Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Larsen nmo 150 5/8ths wave and 440  (Read 5454 times)
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2011, 07:34:28 AM »

Relying on a transmitter protection circuit to prevent damage to your radio is like relying on a gun safety or the brakes on your car to keep you from getting hurt. Read your radio manual and the warning about transmitting with a high SWR.  Shocked

I am answering your question, your just not listening!  Wink
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2011, 07:41:52 AM »

"I don't know the answer to the original question"
Obviously, so what are you doing, just stalking me again for amusement?  Roll Eyes
Logged
KJ4OBR
Member

Posts: 103




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2011, 12:25:00 PM »

Relying on a transmitter protection circuit to prevent damage to your radio is like relying on a gun safety or the brakes on your car to keep you from getting hurt. Read your radio manual and the warning about transmitting with a high SWR.  Shocked

I am answering your question, your just not listening!  Wink

OK, I'll bite: Original question cut and pasted is as follows: "Lets say I want to run the Larsen 150 5/8ths wave with my FT8900 to cover 2m and 6m (@K0BG: I know, I know, the 6m match would be a compromise, I just want to be able to hit the local 6m fm repeater.. for the sake of the thought exercise stay with me). What would that look like on 70cm? I assume it won't work but am hoping to be proven wrong. "

By match being a compromise I mean the take off angle on 6m would be a bit more vertical then best case, NOT SWR. Electrically a 5/8ths wave 2m antenna is a pretty close match to a 1/4 wave 6m. I know a guy who is using the 5/8ths Larsen on 6 with tested, acceptable SWR. It is a bit narrow, but I only need to cover the FM portion of the band.

I said NOTHING about running a high SWR condition intentionally. If you have tested this scenario, with this antenna and found that it would produce high SWR on 440 than say so. To chime in with the response of, and again I cut and paste: "Let us know when you have burned up the transmitter and need suggestions on a new rig!" Does not tell me that you have any real world data to share. If that is not the case, I suggest you look into a written communications course at your local community college because your answer makes you come across as a total jerk.

By the way, I do use the safety on my Remmington 870 Express 12g and  rely on the brakes of my car everyday. I trust them quite a bit in fact. They have never let me down. In your sentence "I am answering your question, your just not listening!  Wink" the correct spelling of "your just not..." in this case should be "you're just..." short form of "you are". Your is possessive like "your car is red..." Again the community college writing course can help with that.

I'm done feeding the troll.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 02:33:27 PM by KJ4OBR » Logged
K3GM
Member

Posts: 1767




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2011, 03:23:36 PM »

Relying on a transmitter protection circuit to prevent damage to your radio is like relying on a gun safety or the brakes on your car to keep you from getting hurt. Read your radio manual and the warning about transmitting with a high SWR.  Shocked

I am answering your question, your just not listening!  Wink

........I suggest you look into a written communications course at your local community college because your answer makes you come across as a total jerk..........

I'm done feeding the troll.
Dave, I know you'll find this is hard to believe, but all of the knowledge dispensed here and on the other forums by this op was compiled within 4 years of being licensed.  .....and done according to number of lookups on QRZ.com with minimal operating.   .....oh, and contacts made on 27.185 MHz don't count !  (I guess I have to use one of these thingys) .... Wink
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 03:27:54 PM by K3GM » Logged
KJ4OBR
Member

Posts: 103




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2011, 04:21:27 PM »

I recognized his "special gift" at his first post... I hate trolls... Grin





Relying on a transmitter protection circuit to prevent damage to your radio is like relying on a gun safety or the brakes on your car to keep you from getting hurt. Read your radio manual and the warning about transmitting with a high SWR.  Shocked

I am answering your question, your just not listening!  Wink

........I suggest you look into a written communications course at your local community college because your answer makes you come across as a total jerk..........

I'm done feeding the troll.
Dave, I know you'll find this is hard to believe, but all of the knowledge dispensed here and on the other forums by this op was compiled within 4 years of being licensed.  .....and done according to number of lookups on QRZ.com with minimal operating.   .....oh, and contacts made on 27.185 MHz don't count !  (I guess I have to use one of these thingys) .... Wink
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2011, 06:16:14 PM »

I will put it in simpler terms, so that you and your friends can understand what I am saying. It would be cheaper and better, performance wise, to use dedicated antennas for each of the three bands. If you are going to use the 2/6 meter antenna, they do work. If 70cm worked that well or at all on the antenna in question, don't you think the maker would advertise it to sell more antennas? Like you said; you thought you already knew the answer to the question, but you want someone to tell you that you are wrong.  Wink

If you doubt me, why don't you call the manufacturer and ask him? If you doubt him, why don't you buy the antenna and report back to us? Save the receipt and if it doesn't work, take the antenna back for a refund!  Grin

No amount of name calling will change the physics of the situation!   Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 06:24:06 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
KJ4OBR
Member

Posts: 103




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2011, 07:18:43 PM »


Now if you had posted this post in the first place you would have gotten a different reaction. Too bad your first impression was that of an arrogant jerk.


I will put it in simpler terms, so that you and your friends can understand what I am saying. It would be cheaper and better, performance wise, to use dedicated antennas for each of the three bands. If you are going to use the 2/6 meter antenna, they do work. If 70cm worked that well or at all on the antenna in question, don't you think the maker would advertise it to sell more antennas? Like you said; you thought you already knew the answer to the question, but you want someone to tell you that you are wrong.  Wink

If you doubt me, why don't you call the manufacturer and ask him? If you doubt him, why don't you buy the antenna and report back to us? Save the receipt and if it doesn't work, take the antenna back for a refund!  Grin

No amount of name calling will change the physics of the situation!   Roll Eyes

Logged
K1CJS
Member

Posts: 5879




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2011, 09:26:46 AM »

I recognized his "special gift" at his first post... I hate trolls... Grin

Relying on a transmitter protection circuit to prevent damage to your radio is like relying on a gun safety or the brakes on your car to keep you from getting hurt. Read your radio manual and the warning about transmitting with a high SWR.  Shocked

I am answering your question, your just not listening!  Wink

........I suggest you look into a written communications course at your local community college because your answer makes you come across as a total jerk..........

I'm done feeding the troll.
Dave, I know you'll find this is hard to believe, but all of the knowledge dispensed here and on the other forums by this op was compiled within 4 years of being licensed.  .....and done according to number of lookups on QRZ.com with minimal operating.   .....oh, and contacts made on 27.185 MHz don't count !  (I guess I have to use one of these thingys) .... Wink

And that is what the ignore button is for.  I'm practically rolling on the floor laughing at the quoted postings from this guy--and his pomposity displayed in his answers.  He's got a real reputation here--for being an obnoxious know-it-all who can't be bothered to read the whole thread through before offering his 'opinion'.  He's on my ignore list--if it wasn't for his quotes that other people posted--I wouldn't have half the laffs I do when here.  It's almost worth taking him off ignore so I can see all of his bullsh*t firsthand!

Now, on to the topic at hand.  Maybe it would be worth it to get some stainless steel rodding and try replacing some of the original antenna rodding with longer sections to see what would happen.  Of course, that would only be possible if you had an antenna analyzer at hand.  After all, that is what ham radio is all about--seeing what we CAN do instead of just proclaiming that something is 'impossible'. 
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:30:49 AM by K1CJS » Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2011, 07:17:49 PM »

So you believe that the 70cm performance of the 2/6 meter antenna in question could be improved by lengthening the antenna? Would you like to give us an explanation of why you believe that would work and improve the perceived poor performance?  Wink

Keep in mind this suggestion is coming from a person who was giving tower grounding advice to another ham on the tower forum, when he has never even owned a tower!  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 07:29:46 PM by KI4SDY » Logged
K3GM
Member

Posts: 1767




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2011, 07:00:34 AM »

Which reminds me, Vern...
....Transmitter protection circuits do not always work and can fail......
So what you're saying is there are times when the fold back circuit functions as it should, and there are other times it decides not to, and sometimes it just fails......?  Why would this occur.....?

I have a question for you: Do you know the answer to the original question? (the first post, Vern....)

Can you address either of my questions? .....didn't think so.......
Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2011, 07:03:16 PM »

Electronic circuits do fail, either by less than perfect design (they are designed by humans), poor assembly, defective parts, aging, less than ideal environment and or improper use. eHam.net reviews are full of the the results. So what is your point?  Roll Eyes

By the way, gun safeties and brakes fail for similar reasons. Only a fool relies on a device to prevent disaster!  Tongue  

I already gave responsible answers to the first post. Check back and you will find them.  Wink

Why would my last statement remind you of anything other than the fact that your buddy has been outed as a self-proclaimed expert on subjects he has no expertise in, much like yourself? Grin

« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 08:39:03 AM by KI4SDY » Logged
K3GM
Member

Posts: 1767




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2011, 09:36:29 PM »

......I already gave responsible answers to the first post. Check back and you will find them.........

Actually, the advice you give here, as well as on the other forums you frequent is mostly mindless drivel, lacking any technical merit whatsoever.  When I read your posts, I'm often embarrassed that I'm a member of an organization that has declined to a level that allows a lid like yourself into it.  You sir are a prime example of what has become of our hobby since the code element was dropped in 2007. Coincidentally that was the year you were first licensed, wasn't it?  I've found an easy way to avoid you (other than hitting the ignore button) is to frequent any of the forums that require even a minute bit technical expertise or operating skill.  I'm confident you'll never be seen in "Amplifiers", "DXing", "CW", or any of the other forums that require technical or operational skills.  Why, because you possess neither.  I'm fairly confident that perhaps the best place to avoid contact with you is on the HF bands.  I can only imagine the unfortunate VHF repeater that you call home........

« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 09:55:50 PM by K3GM » Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2011, 06:41:54 AM »

Since you are claiming to be a "Technical Expert," maybe you would like to explain to us how lengthening the radiator on a 2/6 meter antenna would improve 70cm performance, like your buddy suggested?  Wink

You have my permission to leave the hobby if you are embarrassed!  Grin 
« Last Edit: June 26, 2011, 07:32:08 AM by KI4SDY » Logged
KI4SDY
Member

Posts: 1452




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2011, 10:22:30 AM »

I thought not. I still hear the crickets chirping!  Roll Eyes

Quote from Mark Twain; "Thunder is good, thunder is impressive, but it is the lightning that does the the work!"  Shocked
Logged
KJ4OBR
Member

Posts: 103




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2011, 10:28:20 AM »

No, you're (note the correct usage) being ignored.  Cheesy


I thought not. I still hear the crickets chirping!  Roll Eyes

Quote from Mark Twain; "Thunder is good, thunder is impressive, but it is the lightning that does the the work!"  Shocked
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!