No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna. As far
as static building up on the outer braid of coax, if you have your antenna
firmly mounted to the pipe metal to metal, then grounding the pipe at the
bottom is as close to "grounded" as you are going to get, and this will
ground any "ground" radials that are not active elements of the antenna, and
usually put the shield of the coax at ground, also. There is a more
important reason to ground the antenna pipe, and thereby the shield of the
coax. It keeps local electrical noise and interference from penetrating into
the coax , and raising the noise and interference in the reciever. The
signals you are trying to pick up on the scanner or radio are hundreds of
times weaker than a lot of local noise is, and the noise will tend to
over-ride the signal if this is not attended to. (the coax actually acts
like an antenna when the shield is not at ground).
This will tend to severely limit your hearing range on the radio ,
especially in locations that are rife with electrical noise , like in the
city, near a factory, etc, etc, etc
"Bob Parnass" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:37:52 -0700, Jason Wagner wrote:

... On the other hand, I do like the idea of having static build up
on coax bled to ground. But does this product really work? Anyone
using
them?

If you want to avoid building up a static charge
on your antenna, use an antenna that is at "DC ground."
Discones and Ventennas are not at DC ground.

I have a few of the spark gap arrestors like those
you cited. It takes a high voltage to jump the air gap
inside them. Using a more sophisticated receiver protector
with a gas cartridge will discharge the voltage to ground
at a lower voltage level than an air gap and provide more protection.

I use an older Alpha Delta Transi Trap on my shortwave receiver.
It contains a replaceable gas plug. A newer version is
show at http://www.alphadeltacom.com/tt3g50.html

Disconnect your scanner from the antenna when not in use,
especially during lightning season.

--
================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User http://parnass.com

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:46:45 -0400, Zombie Wolf wrote:

No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna.

Where did you get that notion?

DC ground and RF ground are two completely different attributes.

--
================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User http://parnass.com

Uh, i "got that notion" from every single book on the subject, i own, from
about 30 years of antenna experimenting, winding my own baluns, building my
own beam, vertical, loop, and horizontal dipole, zepp, and other antennas. I
might ask YOU where YOU got the notion that "RF ground and DC ground are two
seperate things". They most certainly are not. ground, my friend, is ground,
period. if you are going to ground the signal element of an antenna, you are
going to either get nothing for a signal, or a highly reduced signal,
depending on just how long your ground path is. ground is a funny thing at
RF, and it becomes progressively more difficult to get a good one as the
frequenncy becomes higher. Yes, there have been antennas that were buried in
the ground, but that would refer to antennas that operate in frequency
ranges so low that it would have little or nothing to do with scanners !
(when was the last time you listened to 160 meters on YOUR scanner) ? I get
extremely tired of being second guessed by people who *** think *** they
know something, and know almost nothing about the subject under discussion,
and like to adopt an opposing, diametrically opposed view point on almost
everthing, like yourself, simply for the sake of being "different", and
stirring up trouble basically. I dont know where you studied antenna theory
, but what you had to say here is seriously "out to lunch". I am certain
that Bill Orr would be glad to argue with someone like you, he was the
author of quite a few thick tomes on this subject, and was world famous. I
wont waste the time on you. Sorry. Life is far too short to waste on this.
ground is ground. anyone who knows anything knows at least that.

"Bob Parnass" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:46:45 -0400, Zombie Wolf wrote:

No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna.

Where did you get that notion?

DC ground and RF ground are two completely different attributes.

--
================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User http://parnass.com

Zombie Wolf wrote:

Uh, i "got that notion" from every single book on the subject, i own, from
about 30 years of antenna experimenting, winding my own baluns, building my
own beam, vertical, loop, and horizontal dipole, zepp, and other antennas. I
might ask YOU where YOU got the notion that "RF ground and DC ground are two
seperate things". They most certainly are not. ground, my friend, is ground,
period. if you are going to ground the signal element of an antenna,

Hardly true at all. The antennas that I use here on HF are all directly grounded
at the matching transformer. I could take you out back and we could run the
meter between the antenna itself and the ground rod and you would find it to be
a direct short. That's a DC ground, not an RF ground. Then I could take you
inside and have you try to tell me that reception was reduced. LOL

you are
going to either get nothing for a signal, or a highly reduced signal,
depending on just how long your ground path is. ground is a funny thing at
RF, and it becomes progressively more difficult to get a good one as the
frequenncy becomes higher. Yes, there have been antennas that were buried in
the ground, but that would refer to antennas that operate in frequency
ranges so low that it would have little or nothing to do with scanners !
(when was the last time you listened to 160 meters on YOUR scanner) ? I get
extremely tired of being second guessed by people who *** think *** they
know something, and know almost nothing about the subject under discussion,
and like to adopt an opposing, diametrically opposed view point on almost
everthing, like yourself, simply for the sake of being "different", and
stirring up trouble basically. I dont know where you studied antenna theory
, but what you had to say here is seriously "out to lunch". I am certain
that Bill Orr would be glad to argue with someone like you, he was the
author of quite a few thick tomes on this subject, and was world famous. I
wont waste the time on you. Sorry. Life is far too short to waste on this.
ground is ground. anyone who knows anything knows at least that.

"Bob Parnass" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:46:45 -0400, Zombie Wolf wrote:

No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna.

Where did you get that notion?

DC ground and RF ground are two completely different attributes.

--
================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User http://parnass.com

Zombie Wolf wrote:

Uh, i "got that notion" from every single book on the subject, i own, from
about 30 years of antenna experimenting, winding my own baluns, building my
own beam, vertical, loop, and horizontal dipole, zepp, and other antennas. I
might ask YOU where YOU got the notion that "RF ground and DC ground are two
seperate things". They most certainly are not. ground, my friend, is ground,
period. if you are going to ground the signal element of an antenna, you are
going to either get nothing for a signal, or a highly reduced signal,
depending on just how long your ground path is. ground is a funny thing at
RF, and it becomes progressively more difficult to get a good one as the
frequenncy becomes higher. Yes, there have been antennas that were buried in
the ground, but that would refer to antennas that operate in frequency
ranges so low that it would have little or nothing to do with scanners !
(when was the last time you listened to 160 meters on YOUR scanner) ? I get
extremely tired of being second guessed by people who *** think *** they
know something, and know almost nothing about the subject under discussion,
and like to adopt an opposing, diametrically opposed view point on almost
everthing, like yourself, simply for the sake of being "different", and
stirring up trouble basically. I dont know where you studied antenna theory
, but what you had to say here is seriously "out to lunch". I am certain
that Bill Orr would be glad to argue with someone like you, he was the
author of quite a few thick tomes on this subject, and was world famous. I
wont waste the time on you. Sorry. Life is far too short to waste on this.
ground is ground. anyone who knows anything knows at least that.

Yes, life is to short to waste explaining to someone who thinks he 'knows it
all' the difference between RF and DC ground.

Get back to us when you finally pass 'Antenna School'.



"Bob Parnass" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:46:45 -0400, Zombie Wolf wrote:

No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna.

Where did you get that notion?

DC ground and RF ground are two completely different attributes.

--
================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User http://parnass.com

You know, the key word here is "matching transformer". Obviously, you dont
get the fact that the "matching transformer" may isolate these from ground
at RF , but that does not mean that RF ground is a different entity
electrically from standard ground. so you have a balun or tuned circuit in
place. big deal. many antennas use this arrangement, since they have to
radiate from all the elements. (there are no "grounded" elements.) I think
it's about time you bought a few books on the subject, since anyone with any
experience can see that you are operating from "assumptions" rather than
hard info. I have an antenna tuner as well, but i dont make assumptions and
draw conclusions concerning its functioning, the way you have. the tuner
does nothing to "change the nature of ground", my friend. It simply BLOCKS
the antenna from being grounded in a reactive sense.....
and from this reactive isolation, you have drawn the conclusion that there
is some nebulous "RF ground" that is completely different from "earth"
ground. I can assure you that this is not the case.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
Dateline "rec.radio.scanner", Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:20:05 GMT: As it
appeared in message-ID# , N8KDV
appears to have written the following...

Zombie Wolf wrote:

Uh, i "got that notion" from every single book on the subject, i own,
from about 30 years of antenna experimenting, winding my own baluns,
building my own beam, vertical, loop, and horizontal dipole, zepp,
and other antennas. I might ask YOU where YOU got the notion that "RF
ground and DC ground are two seperate things". They most certainly
are not. ground, my friend, is ground, period. if you are going to
ground the signal element of an antenna,

Hardly true at all. The antennas that I use here on HF are all
directly grounded at the matching transformer. I could take you out
back and we could run the meter between the antenna itself and the
ground rod and you would find it to be a direct short. That's a DC
ground, not an RF ground. Then I could take you inside and have you
try to tell me that reception was reduced. LOL


That was one of the first things I noticed when I built that 9:1
impedance matcher from the hard-core-dx site. the transformer grounds to
the coax shield which, in turn, connects to a grounding block (mounted
on a ground-rod) on the way to the receiver. You will find there is
continuity between the shield and the ground, as well as between the
center conductor and ground. The effect it appears to have with my ears
is a reduction in noise which lends the appearance of a stronger signal.
DC ground... RF Ground... I don't really care - I just know that I seem
to get more than enough of the "good" RF to my radio inspite of an
available ground right in the middle of the feed path.

-=jd=-
--
I presume to know nothing - I merely speak from experience.

My Current Disposable Email:


(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Zombie Wolf wrote:

You know, the key word here is "matching transformer". Obviously, you dont
get the fact that the "matching transformer" may isolate these from ground
at RF , but that does not mean that RF ground is a different entity
electrically from standard ground. so you have a balun or tuned circuit in
place. big deal. many antennas use this arrangement, since they have to
radiate from all the elements. (there are no "grounded" elements.) I think
it's about time you bought a few books on the subject, since anyone with any
experience can see that you are operating from "assumptions" rather than
hard info. I have an antenna tuner as well, but i dont make assumptions and
draw conclusions concerning its functioning, the way you have. the tuner
does nothing to "change the nature of ground", my friend. It simply BLOCKS
the antenna from being grounded in a reactive sense.....
and from this reactive isolation, you have drawn the conclusion that there
is some nebulous "RF ground" that is completely different from "earth"
ground. I can assure you that this is not the case.

But wait, you stated that if the antenna element was grounded it would not
work...



"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
Dateline "rec.radio.scanner", Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:20:05 GMT: As it
appeared in message-ID# , N8KDV
appears to have written the following...

Zombie Wolf wrote:

Uh, i "got that notion" from every single book on the subject, i own,
from about 30 years of antenna experimenting, winding my own baluns,
building my own beam, vertical, loop, and horizontal dipole, zepp,
and other antennas. I might ask YOU where YOU got the notion that "RF
ground and DC ground are two seperate things". They most certainly
are not. ground, my friend, is ground, period. if you are going to
ground the signal element of an antenna,

Hardly true at all. The antennas that I use here on HF are all
directly grounded at the matching transformer. I could take you out
back and we could run the meter between the antenna itself and the
ground rod and you would find it to be a direct short. That's a DC
ground, not an RF ground. Then I could take you inside and have you
try to tell me that reception was reduced. LOL


That was one of the first things I noticed when I built that 9:1
impedance matcher from the hard-core-dx site. the transformer grounds to
the coax shield which, in turn, connects to a grounding block (mounted
on a ground-rod) on the way to the receiver. You will find there is
continuity between the shield and the ground, as well as between the
center conductor and ground. The effect it appears to have with my ears
is a reduction in noise which lends the appearance of a stronger signal.
DC ground... RF Ground... I don't really care - I just know that I seem
to get more than enough of the "good" RF to my radio inspite of an
available ground right in the middle of the feed path.

-=jd=-
--
I presume to know nothing - I merely speak from experience.

My Current Disposable Email:


(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

May I take exception with your statement? Many antennas are operated at DC
ground. A J-pole, and any beam that is of "plumbers delight" construction
come to mind as I type.

As far as the shield contributing to noise, pure nonsense. If the shield and
the center conductor are connected to the radio it has an RF ground from the
antennas counterpoise. In the case of a long wire, a ground is necessary to
provide a counterpoise. A ground rod does a very poor job of providing one.
The main reason for a ground rod is lighting protection, and static a bleed
off path.

No grounding system in the world will remove common mode noise.



"Zombie Wolf" wrote in message
...
No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna. As
far
as static building up on the outer braid of coax, if you have your antenna
firmly mounted to the pipe metal to metal, then grounding the pipe at the
bottom is as close to "grounded" as you are going to get, and this will
ground any "ground" radials that are not active elements of the antenna,
and
usually put the shield of the coax at ground, also. There is a more
important reason to ground the antenna pipe, and thereby the shield of the
coax. It keeps local electrical noise and interference from penetrating
into
the coax , and raising the noise and interference in the reciever. The
signals you are trying to pick up on the scanner or radio are hundreds of
times weaker than a lot of local noise is, and the noise will tend to
over-ride the signal if this is not attended to. (the coax actually acts
like an antenna when the shield is not at ground).
This will tend to severely limit your hearing range on the radio ,
especially in locations that are rife with electrical noise , like in the
city, near a factory, etc, etc, etc
"Bob Parnass" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:37:52 -0700, Jason Wagner wrote:

... On the other hand, I do like the idea of having static build up
on coax bled to ground. But does this product really work? Anyone
using
them?

If you want to avoid building up a static charge
on your antenna, use an antenna that is at "DC ground."
Discones and Ventennas are not at DC ground.

I have a few of the spark gap arrestors like those
you cited. It takes a high voltage to jump the air gap
inside them. Using a more sophisticated receiver protector
with a gas cartridge will discharge the voltage to ground
at a lower voltage level than an air gap and provide more protection.

I use an older Alpha Delta Transi Trap on my shortwave receiver.
It contains a replaceable gas plug. A newer version is
show at http://www.alphadeltacom.com/tt3g50.html

Disconnect your scanner from the antenna when not in use,
especially during lightning season.

--

================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User
http://parnass.com

You can take exception all you want, but if you study any antenna design you
will find that it either has grounded elements, and the active element is
not grounded, or it has some kind of reactive isolation of the active
element from ground. the antenna simply cannot function unless one of these
conditions exist. period.

"Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr" wrote in message
...
May I take exception with your statement? Many antennas are operated at DC
ground. A J-pole, and any beam that is of "plumbers delight" construction
come to mind as I type.

As far as the shield contributing to noise, pure nonsense. If the shield
and
the center conductor are connected to the radio it has an RF ground from
the
antennas counterpoise. In the case of a long wire, a ground is necessary
to
provide a counterpoise. A ground rod does a very poor job of providing
one.
The main reason for a ground rod is lighting protection, and static a
bleed
off path.

No grounding system in the world will remove common mode noise.



"Zombie Wolf" wrote in message
...
No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna. As
far
as static building up on the outer braid of coax, if you have your
antenna
firmly mounted to the pipe metal to metal, then grounding the pipe at
the
bottom is as close to "grounded" as you are going to get, and this will
ground any "ground" radials that are not active elements of the antenna,
and
usually put the shield of the coax at ground, also. There is a more
important reason to ground the antenna pipe, and thereby the shield of
the
coax. It keeps local electrical noise and interference from penetrating
into
the coax , and raising the noise and interference in the reciever. The
signals you are trying to pick up on the scanner or radio are hundreds
of
times weaker than a lot of local noise is, and the noise will tend to
over-ride the signal if this is not attended to. (the coax actually acts
like an antenna when the shield is not at ground).
This will tend to severely limit your hearing range on the radio ,
especially in locations that are rife with electrical noise , like in
the
city, near a factory, etc, etc, etc
"Bob Parnass" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:37:52 -0700, Jason Wagner wrote:

... On the other hand, I do like the idea of having static build up
on coax bled to ground. But does this product really work? Anyone
using
them?

If you want to avoid building up a static charge
on your antenna, use an antenna that is at "DC ground."
Discones and Ventennas are not at DC ground.

I have a few of the spark gap arrestors like those
you cited. It takes a high voltage to jump the air gap
inside them. Using a more sophisticated receiver protector
with a gas cartridge will discharge the voltage to ground
at a lower voltage level than an air gap and provide more protection.

I use an older Alpha Delta Transi Trap on my shortwave receiver.
It contains a replaceable gas plug. A newer version is
show at http://www.alphadeltacom.com/tt3g50.html

Disconnect your scanner from the antenna when not in use,
especially during lightning season.

--

================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User
http://parnass.com

byt he way, what do you think this "counterpoise" IS ?

As far as common mode noise, i was not referring to common mode noise. I was
referring to noise that penetrates the un-grounded shield , which is about
as effective as a shield when not grounded as wet toilet paper. All this
info was well known and written about 50 years ago . Where have you been ?
Now, the fact is, when you ground the antenna pipe , on a 1/4 or 1/2 wave
vetical antenna , you usually ground the shield of the coax also , since the
GROUND radials on these antennas are designed to be hooked up to GROUND.
They therefore are usually made so that these ground radials have a
connection directly to the anntenna mount where is clamps to the pipe, in
order to facilitate this grounding. I cant believe i have to keep explaining
this stuff , that any NOVICE had to know a few years back, to you people.
Your wonderful "j-pole" does NOT operate at ground, since it is a stub tuned
antenna, and this is what provides the isolation for the active element,
jesus , get a book and read it once in a while , will you, instead of
spending all your time on here talking sheer idiocy ?

"Dr. Fred Hambrecht Sr" wrote in message
...
May I take exception with your statement? Many antennas are operated at DC
ground. A J-pole, and any beam that is of "plumbers delight" construction
come to mind as I type.

As far as the shield contributing to noise, pure nonsense. If the shield
and
the center conductor are connected to the radio it has an RF ground from
the
antennas counterpoise. In the case of a long wire, a ground is necessary
to
provide a counterpoise. A ground rod does a very poor job of providing
one.
The main reason for a ground rod is lighting protection, and static a
bleed
off path.

No grounding system in the world will remove common mode noise.



"Zombie Wolf" wrote in message
...
No antenna is at DC ground, if it is going to function as an antenna. As
far
as static building up on the outer braid of coax, if you have your
antenna
firmly mounted to the pipe metal to metal, then grounding the pipe at
the
bottom is as close to "grounded" as you are going to get, and this will
ground any "ground" radials that are not active elements of the antenna,
and
usually put the shield of the coax at ground, also. There is a more
important reason to ground the antenna pipe, and thereby the shield of
the
coax. It keeps local electrical noise and interference from penetrating
into
the coax , and raising the noise and interference in the reciever. The
signals you are trying to pick up on the scanner or radio are hundreds
of
times weaker than a lot of local noise is, and the noise will tend to
over-ride the signal if this is not attended to. (the coax actually acts
like an antenna when the shield is not at ground).
This will tend to severely limit your hearing range on the radio ,
especially in locations that are rife with electrical noise , like in
the
city, near a factory, etc, etc, etc
"Bob Parnass" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:37:52 -0700, Jason Wagner wrote:

... On the other hand, I do like the idea of having static build up
on coax bled to ground. But does this product really work? Anyone
using
them?

If you want to avoid building up a static charge
on your antenna, use an antenna that is at "DC ground."
Discones and Ventennas are not at DC ground.

I have a few of the spark gap arrestors like those
you cited. It takes a high voltage to jump the air gap
inside them. Using a more sophisticated receiver protector
with a gas cartridge will discharge the voltage to ground
at a lower voltage level than an air gap and provide more protection.

I use an older Alpha Delta Transi Trap on my shortwave receiver.
It contains a replaceable gas plug. A newer version is
show at http://www.alphadeltacom.com/tt3g50.html

Disconnect your scanner from the antenna when not in use,
especially during lightning season.

--

================================================== =======================
Bob Parnass, AJ9S GNU/Linux User
http://parnass.com