[Hallicrafters] Antenna issues and such

[Carl]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Everette" <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
To: "rbethman" <rbethman at comcast.net>; <hallicrafters at mailman.qth.net>; 
"Carl" <km1h at jeremy.mv.com>
Cc: "Jim Brannigan" <jbrannig at optonline.net>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Hallicrafters] Antenna issues and such


> All right...
>
> If you have read my posts, you will note that I didn't say it only had 
> to be done one way.  I said there is a right way to do things.


And you insulted anyone that did something else.


>
> If you do things that fly in the face of the fundamental laws of 
> electricity and physics, I said, they may have unintended consequences 
> that are not good; and those who do so proceed at their risk.  With 
> proper understanding and a sound knowledge base, you can take "the 
> ideal" and adapt it to your circumstances.  That's what 
> experimentation is about.  That's how you learn.


Thank you teacher


>
> But holding pseudoscience, urban legend, wishful thinking, etc up as 
> something that can be counted upon... that's not good.

Agree


>
> Now, I have worked some pretty good DX on 6 meters using about 5 feet 
> of clip leads stuck in the coax connector of an FM rig, when I 
> observed a phenomenal band opening one afternoon while the radio was 
> on the workbench away from a "proper" antenna.  I have worked over 
> 2000 miles on 2 meters using a ground plane made from an SO-239 and 
> five pieces of coathanger wire.  But the antenna theory here was 
> actually sound; a quarter wave, fed at a low impedance point by a 
> low-impedance source.


Anything will radiate a signal and if the band is hot you will work 
somebody.


>
> I have built a superheterodyne receiver on a breadboard, using 
> cardboard tubing for coil forms, and even made my own resistors using 
> carbon from batteries stuffed into ditchbank reeds' and a similar 
> transmitter with the VFO tank stuffed into a coffee can (which makes a 
> pretty darn fine enclosure), and Coke bottles for insulators.  It 
> worked pretty well, even loading a single-wire-fed Windom that was 
> more-or-less a half wave long on 40 meters, about 15 feet off the 
> ground.  It even worked quite a few Europeans.


Whatever turns you on I guess



>
> But when I tried loading a half wave dipole on the even harmonics, 
> using ANY transmitter, I found out that it does not do so well.  Not 
> well at all.  I made a contact or two but they were few and far 
> between; and it was frustrating.  Why?  I did some studying.  I did 
> some experimenting.  I've built, used and learned from a LOT of HF 
> antennas, both fixed and mobile.  And I'll tell you a secret.
>
> The experts  -- those JERKS (?) -- have it right.  That stuff in all 
> those books is true.


I wasnt refering to the experts



>
> It does not HAVE to be perfect; but you do need to try to conform to 
> the science as close as possible if you want decent results.


As close as possible only works in horseshoes and hand grenades.



>
> In an emergency, or if you are being chased by the Gestapo, Kempeitai 
> or KGB,  you do whatever you can with whatever you have, however you 
> can do it.  No argument there.  ANY RF out in such circumstances is 
> better than nothing.
>
> Now I really have said all I'm going to say.  Please take your flame 
> throwers back to eHam.net !


Never been there, sounds like you have experience with it.


>
> In conclusion, I would also encourage you to obtain a copy of "A 
> Course in Radio Fundamentals" or "Understanding Amateur Radio," both 
> by George Grammer (yeah, he's one of them EEEE-vill ARRL folks) and do 
> some reading, and experimenting.  You might enjoy it.


Those came along 20 years after I was licensed. I preferred reading his 
actual articles in the 30's and 40's QST's I bought by the year in old 
book stores in the 50's.

Starting off homebrewing a 4 tube regen at 13, Novice at 15 and 55 years 
later Im still building.
Getting a MSEE has helped me understand how much I can deviate from the 
gospel without sacrificing too much performance.


>
> And yes, I would be hard put to understand how the US Military is 
> using trees for antennas.  Sounds a lot like pseudoscience.  But I'd 
> like to know more about it.  Please send me a link or two or three.


Gee, I thought you understood about search engines. There has even been 
write ups in your favorite rag, QST.

Carl
KM1H



>
> 73
>
> Mike
> WA4DLF
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>