate" to.


And here's the kicker: Do you have any idea where I came up with the
idea to just throw a couple wires in the air and load them up with a
tuner? A ham.

Not all hams are mensa candidates.


Finally..... you have provided proof for one of your claims! Ok, so
you provided the proof -before- you made the claim, but at least it's
a start.

Ironically, what I said was not "proof" of anything. Unless, you now
consider my personal observations and experience as proof.


But then again, you wouldn't know that. You're not a ham (or CB'er).


Dave, go back to rec.boats and learn how to float -- your boat sank
here a long time ago.

Frank, I was here long before you came, and I'll be here long after
you leave. Call me the B.S. meter, if you will. If it stinks, I'll
call attention to it. Right now you are high on the effluent level.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:58:50 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:09:38 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:02:09 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 18:27:15 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 13:59:47 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Maybe you had difficulty, but there are a very large number of hams
-and- CBers who don't share your ineptitude.

A dipole is a dipole. It has 0 db of gain,


Wrong. A 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole has a gain of roughly +3 dBi in free
space.

Isotropic is a theoretical spherical reference model which does not
exist in reality. A dipole is THE reference antenna, by which most
credible gain claims are based against.


Antennas are referenced to either or both because both are constants.

Yes but referencing a theoretical model whose characteristics cannot
be realized in the real world, is somewhat disingenuous. A 1/2 wave
dipole is a standard reference antenna in the real world.


......."disingenuous"? LOL!


It has 0 dB when referenced to itself.

Isn't that what I just said?


Unfortunately, yes, that's exactly what you said, and it's absolutely
dumb since -every- antenna has 0 dB gain in reference to itself.

But we don't reference an antenna against itself, we reference it
against a 1/2 wave dipole, a reference antenna which has unity gain.


Time for your next lesson, Dave:

The decibel is the unit of measure in a comparative quantification
system that establishes a value in relation to a specified 'standard'
or 'reference'. In the case of antenna gain, the measurement is
compared to either an isotropic antenna or a 1/2-wave dipole in free
space (neither of which, FYI, are obtainable in the real world). A
measurement in reference to the isotropic is labelled 'dBi', and when
referenced to the dipole the label is 'dBd'. Look up antenna specs and
you will see that both references are commonly used. Actually, dBi is
more common because it gives higher numbers, which works better from a
marketing perspective.

Now to say that "a dipole has "0 dB gain", or even "unity gain", means
absolutely nothing because there is no reference. Even if you include
the reference but the reference is to itself, that's no better than
saying that an inch is equal to an inch -- even more meaningless. And
just so you are very clear on this, a dipole (1/2-wave Hertzian) has a
gain of 3 dBi -ONLY- in the direction of maximum gain; and again, that
gain is realized -only- in free space. That being said.....

Antenna gain in the -real- world is first measured as field strength,
then that value is compared against the calculated equivalent field
strength of a free-space dipole and/or isotropic radiator. Here's the
shocker, Dave: If you do that with a 1/2-wave dipole you will find
that it does -not- have a gain of 3 dbi at the point of maximum gain
for the simple reason that it is not in free space. IOW, your dipole
with "unity gain" is nothing more than a theoretical fantasy.


Then it's no longer a half wave dipole. You are now talking double
ended zepp designs, which do exhibit gain over a 1/2 wave dipole


But you didn't say "half wave dipole". You said only "dipole" which
could be any kind of dipole, be it a double-ended Zepp or the rabbit
ears perched on top of your overused television set.

When the facts fail, argue semantics. When that fails, make unfounded
speculations about another's recreational habits.

But that just makes me smile :-)


Smile all you want -- the difference between the terms is significant
despite your self-defined assumptions.


If the dipole is non-resonant and requires a tuner to force
an impedance match, it will have further losses.


Wrong again. A tuner only adds insertion loss, which is usually quite
small if it's built with quality components. The insertion loss is
easily overcome by slightly increasing the length of the elements,
which is no big deal since the antenna is already non-resonant.

You fail to consider the standing waves which will still be present in
the feedline due to the mismatch. A tuner only presents a proper match
to the transmitter. With a high mismatch in the feedline, losses
increase as well and creating a tendency to radiate from the feedline.
In order to compensate for this the tuner should be mounted at the
feedpoint of the 4:1 balun that is normally used to feed 450 Ohm
ladder line to such designs. But such is impractical for guys who
change bands and frequency often, unless the tuner is automatic.


-YOU- failed to notice that I made no mention of a transmission line,
although I -did- reference a page from a ham that used ladder line. A
lot of inexpensive tuners include a 4:1 balun for a balanced output,
and SWR losses on ladder line are negligible. The only SWR you need to
worry about is between the radio and tuner.

Silly me for assuming that an antenna needs feedline to connect to it.


Yep, you get yourself into a lot of trouble with your assumptions.


Only an idiot would run 200 feet or more of open 450 Ohm ladder line.


Then there are a lot of idiots in this world, since most transmission
line runs longer than 200 feet are usually some sort of ladder line or
twin-lead as their attenuation is significantly lower than that of
most types of coax. And I don't think many hams use 3-1/8" pressurized
line, do they?


Unless of course, you don't care about feedline radiation and RFI
issues.


Ladder line is a balanced line -- it won't radiate unless the load or
source is unbalanced (assuming it's used at a frequency with a
wavelength significantly larger than the spacing).


Most antennas which are designed to use ladder line, are also
spec'ed for a certain fixed length of the ladder line as part of its
impedance match.


And you claim to have experience with these things? LOL!


At that point a balun is connected and the rest of
the feedline completes the usual configuration. If you were a ham,
you'd know this.


If you were as experienced as you claim then you would know that hams
rarely use baluns with ladder line, and not too often with twin-lead
either.


But keeping with the original perspective, of a simple antenna system
for Vinnie, this falls far short of that objective.


Simplicity dictates buying an Imax or Antron and sticking it in a tree
or on a pole. Plug-n-play. You can't get much simpler than that. The
complexity arose when you threw a fit after my suggestion that Vinnie
might want to try and make his own antenna.

I threw a "fit"? Hardly. I have no problem with anyone making their
own antennas. That's what ham radio is all about. BUT, when the
suggestions you made were for antennas which do not perform well for
the intended use,


The antenna worked fine for me. If you couldn't get it to work then
there's probably a reason that stems from your technical incompetence,
which really doesn't suprise me -- this may be one of the simplest
antennas that a person can make, but only -you- could foul it up with
all your assumptions and distorted theories.


I felt compelled to point this out. You are not
going to throw a couple of wires up in a tree, tune them with a tuner
and expect it to perform as well as a commercial (or homemade if
you're so inclined) gain-type, purpose-built, vertical antenna.


That's funny, Dave. Just a couple posts ago you were whining about me
saying; "You will sit there and tell people, who do these things every
day, exactly why they can't possibly work." Now you are doing what you
claim I do (but never have). Once again you have proven your own
hypocrisy.


It won't stand a
chance against a commercially produced (or home made if you are
so-inclined) 5/8th wave vertical (with proper radials, not an Imax).


Well guess what, Dave -- a 5/8-wave antenna is a non-resonant antenna
and requires some method of impedance matching. Thank you.

A 5/8 wave is most certainly resonant. It's just that the feedpoint
impedance is high and needs to be transformed. It's a different issue
than forcing a match from something that is not resonant naturally.


You never fail to amaze me with your repeated offerings of technical
ignorance. Time for your next lesson:

Spare me your sanctimony. You still don't get it.


A tuner is a device that is used to transform impedances. It has two
ends: an input and an output. Therefore, it connects to two devices: a
source (transmitter in Tx) and a load (antenna in Tx). The input of
the tuner is adjusted to match the output impedance of the source, and
the output of the tuner is adjusted to match the input impedance of
the load. And I hope it's safe to assume that you already know that
much.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was beginning to wonder if you knew
what a tuner actually did.


But what you fail to realize is that impedance can be resistive,
reactive, or both. And since a tuner isn't limited to transformation
of resistances only, you can use a tuner to compensate for the
reactive component of the load (e.g, a feedline with SWR or a
non-resonant antenna).

My god! An antenna has reactive components? Who'd have thunk it?
That's for sharing yet another revelation.


Now what happens when you use a tuner to cancel the reactive component
of a load? Think hard, Dave..... reactive components cancel..... can
you figure it out by yourself? No, I didn't think so. The tuner and
the load become RESONANT. So you use a tuner to make a resonant
antenna -system- using a non-resonant antenna! And that's exactly what
is happening when the input impedance of a 5/8-wave antenna is
"transformed" so it can be driven from a resistive source -- a
non-resonant antenna is brought to resonance with a tuner.

A tuner forces a resonant load from something which isn't resonant
naturally. That's sort of like keeping someone alive with a
respirator.


Hmmmm..... the Schiavo antenna..... not a very good analogy, Dave.


You can (and I have) loaded up large metal objects (like rain gutters
and bedsprings), and force them to have a 1:1 SWR. But that doesn't
mean that the antenna is an efficient radiator. That's my whole point.


You like to use the word "force"..... nothing is being "forced", Dave.


Now for your lesson in real life application of antenna principles:

I was completely out of CB between 1990 and 1993, and I took down all
of my CB antennas. When I got the bug to get back into CB again, I had
the following antennas: a horizontal 10 meter dipole, a 5/8th wave 2
meter Ringo Ranger 2, a 6 meter 3 element beam (horizontal), a 2 meter
10 element Cushcraft "twistbeam" (horizontal & vertical), and a
Diamond tri-band 146, 220 and 440 Mhz vertical.

Now, I also had at my disposal a tuner. I could load up every antenna
in that list on the CB band, with a less than 1.5:1 SWR. Out of that
list of antennas, the only one which worked somewhat acceptably was
the 2 meter Ringo Ranger, as it was about a 1/4 wave long at CB
frequencies. It was also at the top of my tower. The 10 meter dipole
loaded the easiest, but being horizontal, wasn't much use for local
talking.

Sometime later, I put my Avanti Sigma 4 back up, and it wasabout 2
"S" units stronger transmitting to others, on average, than the 2
meter Ringo through the tuner.

THAT is the difference between theory and practice. Sure you can load
up a non-resonant antenna and it will "work". But it won't work as
well as an antenna designed for the band.


Notice that all but one of your examples were shorter than a 1/4-wave.
Were you actually hoping for performance better than a rubber-ducky or
2-foot gutter-mount?


Geez Dave, you sure are a dumbass.

I'm not the one reading a book on antenna theory and trying to pass it
off as actual experience.


No, you are the one claiming to have much more experience than you
actually have.


A horizontal dipole can have a wide variation in take-off angle
depending on height above ground, ground resistance, proximity to
other structures or objects, etc.

Yea, so?

And the noise floor may be slightly
lower but that's a product of it's directivity, as compared to a
vertical which is omnidirectional.

No, it's a product of the fact that most atmospheric and man-made
noise tends to be vertically polarized.


Wrong. Noise "tends" to have the polarity of the sources. The sources
of noise can be mostly vertical -or- horizontal depending on a number
of factors, not the least of which are geographic location, time of
day (as well as season), solar activity, band of operation......

Time to read another book Frank. Or better yet ask a ham. The greatest
majority of noise is vertically polarized. Maybe if you have been
paying attention in those theory classes instead of "teaching" logic
classes, and trying to book whip your way through psychology 101, you
might know this.


Maybe if you had a Cushcraft CFB-8 you could have spent several years
switching between horizontal and vertical, and seen for yourself that
sometimes vertical is noisier than horizontal and sometimes it's the
other way around. (The ice storm in '96 took out my Cushcraft, the
rotor and the tower -- makes me sad because it was probably the best
CB antenna I ever owned).


Like I said
before, just throw some wire up into the trees (or whatever tall
object happens to be available). Didn't you read the link I posted?

Of course. But a dipole is a basic antenna. It has no gain.


Wrong again. As I said before, a 1/2-wave Hertzian dipole in free
space has about 3 dB gain over an isotropic antenna; but a dipole is
merely an antenna with two elements and is not limited to a 1/2-wave
Hertzian configuration. Not only that, but a tuner isn't limited to
dipole antennas -- they can load up a long-wire just as easily.

Ah, so you're changing the parameters of the discussion. Long wires
are inefficient on CB as well. Been there, done that.


I changed nothing. You probably had a problem with the long-wire
antenna because you were expecting an omnidirectional pattern, which a
long-wire does not have.

It does (at least in the "H" plane) if it's mounted vertically. But
that's impractical for HF use.


Of course it's impractical since your lobes are shooting into the
ground and towards a few satellites.


It -does- have very sharp lobes with high
gain, and if you know where to point them then a long-wire antenna
works just dandy; as you say, "been there, done that".

Where Frank? Where have you "been there and done that? You don't have
a ham license. Commercial radio stations don't play with wire
antennas.


Actually some of them do, although maybe not "officially".


Wire antennas are awkward and do not work well on CB for
local talking. So where Frank?


Long-wire antennas can indeed be awkward, but sometimes an opportunity
presents itself that can't be ignored. Maybe you don't have farms near
where you live but there are plenty around here, complete with wire
fences. And there are also mountains to go camping, some of which have
very nice slopes that are ideal for a long-wire or rhombic.

But like I said before (and you conveniently snipped), antennas are
reciprocal. IOW, I don't need to have a license to receive on -any-
band. I do a lot of SWL if you haven't guessed by now. Regardless, I
have used long-wire antennas for transmitting on HF in the USMC, on
the CB, and a few Part 15 experiments on HF, MF and LF. They work just
fine -- for their intended purpose.


What's your call sign Frank?


I understand that you have a problem with reading comprehension, but
what part of "I am not a ham" did you not understand? You are starting
to sound like Twisty -- are you going to start accusing me of being
five different hams?

The point is, as it has always been, that you glaringly lack the
necessary experience to back up your claims.


How much experience do I need before I know what I'm doing, Dave? More
experience than you?


Frank, all the king's horses and all the books you read will not make
up for your glaring lack of experience. Get out from behind the table
and DO something, and then report back.


Are you suggesting that after being a CBer since I was a kid, serving
several years in the USMC working on radios from LF to microwaves,
several more years in a commercial radio shop, several -more- years as
a BE, being self-employed as a both a tech and an engineer for most of
my life, and currently experimenting with weak-signal reception on the
1750m band and below 9khz, that I don't have any experience in radio?

Exactly. Other than the military (Which doesn't have the time to play
with gimmicky wire antennas)


Not only was there plenty of time to play with antennas, it was part
of the training -- after all, what do you do when your antenna is
destroyed by gunfire, shelling, or bad weather? Just sit there and
sulk? Hell no, you scrounge some wire and run up a new antenna! The
job is to maintain comm in the worst possible conditions. That means
we spent a LOT of time "playing" with antennas. And it's a great way
to pass the time when there's nothing to do, which happens quite often
on field ops -and- in garrison. And near the end of the pay period
when you don't have enough money to go to the stripper bars, you'd be
suprised what kinds of things some of us used to occupy our liberty
time. Myself, I liked the MRC-110 so much I decided to build one. So
when I was at Lejeune I built a 4-400 linear for my CB that I stashed
in the back of the Volare SW. It was a big hit with the local REACT
folks, although I never did get the auto-tuner finished.

The military doesn't have time to play with antennas? Damn, you sure
are dumb, Dave!


I have had way more experience. I was
playing with the 170 Khz band when I was a kid, along with 35 years
of CB experience, 24 years of ham experience, and being employed as a
tech and engineer for a few high tech firms as well as 30 years of
hands on CB, ham radio, and stereo repair.


I really don't care about your fantasy world, Dave -- you said I don't
have any experience. You are wrong. If you want to count years then I
can point out several hams who have a lot more years on the air than
you and haven't learned any more than you have, and some kids who
don't have any license at all and know more than both of us put
together. You think time is the measure of knowledge? It isn't, not
when you don't spend that time wisely and learn something from all
that "experience". And in all those years of experience you claim to
have, you still haven't learned one very important thing: There are
other people who are smarter than you. You like to play the old salt
when some bright, young whipper-snapper comes along because that gives
you a sense of self-importance, making you think that you are the
center of his attention. You aren't. Neither am I, but you can't bear
the thought of someone else like me hogging the glory of your years of
technical accomplishment. Well, get used to it -- there -are- smarter
people than you, with more experience than you, and with a better
education than you; and unlike you, some of them have an open mind to
learning things they might not have learned the first time around the
block.


Dave, you're an idiot.

Takes one to know one ;-)


Antenna tuners were available as an accessory for CB for less than the
cost of a good SWR meter. Granted they were simple coaxial in and out
tuners.

A tuner requires readjustment when changing channels within the CB,
and most CBers don't want to deal with the hassle.

So you are now claiming that CB'ers are too "dumb" to handle that?


Where did I suggest anything of the sort?

By suggesting tha using a tuner is a "hassle". It's not if you
understand how to use it.


It -is- a hassle when changing channels is done as often as it is on
the CB.


And to add further evidence to your lack of experience with CB, it was
common that "matchboxes" were often used by CB'ers to "correct" a
mismatch within their antennas. Instead of taking the time to properly
tune the antenna, they forced the match with the tuner. The radio was
happy, as it saw a 1:1 SWR, but the signal was not so good. When a
more knowledgable person would finally retune the antenna, and the
tuner was removed, signal improved considerably.


Wrong. Those little matchboxes (I still have a couple Johnsons) were
popularized during a time when a 1:1 SWR was widely considered to be
the holy grail of antenna tuning, that you needed to squeeze every
milliwatt from the radio. That attitude changed, and fewer CB tuners
were built, as more and more CBers learned that a few points on the
meter make very little difference.

Maybe that's what your inexperience has taught you, but that's not
what actually happened. Yes, there were a few people out there who
cringed when their SWR crept above 1.5:1. The difference that a
matchbox provided did not overcome the insertion loss. But that's not
the cases I was making. There were people who had serious mismatch
problems (over 3:1) because they did not know how to properly tune the
antenna. They then compensated for their blunder by forcing the SWR to
1:1 with a tuner.


........oh brother


The radio was happy, but the antenna was not
radiating efficiently and their signal potential was cut considerably.
When the real problem was corrected, and the tuner removed, their
signals increased.

The point, of course, is that if what you stated before was correct,
you should be able to radiate a signal just as well with an antenna
which was not in tune (non-resonant) through the use of a tuner to
"force" a resonance, than with a naturally resonant antenna. My own
personal experience in this exact scenario proves exactly the
opposite.


Yet you contradict yourself by espousing the virtues of a 5/8-wave
antenna.


Regardless, there
are still many CBers that do indeed use a tuner, not just with prefab
antennas but also with homebrew and beverage-can hooks.

None of which are worth a tinker's dam for local CB communications.


You say that as if you have evaluated every antenna ever built.

No, but I have played with most of more the common home made antennas
which a CB'er would be most likely to utilize. When you're young and
have a lot of time, you tend to experiment alot. I did.


Nowdays your time is wasted on TV, video games, newsgroup posting and
pizza deliveries.


Yet
you haven't been here to evaluate -my- antennas..... have you been
playing with your crystal ball again, Dave?


What, you have some "miracle" antenna design that no one else has ever
played with? What could possibly be so special about YOUR antennas
Frank? Let me guess, you spray them with Teflon?


No "miracle" antenna, just a few practical applications of theory that
fly in the face of your vast and fully comprehensive "experience".


You should give up on the crystal ball Frank. It didn't work for you,
so you should know that it wouldn't work for me.

And just about
every CBer who runs a tube linear uses a tuner because it's built into
the amp, which by itself blows big holes in your "practical" argument.

Not at all. A tube amplifier requires a tuner because the impedance of
a tube is much higher than 50 ohms, and needs to be transformed. It's
not practicality, it's necessity.


It's not "necessity" since the amp is not a necessity -- there is
always the alternative of using a solid-state amp, or no amp at all.

It's a necessity if you use a tube amp and want it to work. Please
stop with the semantics. If your argument is that weak, you should
just stop.


Weak? You just said that a tuner is necessary for a tube amp to work.
Neglecting any unlikely variations, you are correct. Yet this is in
direct contradiction to your previous statments because the built-in
tuner is practical not just from the standpoint that it's required,
but that such amps usually tune over a wide spectrum that covers
several ham bands, which is one of the reasons I suggested to Vinnie
to build an antenna with a tuner. So if your argument about tube amps
isn't favorable of my suggestion to use a tuner then I don't know what
is. (And I can't believe you didn't see that trap even -after- I told
you about setting a few.....ROTFL!!!)


A non-resonant dipole has ONE big advantage. It's a compromise antenna
that will work on all the HF bands. That's great if you don't have the
room to put up single band antennas for each band. But like any
compromise, it will not work as well as a dedicated antenna for each
band. Such a compromise is usually acceptable for a ham who has 1500
watts on tap. But for a 4 watt CB'er, who needs to squeeze every watt
of ERP he can for best local range, he needs a high gain efficient
antenna.


If that were the case then every CBer would have a 5-el yagi on a 30'
mast and a 9' whip on their vehicles.

Most high performance CB'ers do.


So most high performance CBers spend their time and money on equipment
designed to maximize their 4 watts?

A typical high performance CB'er will spend his money on the best
antennas that he can afford. Whether he stays at 4 watts is a personal
choice. It makes little sense to spend money on a big "honkin'" amp
and then **** that power into a poor antenna. The name of the game is
ERP, and that's a combination of transmitter power (minus feedline and
other losses) and antenna gain.


........uh, was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?


The fact that you keep asking, makes me all the less likely to tell
you.


Yet another cop-out. You probably sent in for one of those mail-order
schools and never finished it.

Sort of like that college degree that you allege that you have (yet
you tend bar).


I could scan my Diploma but you would probably dismiss it as a forgery
made by liberal journalists or Pentagon insiders.


I don't have to provide any credentials to you or
anyone else.


Because you don't have any. If you did you would be blowing those
horns just as loud as you blow your "experience" horn.


As long as there are people here who won't even fess up
to their real names, I owe no one any of my personal information.


Gee, it's not like you haven't provided any in the past.....LOL! But
that's ok, you just keep using that excuse since it works so well
against you.


Frank, your experience with both ham and CB radio is sorely lacking.
You read a few books and web sites and think you have all the answers.
OTOH, I've walked the walk for the last 30+ years and have played with
more antennas and equipment than I can remember. I have also been in
contact with people in the know when it comes to antennas. What I
know, I know through experience, and that's worth 10X what you read in
any book.


Which explains why your theory is severely lacking. If you took the
time to actually learn why these things work and -then- applied them
to your experiences, you could be the guru you think you already are.
But you don't and you're not. Instead you do things backwards: you
theorize about radio based on your own experience, then read only
enough to validate your own conclusions whether they are right or not.

If the evidence supports the theory, then it's valid. If not, then the
theory is wrong.


Then where are the facts to support your theories, Dave?


I provided them. The results of my experience.


ROTFLMMFAO!!!


.....gee, that sounds familiar..... I seem to recall challenging you
to produce facts in previous discussions, but you never came up with
any. Why should this time be any different?

I've provided plenty of information when I felt you were worthy of
such. But after you discarded them as rubbish due to your intrinsic
bias,


I discarded them due to the facts that are available for anyone to
verify at any time -- even you.


I decided that you were not one who wanted any enlightenment.
Your mind was made up and anything I provided, you would simply
categorize as "propaganda".


Whine, whine, whine. Quit with the "bias and propoganda" spin already.
It was old when you used it to try and squirm your way out of your
political BS. Deal with the facts. Where are -your- facts, Dave?


When I provided a link to the usage of the
term "drying out" in reference to electrolytic capacitors, you
similarly discarded that as "erroneous". Therefore I am not about to
waste any of my time trying to prove anything to you. You have
basically joined Twisty in my bucket of punch clowns, a verbal
sparring partner.

Your biggest problem is your pompous arrogance.


-:-yawn-:-


You are a perfect example of someone who is
book-smart and street foolish. You will sit there and tell people, who
do these things every day, exactly why they can't possibly work.


Where have I -ever- said anything of the sort?

I would be wasting my time to suggest that you revisit your past
performances here in an objective fashion.


That's just another cop-out, Dave. You can't back up your claim
because I have -never- said such a thing.


While
we sit here and laugh at you, because we've been there and done that.


Who is "we"? You and your imaginary groupies?

Look around and you'll see. Check the archives Frank. You've been on
the butt end of many other debates with people who possessed clearly
superior knowledge.


HA!


All of the fancy obscure terminology and tap
dancing you used couldn't hide your lack of experience.


Speaking of "fancy obscure terminology", why don't you take a crack at
"bird watts"? If I were to say, "it's part of a bigger picture", would
you say that's a fair explanation for the operation of a grounded-grid
triode? Are you part of the crowd that thinks class-C amps are linear?
How do you get the flyback effect without a resonant output tank? You
better read those threads again, Dave.


Check this out, Dave: Education doesn't come from a textbook that some
geek sat down and wrote just for ****s and giggles. It's a compendium
of knowledge that has been collected from over a century of research,
experimentation and practical experience by experts in all aspects of
the field. Those experts didn't become experts simply by playing with
CB radios as a hobby for 30 years. And an education doesn't include a
couple textbooks, a few lectures and a test -- it also includes years
of experience with the practical application of that knowledge.

No kidding. You seemed to have failed the "practical application"
aspect. Hell, you never even heard of the term "drying out" in
reference to electrolytic capacitor aging,


Where did I say that I had never heard the term before? I didn't. What
I -did- say was that it was an inappropriate term.

According to you. Many others, who I hold a much higher level of
respect for, don't see it that way.


And you have yet to name just one.


And not to forget
that the subject came up because you deviated from the topic of how
you used your crystal ball to divine the cause of a CB malfunction.

Based on my own extensive personal experience. A doctor doesn't have
to see a pathogen in a patient to properly diagnose it. He bases his
diagnoses on symptoms and past experience.


......DUI, National Guard, AWOL, bankruptcy, etc, etc.


It's not 100% accurate, but
it's a good start. It's better than random generic suggestions of
checking this and checking that.


Random? No, Dave, those suggestions were not picked at random. The
voltage regulator was nailed down by myself and Lance (and someone
else too, I think) because the symptoms pointed directly to it. And in
case you missed the results of the test, the regulator output was
indeed bad. So either we got really lucky (all making the same
"random" suggestion) or we knew what we were doing. Either way, we
were much closer than your "it's almost always a cap" diagnosis.


and you try to cover this
glaring hole by claiming a pompous, superior attitude as if this was
beneath you.


No, -you- are beneath me, Dave, and that's where you'll stay until you
pull your head out of your ass.

You know, the no-code license is not that hard Frank. A guy with time
on his hands like you, should have no trouble with it....


Why would I want a license? To educate idiots like you? I do that
already in this newsgroup. I know a few decent hams, but the rest are
typified by those chronically depressed fossils who frequent the
whine-nets on 40m and the channel-masters on 2m that think they are
God's gift to radio. No thanks -- you are better qualified to occupy
the hammie bands than me.


When
you mock those that have a formal education and extensive experience
in electronic communication then you mock the same people who made the
television set you watch way too much, the telephone and cell-phone
infrastructure that keeps this world talking, the NASA and JPL
engineers who communicate with space probes billions of miles away,
etc, etc, etc.

I'm not mocking them.


Of course you are. You mock the very idea that anyone with an
education could know more about radio than what you have learned from
playing with toys for 30 years.

I'm not mocking them, I am them.


What a load of horse-****. Next you'll be claiming that you can't
disclose the nature of your work because it's classified by the
government, or some other hogwash like that.


I just played in the sandbox of
experimentation before I got my schooling. With that perspective, I
was able to concentrate on practical theory and discard the stuff that
we never use.


......"practical theory"? That's a good one, Dave! LOL! So where did
you get your "schooling"?


You think that just because you
learned something on your own that nobody else has the right to
profess such knowledge, and just because they didn't 'earn' it like
you did.

Now who's projecting with the crystal ball?


I didn't know a crystal ball could be used to project -- I always
thought of it more as a receiver than a transmitter. But if you
managed to get yours to transmit then maybe you are a better tech than
I thought!


Yet instead of improving yourself by learning something new
you focus on the biggest difference between us -- an education -- and
try to hold it against me as some kind of professional malfeasance.

But there is no real difference in education. You ASSUME that I don't
have a comparable education to you because I refuse to devulge that
information.


No, I KNOW it because you don't have any grasp of the fundamental
theories behind electronics. Oh, but that might be a cover so nobody
suspects your employment as an engineer in radio cryptography, right?
Ok, I can keep a secret..... mum's the word, Dave (hehe).


But I can tell you that I'm not the one tending bar right
now. I am putting my education AND experience to work for me.


I'm having fun -and- making money doing -both-. Like I said, you
should try doing a little bartending yourself -- it might loosen up
your bowels. And you would get social feedback from -real- people
instead of your imaginary groupies. But then that's probably why you
could never hold a job that requires social interaction.


Well, that has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments that was
ever conceived: "You is dumber'n me cuz you gots a ed-u-kashun."

No, you are not "dumber" than me because you have an education. You
are "less informed" because you have much less practical experience.


Same difference -- you are using a quantification of your experience
as the measure of comparison with no regard to qualification. You have
30 years experience with CB, so automatically you conclude that you
are "more informed" than someone with 29-1/2 years experience. Time
for another lesson, Dave: Just because one man has more money than
most people, that doesn't mean his life is any richer than theirs. Or
haven't you been watching the news lately?


My beef with your education is your over reliance on it


Well now that's -beyond- stupid, Dave. What good is an education if
you can't rely upon it? If I know certain facts, does that mean I
should disregard them even when they are relevant? Or should I
disregard them just to make you feel better about your -lack- of
education?


and how you
hold it up as some sort of badge of honor,


Maybe because it -is- a badge of honor. It's not something I simply
bought at the grocery store, it's something for which I worked very
goddam hard. I EARNED my degree. And since you have no idea where I'm
coming from I can tell that you DIDN'T.


not too unlike some hams do
with their licenses.


Just about anybody can pass a test when the answers are provided ahead
of time. A ham license isn't something that's earned; nowdays they are
handed out like vials of deadly flu strains.


An education, without the ability to apply it, is
almost useless.


For all practical purposes, you are right. What's your point?


They know what they are doing. And I work with
many of them on a daily basis. You probably have products in your home
(or will) that I have had a part to play in their development.


You delivered the pizza for the engineers when they were burning the
midnight oil. BFD.

When all else fails, resort to pure insults. What will you do, when
your bar starts a delivery service and they ask you to participate?


I'll probably say 'no' since I don't think the state allows home
delivery of alcoholic beverages.


You are far closer to a delivery boy than I'll ever be. You might want
to save now for a 10 year old vehicle that's more dependable.


What makes you think my truck isn't dependable? Consider that I'm no
fan of Chevy to begin with, then know that this truck has NEVER failed
to start on the first turn of the key, even when the shop didn't get
the distributor cap locked down and it popped loose. It has run in
temps from -10 to 110 degrees, in rain, snow and ice, I've taken it
over the passes in the Cascades and Rockies several times without even
a groan, twice with a trailer, pulled a couple -newer- SUVs out of the
snow, towed a couple other cars, and all -after- it was hit. Yeah,
it's an ugly truck, but I wouldn't dare drive a new car in this town
especially after getting hit 17 times, which is why I don't drive the
Dodge (which is more than twice as old yet still runs like new).

So once again you have no idea what you are talking about, Dave.


I
work in the field every day.


What "field" is that, Dave? The field of dreams?

The field of communications technology. I work in the field. You, on
the other hand, are like the farmer, out standing in it.


Okay, we have narrowed it down to "communications technology". So you
don't deliver the pizzas -- you take the calls and pass them onto the
driver. What's the difference?


I am not mocking them, I am mocking you.
You who CLAIM to be educated, but evidence suggests you are sorely
lacking in practical application of whatever it is you might have
learned.


Shall I make a list of what I have taught you about radio and
electronics since the last list? How long ago was that.... just a
couple months ago, wasn't it?

You now arrogantly claim to have taught me something? You're as bad a
Twisty who thinks he teaches me about radio law.


He did.


Neither one of you do
anything more than dance to smoke and mirrors and the twisting of
words.


No smoke or mirrors, Dave. The problem is that you can never admit
when you are wrong. You were wrong about roger-beeps, you were wrong
about speeding laws, you were wrong about capacitors, you were wrong
about non-resonant antennas and tuners..... the list is almost endless
at this point. But hey, it's not like you really -want- to make your
life easier by simply keeping your mouth shut about things you know
nothing about. You just can't resist pushing your way into the center
of the discussion whether by your electronic trouble-guessing, legal
assumptions, political propoganda, or during an ensuing argument. But
that's just the way you are, Dave. It's all summarized in the analysis
I did about your personality disorders.


While I may not have participated in any world-changing
technology, I certainly have an education and the experience in the
field that puts you to shame.

While you tend bar and drive a 20+ year old truck......


Now your memory is failing, Dave -- did you forget so soon that I'm
currently designing and building a studio?

So you claim. That and 50 cents can't even buy a decent cup of coffee.
I can claim that I'm installing the new digital video links at ABC
too.


You have made a lot of claims and haven't backed up -any- of them with
-any- facts. I have. Unlike you, I don't hide anything about me.
Consequently, my claims are far more credible than yours. That's how
to play the credibility game. You lost the game a long time ago, Dave,
and just like any other Gore loser you can't accept defeat. So you
hang around the board and keep playing your own little game, not
realizing that the real game continues despite you, and that you are
tolerated simply because you won't go away.

Go find another game, Dave.


It's going to take an extra
week because of the late-season snow in the pass (can't get any decent
acoustic panels in Spokane), but I didn't lose any money because of
the delay -- I still get $5k for the job when it's done, which is a
lot more than you get delivering pizzas in your lime-green Gremlin.

He he heh heeh hoo hooo hoo LOL. I love it when you get personal
Frank. I can almost see the beads of spit on your monitor. My bonus
this year was more than that, and I didn't have to drive through snow
to get it.


"beads of spit"?


Yet -you- try to teach -me- theory based
on your education from a third-rate vocational tech school, a few
years in a CB shop, and your experience in =amateur= radio.

As far as you know.


Don't even -hint- that you have any kind of technical or engineering
job in the radio/electronics field because I'm not buying it for one
second. You have proven your ignorance on the subject so many times
that it's well beyond the realm of probability.

Yet it is a true fact nonetheless , which only outlines just how far
off you are.


uh-huh, sure Dave, whatever you say.


But it is evidently light years ahead of those
internet websites you lift your information from while you sit at home
alone with no other people to "relate" to.


And here's the kicker: Do you have any idea where I came up with the
idea to just throw a couple wires in the air and load them up with a
tuner? A ham.

Not all hams are mensa candidates.


Finally..... you have provided proof for one of your claims! Ok, so
you provided the proof -before- you made the claim, but at least it's
a start.

Ironically, what I said was not "proof" of anything. Unless, you now
consider my personal observations and experience as proof.


Pay attention, dummy: You said "not all hams are mensa candidates". I
agree. In fact, I agree 100%. Even if I didn't agree, you have already
offered irrefutable proof to support your claim -- your own ignorance.
NOW do you understand what I said in my previous post? Because if you
don't then you are just making your mountain of evidence even higher.


But then again, you wouldn't know that. You're not a ham (or CB'er).


Dave, go back to rec.boats and learn how to float -- your boat sank
here a long time ago.

Frank, I was here long before you came, and I'll be here long after
you leave.


Wow, your crystal ball can tell the future, too?


Call me the B.S. meter, if you will. If it stinks, I'll
call attention to it. Right now you are high on the effluent level.


......(blub, blub, blub).....aH-OOOO-gah!.....(blub, blub, blub).....
Abandon ship! Abandon ship! Aband...(gurgle)....







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:50:39 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


Antennas are referenced to either or both because both are constants.

Yes but referencing a theoretical model whose characteristics cannot
be realized in the real world, is somewhat disingenuous. A 1/2 wave
dipole is a standard reference antenna in the real world.


......"disingenuous"? LOL!

What, do you need the definition explained to you? Ok:


dis·in·gen·u·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsn-jny-s)
adj.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.

2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

The usage of theoretical model which can never be realized in the real
world is deliberately misleading, and as such conforms to #!
definition above.




It has 0 dB when referenced to itself.

Isn't that what I just said?


Unfortunately, yes, that's exactly what you said, and it's absolutely
dumb since -every- antenna has 0 dB gain in reference to itself.

But we don't reference an antenna against itself, we reference it
against a 1/2 wave dipole, a reference antenna which has unity gain.


Time for your next lesson, Dave:

Please. Stop patting yourself on the back Frank, you'll pull a muscle.


The decibel is the unit of measure in a comparative quantification
system that establishes a value in relation to a specified 'standard'
or 'reference'. In the case of antenna gain, the measurement is
compared to either an isotropic antenna or a 1/2-wave dipole in free
space (neither of which, FYI, are obtainable in the real world). A
measurement in reference to the isotropic is labelled 'dBi', and when
referenced to the dipole the label is 'dBd'. Look up antenna specs and
you will see that both references are commonly used. Actually, dBi is
more common because it gives higher numbers, which works better from a
marketing perspective. Now to say that "a dipole has "0 dB gain", or even "unity gain", means
absolutely nothing because there is no reference.

I pretty much said the same thing on my website:

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj/antennagainmyth.htm



Even if you include
the reference but the reference is to itself, that's no better than
saying that an inch is equal to an inch -- even more meaningless. And
just so you are very clear on this, a dipole (1/2-wave Hertzian) has a
gain of 3 dBi -ONLY- in the direction of maximum gain; and again, that
gain is realized -only- in free space. That being said.....

This amounts to a simple tap dance in preparation for yet another weak
defense of your misleading information. You almost sound as if you
used to work for one of the more unscrupulous antenna companies


Antenna gain in the -real- world is first measured as field strength,
then that value is compared against the calculated equivalent field
strength of a free-space dipole and/or isotropic radiator. Here's the
shocker, Dave: If you do that with a 1/2-wave dipole you will find
that it does -not- have a gain of 3 dbi at the point of maximum gain
for the simple reason that it is not in free space. IOW, your dipole
with "unity gain" is nothing more than a theoretical fantasy.

Which is why a dipole has an actual gain of 2.14 dbi, and not 3dbi. No
one is disputing that.

So in other words, what you are saying essentially is that you can't
trust any antenna gain specs, because the conditions by which they are
measured are never guaranteed to remain constant.

You said it yourself (and I agree) that a db is a unit of RELATIVE
measure. If I say that a dipole has unity gain, then it does, as
compared to a reference dipole tested in real world conditions.


Then it's no longer a half wave dipole. You are now talking double
ended zepp designs, which do exhibit gain over a 1/2 wave dipole


But you didn't say "half wave dipole". You said only "dipole" which
could be any kind of dipole, be it a double-ended Zepp or the rabbit
ears perched on top of your overused television set.

When the facts fail, argue semantics. When that fails, make unfounded
speculations about another's recreational habits.

But that just makes me smile :-)


Smile all you want -- the difference between the terms is significant
despite your self-defined assumptions.

Keep telling yourself that. It's why you turn a disagreement over
semantics into a full blown ****ing contest.


Silly me for assuming that an antenna needs feedline to connect to it.


Yep, you get yourself into a lot of trouble with your assumptions.

Yea, silly me for making practical assumptions. There must be at least
one or two people who attach their radios right to their antennas
without feedline..... You have a habit of trying to make a case based
on the exception rather than the rule. Similar to what you tried to
pull with the Pa. State speeding laws. You tried to invalidate my
claim that a speed tolerance was wrong based on a small, virtually
unused method of measurement, rather than admit you were wrong in the
vast majority of cases. Even when the facts were presented to you, you
continued to try to play that exception.

It was getting painful to watch you hold on to it.


Only an idiot would run 200 feet or more of open 450 Ohm ladder line.


Then there are a lot of idiots in this world, since most transmission
line runs longer than 200 feet are usually some sort of ladder line or
twin-lead as their attenuation is significantly lower than that of
most types of coax. And I don't think many hams use 3-1/8" pressurized
line, do they?

I don't know of many hams who run any longer runs of ladder line than
what is necessary to perform a proper impedance transfer. They usually
attach to a balun and then run coaxial cable to it.

Unless of course, you don't care about feedline radiation and RFI
issues.


Ladder line is a balanced line -- it won't radiate unless the load or
source is unbalanced (assuming it's used at a frequency with a
wavelength significantly larger than the spacing).

And of course, we know that never happens.....


Most antennas which are designed to use ladder line, are also
spec'ed for a certain fixed length of the ladder line as part of its
impedance match.


And you claim to have experience with these things? LOL!

I do.



At that point a balun is connected and the rest of
the feedline completes the usual configuration. If you were a ham,
you'd know this.


If you were as experienced as you claim then you would know that hams
rarely use baluns with ladder line, and not too often with twin-lead
either.

Really? I guess I'd better get on 80 meters tonight and tell all those
good ol' boys that they've been doing it wrong for all these years.
I'll give them your e-mail address if that's ok.


But keeping with the original perspective, of a simple antenna system
for Vinnie, this falls far short of that objective.


Simplicity dictates buying an Imax or Antron and sticking it in a tree
or on a pole. Plug-n-play. You can't get much simpler than that. The
complexity arose when you threw a fit after my suggestion that Vinnie
might want to try and make his own antenna.

I threw a "fit"? Hardly. I have no problem with anyone making their
own antennas. That's what ham radio is all about. BUT, when the
suggestions you made were for antennas which do not perform well for
the intended use,


The antenna worked fine for me.

I though my 2 meter ringo running through a tuner was "fine" as well.
Until I put up something better and made the comparison. It's all
relative. Perhaps your standards are not as exacting as mine.



If you couldn't get it to work then
there's probably a reason that stems from your technical incompetence,
which really doesn't suprise me -- this may be one of the simplest
antennas that a person can make, but only -you- could foul it up with
all your assumptions and distorted theories.


You said it yourself, it's a simple antenna. Trying to discredit my
findings by claiming that I screwed it up, does not detract from the
reality of performance comparisons. The antenna was constructed
correctly, the SWR was good, it was mounted properly, and it didn't
work as well as a gain-type vertical. Plain and simple.


I felt compelled to point this out. You are not
going to throw a couple of wires up in a tree, tune them with a tuner
and expect it to perform as well as a commercial (or homemade if
you're so inclined) gain-type, purpose-built, vertical antenna.


That's funny, Dave. Just a couple posts ago you were whining about me
saying; "You will sit there and tell people, who do these things every
day, exactly why they can't possibly work." Now you are doing what you
claim I do (but never have). Once again you have proven your own
hypocrisy.

You're talking in circles again Frank. You're making me dizzy trying
to make sense of it. Try again when you're not nipping at the bottles
at the bar.


A tuner forces a resonant load from something which isn't resonant
naturally. That's sort of like keeping someone alive with a
respirator.


Hmmmm..... the Schiavo antenna..... not a very good analogy, Dave.

Schiavo was not on a respirator Frank. Try to keep up.


You can (and I have) load up large metal objects (like rain gutters
and bedsprings), and force them to have a 1:1 SWR. But that doesn't
mean that the antenna is an efficient radiator. That's my whole point.


You like to use the word "force"..... nothing is being "forced", Dave.

Yes it is. Resonance is a natural thing. A particular given antenna
has a natural resonance point. Trying to make it resonant at a point
other than that natural point is forcing it to resonance.





Now for your lesson in real life application of antenna principles:

I was completely out of CB between 1990 and 1993, and I took down all
of my CB antennas. When I got the bug to get back into CB again, I had
the following antennas: a horizontal 10 meter dipole, a 5/8th wave 2
meter Ringo Ranger 2, a 6 meter 3 element beam (horizontal), a 2 meter
10 element Cushcraft "twistbeam" (horizontal & vertical), and a
Diamond tri-band 146, 220 and 440 Mhz vertical.

Now, I also had at my disposal a tuner. I could load up every antenna
in that list on the CB band, with a less than 1.5:1 SWR. Out of that
list of antennas, the only one which worked somewhat acceptably was
the 2 meter Ringo Ranger, as it was about a 1/4 wave long at CB
frequencies. It was also at the top of my tower. The 10 meter dipole
loaded the easiest, but being horizontal, wasn't much use for local
talking.

Sometime later, I put my Avanti Sigma 4 back up, and it wasabout 2
"S" units stronger transmitting to others, on average, than the 2
meter Ringo through the tuner.

THAT is the difference between theory and practice. Sure you can load
up a non-resonant antenna and it will "work". But it won't work as
well as an antenna designed for the band.


Notice that all but one of your examples were shorter than a 1/4-wave.

I forgot to mention my 6 meter 1/2 wave Ringo vertical. That is also
about a 1/4 wave at 27 Mhz, but for some reason didn't work as well as
the 2 meter version.

Were you actually hoping for performance better than a rubber-ducky or
2-foot gutter-mount?

There are limitations to the length of an antenna. Longer is not
always better. Loading up a 40 meter vertical on CB isn't all that
sweet either in the performance area.


Geez Dave, you sure are a dumbass.

I'm not the one reading a book on antenna theory and trying to pass it
off as actual experience.

No, you are the one claiming to have much more experience than you
actually have.

I never claimed to have extensive experience in all forms of antenna
usage. But I DO have extensive experience on what works well, and what
works poorly on the CB band.


Wrong. Noise "tends" to have the polarity of the sources. The sources
of noise can be mostly vertical -or- horizontal depending on a number
of factors, not the least of which are geographic location, time of
day (as well as season), solar activity, band of operation......

Time to read another book Frank. Or better yet ask a ham. The greatest
majority of noise is vertically polarized. Maybe if you have been
paying attention in those theory classes instead of "teaching" logic
classes, and trying to book whip your way through psychology 101, you
might know this.


Maybe if you had a Cushcraft CFB-8 you could have spent several years
switching between horizontal and vertical, and seen for yourself that
sometimes vertical is noisier than horizontal and sometimes it's the
other way around. (The ice storm in '96 took out my Cushcraft, the
rotor and the tower -- makes me sad because it was probably the best
CB antenna I ever owned).

I am not familiar with that model antenna. Could you provide the
specs?


Ah, so you're changing the parameters of the discussion. Long wires
are inefficient on CB as well. Been there, done that.


I changed nothing. You probably had a problem with the long-wire
antenna because you were expecting an omnidirectional pattern, which a
long-wire does not have.

What else would you want for local CB talking? Stay within the
parameters of the intended use. I never said that your suggestions
were bad designs or unsuitable in any application. But for the use we
were originally discussing, they fall far short.


It does (at least in the "H" plane) if it's mounted vertically. But
that's impractical for HF use.


Of course it's impractical since your lobes are shooting into the
ground and towards a few satellites.

Exactly my point.



Wire antennas are awkward and do not work well on CB for
local talking. So where Frank?


Long-wire antennas can indeed be awkward, but sometimes an opportunity
presents itself that can't be ignored. Maybe you don't have farms near
where you live but there are plenty around here, complete with wire
fences. And there are also mountains to go camping, some of which have
very nice slopes that are ideal for a long-wire or rhombic.

A rhombic antenna has fantastic gain, but it's directional and
cumbersome to move. Again, it's impractical for local CB use.


But like I said before (and you conveniently snipped), antennas are
reciprocal. IOW, I don't need to have a license to receive on -any-
band. I do a lot of SWL if you haven't guessed by now.

So how do you gauge relative antenna performance differences on a
simple receiver. Differences of 1 or two S units would not be easily
measured, especially on DX signals which constantly change with
conditions. I used to SWL too. I got what I thought was satisfactory
performance just hanging a long wire out of my bedroom window. But how
do you quantify that?


Regardless, I
have used long-wire antennas for transmitting on HF in the USMC, on
the CB, and a few Part 15 experiments on HF, MF and LF. They work just
fine -- for their intended purpose.

I agree. But that purpose is not for local talking on the CB band.


The point is, as it has always been, that you glaringly lack the
necessary experience to back up your claims.


How much experience do I need before I know what I'm doing, Dave? More
experience than you?

No, just enough that you stop making generic suggestions for things
which require a specific application. Such actions are borne of
ignorance.



I have had way more experience. I was
playing with the 170 Khz band when I was a kid, along with 35 years
of CB experience, 24 years of ham experience, and being employed as a
tech and engineer for a few high tech firms as well as 30 years of
hands on CB, ham radio, and stereo repair.


I really don't care about your fantasy world, Dave

Only you insist on calling it that. But that doesn't make it so.


-- you said I don't
have any experience. You are wrong. If you want to count years then I
can point out several hams who have a lot more years on the air than
you and haven't learned any more than you have, and some kids who
don't have any license at all and know more than both of us put
together. You think time is the measure of knowledge?

No, but it is a measure of wisdom.


It isn't, not
when you don't spend that time wisely and learn something from all
that "experience".

My experience tells me not to waste my time with mickey mouse wire
antennas and tuners for local CB talking.


And in all those years of experience you claim to
have, you still haven't learned one very important thing: There are
other people who are smarter than you.

I never said otherwise. You are putting thoughts in my head again
Frank. Your assumptions in this case are very telling, and more likely
a form of projection.


You like to play the old salt
when some bright, young whipper-snapper comes along because that gives
you a sense of self-importance, making you think that you are the
center of his attention.

Is that why you got let go from the radio station? Some fair-haired
college kid whip you into a frenzy and for less money?

You aren't. Neither am I, but you can't bear
the thought of someone else like me hogging the glory of your years of
technical accomplishment.

Keep going Frank, this is indeed interesting. You've managed to spin a
total yarn, based on nothing more than your own feelings. You do have
some unresolved bitterness down there.


Well, get used to it -- there -are- smarter
people than you, with more experience than you, and with a better
education than you; and unlike you, some of them have an open mind to
learning things they might not have learned the first time around the
block.

I learn things every day. Like today, I have a better understanding of
what's eating at you.


By suggesting tha using a tuner is a "hassle". It's not if you
understand how to use it.


It -is- a hassle when changing channels is done as often as it is on
the CB.

Not for a dedicated high performance operator. These same guys would
put up with the drift of a Siltronix VFO, deal with monster beams
which dwarf their homes, and you think adjusting a simple tuner is too
big of a "hassle"?

Maybe that's what your inexperience has taught you, but that's not
what actually happened. Yes, there were a few people out there who
cringed when their SWR crept above 1.5:1. The difference that a
matchbox provided did not overcome the insertion loss. But that's not
the cases I was making. There were people who had serious mismatch
problems (over 3:1) because they did not know how to properly tune the
antenna. They then compensated for their blunder by forcing the SWR to
1:1 with a tuner.


.......oh brother

You have a habit of saying things like this when you're fed a dose of
reality. Why is that?


The radio was happy, but the antenna was not
radiating efficiently and their signal potential was cut considerably.
When the real problem was corrected, and the tuner removed, their
signals increased.

The point, of course, is that if what you stated before was correct,
you should be able to radiate a signal just as well with an antenna
which was not in tune (non-resonant) through the use of a tuner to
"force" a resonance, than with a naturally resonant antenna. My own
personal experience in this exact scenario proves exactly the
opposite.


Yet you contradict yourself by espousing the virtues of a 5/8-wave
antenna.

There's nothing contradictory about a 5/8 wave antenna. It beats a 1/2
wave dipole hands down. And it is resonant, even if not at 50 ohms.

No, but I have played with most of more the common home made antennas
which a CB'er would be most likely to utilize. When you're young and
have a lot of time, you tend to experiment alot. I did.


Nowdays your time is wasted on TV, video games, newsgroup posting and
pizza deliveries.

I'm smiling again. ;-)

Yet
you haven't been here to evaluate -my- antennas..... have you been
playing with your crystal ball again, Dave?


What, you have some "miracle" antenna design that no one else has ever
played with? What could possibly be so special about YOUR antennas
Frank? Let me guess, you spray them with Teflon?


No "miracle" antenna, just a few practical applications of theory that
fly in the face of your vast and fully comprehensive "experience".

Bull****, Frank. There's no other word for it.


You should give up on the crystal ball Frank. It didn't work for you,
so you should know that it wouldn't work for me.

And just about
every CBer who runs a tube linear uses a tuner because it's built into
the amp, which by itself blows big holes in your "practical" argument.

Not at all. A tube amplifier requires a tuner because the impedance of
a tube is much higher than 50 ohms, and needs to be transformed. It's
not practicality, it's necessity.


It's not "necessity" since the amp is not a necessity -- there is
always the alternative of using a solid-state amp, or no amp at all.

It's a necessity if you use a tube amp and want it to work. Please
stop with the semantics. If your argument is that weak, you should
just stop.


Weak? You just said that a tuner is necessary for a tube amp to work.
Neglecting any unlikely variations, you are correct. Yet this is in
direct contradiction to your previous statments because the built-in
tuner is practical not just from the standpoint that it's required,
but that such amps usually tune over a wide spectrum that covers
several ham bands, which is one of the reasons I suggested to Vinnie
to build an antenna with a tuner. So if your argument about tube amps
isn't favorable of my suggestion to use a tuner then I don't know what
is. (And I can't believe you didn't see that trap even -after- I told
you about setting a few.....ROTFL!!!)

THIS is your trap? Frank you need help. You are changing the
application and attempting to make a direct comparison when there
isn't one. I never said a tuner isn't useful. I said that a non
resonant antenna forced to a match on CB will not work as well as an
antenna designed for the band. There are no universal truths.
Situations are relative. Are you that desperate, that you need to
start twisting words? That trick didn't buy twisty any credibility and
it will do no more for you.


So most high performance CBers spend their time and money on equipment
designed to maximize their 4 watts?

A typical high performance CB'er will spend his money on the best
antennas that he can afford. Whether he stays at 4 watts is a personal
choice. It makes little sense to spend money on a big "honkin'" amp
and then **** that power into a poor antenna. The name of the game is
ERP, and that's a combination of transmitter power (minus feedline and
other losses) and antenna gain.


.......uh, was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

What does it matter? Surely you've met a few guys like that in you
"years" of CBing. I know I did.



The fact that you keep asking, makes me all the less likely to tell
you.


Yet another cop-out. You probably sent in for one of those mail-order
schools and never finished it.

Sort of like that college degree that you allege that you have (yet
you tend bar).


I could scan my Diploma but you would probably dismiss it as a forgery
made by liberal journalists or Pentagon insiders.

I could scan a bunch of my certificates and diplomas as well. But
you'd also claim that printshop could create them.


I don't have to provide any credentials to you or
anyone else.


Because you don't have any. If you did you would be blowing those
horns just as loud as you blow your "experience" horn.

I don't make a habit of bragging about my ham license either.. Other
people bring it up. No one likes a braggart Frank, especially me. My
revelation of my experience was in direct response to your claim that
I don't know what I'm doing. I don't need to play the "my school is
better than your school game" in this group.


As long as there are people here who won't even fess up
to their real names, I owe no one any of my personal information.


Gee, it's not like you haven't provided any in the past.

Such as?


I've provided plenty of information when I felt you were worthy of
such. But after you discarded them as rubbish due to your intrinsic
bias,


I discarded them due to the facts that are available for anyone to
verify at any time -- even you.

Your "facts" were little more than other people's conclusions. Your
bias clouds you objectivity




I decided that you were not one who wanted any enlightenment.
Your mind was made up and anything I provided, you would simply
categorize as "propaganda".


Whine, whine, whine. Quit with the "bias and propoganda" spin already.

If the shoe fits Frank.



It was old when you used it to try and squirm your way out of your
political BS. Deal with the facts. Where are -your- facts, Dave?

Where are yours?



While
we sit here and laugh at you, because we've been there and done that.


Who is "we"? You and your imaginary groupies?

Look around and you'll see. Check the archives Frank. You've been on
the butt end of many other debates with people who possessed clearly
superior knowledge.


HA!


All of the fancy obscure terminology and tap
dancing you used couldn't hide your lack of experience.


Speaking of "fancy obscure terminology", why don't you take a crack at
"bird watts"?

That's not a true unit of measure. It was coined by a marginally
technical Cb'er in the same vein as "pounds" was coined to refer to
"S" units.



If I were to say, "it's part of a bigger picture", would
you say that's a fair explanation for the operation of a grounded-grid
triode?

That depends on the context.



Are you part of the crowd that thinks class-C amps are linear?

Hell no.


How do you get the flyback effect without a resonant output tank? You
better read those threads again, Dave.

It's tap dance terminology. Flyback effect has little to do with
linearizing an amp. It's mostly about DC bias.




Where did I say that I had never heard the term before? I didn't. What
I -did- say was that it was an inappropriate term.

According to you. Many others, who I hold a much higher level of
respect for, don't see it that way.


And you have yet to name just one.

What would it matter if I did? Would you know them?



It's not 100% accurate, but
it's a good start. It's better than random generic suggestions of
checking this and checking that.


Random? No, Dave, those suggestions were not picked at random. The
voltage regulator was nailed down by myself and Lance (and someone
else too, I think) because the symptoms pointed directly to it.

The original poster was scared off by your jumping on my back for
suggesting the cap. We never saw the outcome and whether he actually
found the real problem.


And in
case you missed the results of the test, the regulator output was
indeed bad. So either we got really lucky (all making the same
"random" suggestion) or we knew what we were doing.

How could you? You know next to nothing about the inner workings of a
CB radio. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such an ass of yourself
trying to discredit my knowledge of the TRC 449/458/457/Cobra
138/139XLR chassis.


Either way, we
were much closer than your "it's almost always a cap" diagnosis.

Says you. The answer was never given to us.


and you try to cover this
glaring hole by claiming a pompous, superior attitude as if this was
beneath you.


No, -you- are beneath me, Dave, and that's where you'll stay until you
pull your head out of your ass.

You know, the no-code license is not that hard Frank. A guy with time
on his hands like you, should have no trouble with it....


Why would I want a license?

You claim to be a radio experimenter. What bigger playground is there
than ham radio?

To educate idiots like you?

You won't last long with your attitude.


I do that already in this newsgroup

The only thing we learn is that you a pompous arrogant blowhard who
tends bar for a living while claiming to be some sort of radio whiz.


. I know a few decent hams, but the rest are
typified by those chronically depressed fossils who frequent the
whine-nets on 40m and the channel-masters on 2m that think they are
God's gift to radio. No thanks -- you are better qualified to occupy
the hammie bands than me.

Translation: You couldn't cut it. Even Voob tried to push you into it,
and you actually considered it. So when are you going to step up to
the plate?


I'm not mocking them, I am them.


What a load of horse-****. Next you'll be claiming that you can't
disclose the nature of your work because it's classified by the
government, or some other hogwash like that.

Not at all. But I do choose to keep my vocation quiet. After what
happened to Dennis O, I keep it to myself.


I just played in the sandbox of
experimentation before I got my schooling. With that perspective, I
was able to concentrate on practical theory and discard the stuff that
we never use.


....."practical theory"? That's a good one, Dave!

What? Do I have to explain yet another term to you?


LOL! So where did you get your "schooling"?

Several places. And not all at once.


You think that just because you
learned something on your own that nobody else has the right to
profess such knowledge, and just because they didn't 'earn' it like
you did.

Now who's projecting with the crystal ball?


I didn't know a crystal ball could be used to project -- I always
thought of it more as a receiver than a transmitter.

Well technically, the crystal ball is the receiver. You are the
assumer and transmitter.


Yet instead of improving yourself by learning something new
you focus on the biggest difference between us -- an education -- and
try to hold it against me as some kind of professional malfeasance.

But there is no real difference in education. You ASSUME that I don't
have a comparable education to you because I refuse to devulge that
information.


No, I KNOW it because you don't have any grasp of the fundamental
theories behind electronics.

You mean that I don't use YOUR terms for it. You are very protective
of your terms. Just like your insistence that pulsating D.C. was
actually A.C.


But I can tell you that I'm not the one tending bar right
now. I am putting my education AND experience to work for me.


I'm having fun -and- making money doing -both-. Like I said, you
should try doing a little bartending yourself -- it might loosen up
your bowels.

Why? Slinging drinks to people who need to drown their frustrations
while inhaling clouds of cigarette smoke is not my idea of "fun", not
even considering the large pay cut.


And you would get social feedback from -real- people
instead of your imaginary groupies.

I deal with hundreds of real people on a weekly basis. May of whom are
big customers. Others strategic partners. Some work in the factories
in other countries. I admit that I have trouble understanding people
who speak broken English, but I keep humbling myself by reminding
myself that their English is better than my Chinese or Spanish.



But then that's probably why you
could never hold a job that requires social interaction.

I've had 3 full time jobs in 30 years. My current job, I've had for 20
years as of last December. Want to try again?

Same difference -- you are using a quantification of your experience
as the measure of comparison with no regard to qualification. You have
30 years experience with CB, so automatically you conclude that you
are "more informed" than someone with 29-1/2 years experience.

Never said otherwise.

Conversely, someone with a degree from MIT is not necessarily more
versed in R.F. theory than someone with a degree from Drexel.


My beef with your education is your over reliance on it


Well now that's -beyond- stupid, Dave. What good is an education if
you can't rely upon it?

You do more than rely upon it. You flaunt it like some sort of new
spring dress.

You chastise me for relying on my experience, while you do the same
with your education. Can you say (or spell) hypocrisy Frank?


If I know certain facts, does that mean I
should disregard them even when they are relevant?

Why not, you're quick to discredit my facts, and use your "education"
as a justification.


Or should I
disregard them just to make you feel better about your -lack- of
education?

Education is fine. But it only gives you the tools to learn. Actual
learning comes with applying education and gaining experience.


and how you
hold it up as some sort of badge of honor,


Maybe because it -is- a badge of honor. It's not something I simply
bought at the grocery store, it's something for which I worked very
goddam hard. I EARNED my degree. And since you have no idea where I'm
coming from I can tell that you DIDN'T.

Now you're sounding like a 20 WPM Extra who pouts at the thought of a
no-code license. I EARNED IT so everyone needs to.

I earned mine too. It took a lot longer than yours did. I did it for
the extra income potential.



not too unlike some hams do
with their licenses.


Just about anybody can pass a test when the answers are provided ahead
of time.

So what's your excuse again?


A ham license isn't something that's earned; nowdays they are
handed out like vials of deadly flu strains.

Everyone who's ever failed the exam makes similar comments.

I am not mocking them, I am mocking you.
You who CLAIM to be educated, but evidence suggests you are sorely
lacking in practical application of whatever it is you might have
learned.


Shall I make a list of what I have taught you about radio and
electronics since the last list? How long ago was that.... just a
couple months ago, wasn't it?

You now arrogantly claim to have taught me something? You're as bad a
Twisty who thinks he teaches me about radio law.


He did.

Nothing of the sort. He knows nothing and cannot provide any
substantiation for any claim he makes.

Neither one of you do
anything more than dance to smoke and mirrors and the twisting of
words.


No smoke or mirrors, Dave. The problem is that you can never admit
when you are wrong. You were wrong about roger-beeps,

And I admitted it.



you were wrong about speeding laws,

No, I wasn't. The Pa. statute clearly backs up my claim in the vast
majority of cases.


you were wrong about capacitors,

No, you failed to prove me wrong about anything. All you did was tap
dance around differences in terminology.


you were wrong
about non-resonant antennas and tuners.

Prove it then, with something more substantive than your own
arrogance. Prove that a non-resonant antenna will perform as well or
better than a commercial gain antenna on the CB band. Until you can,
you haven't "proven" anything, other than you disagree with me.


..... the list is almost endless

As endless as your own mind.



at this point. But hey, it's not like you really -want- to make your
life easier by simply keeping your mouth shut about things you know
nothing about.

What would be the fun in that? I'm making you froth and spew like no
one before. It's a good thing you like to live alone. I'd hate to
think that I might be responsible for a case of domestic violence.


You just can't resist pushing your way into the center
of the discussion whether by your electronic trouble-guessing, legal
assumptions, political propoganda, or during an ensuing argument.

My troubleshooting has been right more often than not Frank. Most
recently the diagnosis of final oscillation in an HR-2510.

But
that's just the way you are, Dave. It's all summarized in the analysis
I did about your personality disorders.

Ah yes, another example of your glaring lack of experience. You know
absolutely nothing about reading people, especially me. I'm having
fun pushing your buttons, and you, like Twisty, never fail to perform
when prodded.


Now your memory is failing, Dave -- did you forget so soon that I'm
currently designing and building a studio?

So you claim. That and 50 cents can't even buy a decent cup of coffee.
I can claim that I'm installing the new digital video links at ABC
too.


You have made a lot of claims and haven't backed up -any- of them with
-any- facts. I have.

No, you haven't.


Unlike you, I don't hide anything about me.


Consequently, my claims are far more credible than yours.

Not when they're clearly wrong.

That's how to play the credibility game. You lost the game a long time ago, Dave,
and just like any other Gore loser you can't accept defeat. So you
hang around the board and keep playing your own little game, not
realizing that the real game continues despite you, and that you are
tolerated simply because you won't go away.

All this assumes that I care what you think.


Go find another game, Dave.

Why? This forum ceased to be a venue for anything constructive log
ago. For me, my fun is tweaking mentally unstable and arrogant
assholes. I'm having fun, aren't you?


Don't even -hint- that you have any kind of technical or engineering
job in the radio/electronics field because I'm not buying it for one
second. You have proven your ignorance on the subject so many times
that it's well beyond the realm of probability.

Yet it is a true fact nonetheless , which only outlines just how far
off you are.


uh-huh, sure Dave, whatever you say.

I got the paycheck to prove it. All else is irrelevant.


Pay attention, dummy: You said "not all hams are mensa candidates". I
agree. In fact, I agree 100%. Even if I didn't agree, you have already
offered irrefutable proof to support your claim -- your own ignorance.

The joke loses it's effect when you have to explain it Frank. But you
do it anyway.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:52:08 -0400, Domino's Dave
wrote:

snip
uh-huh, sure Dave, whatever you say.

I got the paycheck to prove it. All else is irrelevant.


Except for the fact that you just spent eight hours during normal
working hours replying to my post. I, on the other hand, have to get
back to work now since the panels finally arrived last night. I'll
pick this up again when I have as much time to waste as you do,
pizza-boi.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----