开云体育

On 03/01/2024 5:23 PM EST W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:


QUOTE: What about the vertical “no radials needed” ads?

I have worked with several local hams who have "believed" the "no radials
needed" claims. Don't go there. that's marketingeeze. Mounted on the
soil surface, a.k.a., ground, OK. Why? Earth or soil is lossy and loss
makes any high SWR far more friendly to tame. However, when mounted in an
elevated position like on the roof, they become extremely cantankerous!!
Do't believe the claims of "no radials needed".

Dave - W?LEV

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:31?PM Ray W8LYJ via groups.io <rcbenedict1545=
[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks the ARRL standards are helpful. I wonder if the ARRL actually
enforces the standards. What about the vertical “no radials needed” ads?
And the vertical antenna that uses four 4 ft ground rods.
I asked about several technical articles and was told ARRL does not verify
the engineering in articles
Ray
W8LYJ

On 03/01/2024 11:31 AM EST Ray W8LYJ via groups.io <rcbenedict1545@...> wrote:


Thanks the ARRL standards are helpful. I wonder if the ARRL actually enforces the standards. What about the vertical “no radials needed” ads? And the vertical antenna that uses four 4 ft ground rods.
I asked about several technical articles and was told ARRL does not verify the engineering in articles
Ray
W8LYJ

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:37 PM, Dragan Milivojevic wrote:

Complete nonsense, I have a BT module tapped to my Nano H clone and there
are no issues. BT works at 2.4G, way out of the range of Nano.

Dragan,

Personally if Dave believes this I'd like to hear his concern and sort it
out myself. As a rule, I wouldn't shoot down anything as nonsense because
of an individual result not being in my experience.

Andy

On Feb 29, 2024, at 6:01?PM, Dragan Milivojevic <d.milivojevic@...> wrote:

?Typical home WiFi router outputs around 20dBm. Attach it to any of Nano
inputs and see if you get any issues.

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, 00:54 W0LEV, <davearea51a@...> wrote:

But the input of the NANOVNAs is wide open. Enough RF at any frequency
into that port, and compression and false readings will occur.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:37?PM Dragan Milivojevic <
d.milivojevic@...>
wrote:

Complete nonsense, I have a BT module tapped to my Nano H clone and there
are no issues. BT works at 2.4G, way out of the range of Nano.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, 19:24 W0LEV, <davearea51a@...> wrote:

This very subject came to the surface about a year ago. I don't

remember

any resolution to the question of remoting any of the NANOVNAs via an

RF

or

BT link. Problem is even a radiating BT source at +10 dBm would likely
overload the VNA and more local BT energy could potentially damage the
front ends. The close proximity of a BT (or other RF technology) to

remote

the NANOVNAs is not a good idea.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 3:11?PM Andrew Harman <Nexus9d9@...>

wrote:

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:56 AM, John wrote:

AE6TY

I have the "H" model. I searched for AE6TY and SimSmith and found a
groupsio page, nothing immediately specific to the subject.
Looking at the BT to serial converters online it looks like they are

7pin

serial and most likely contain a serial uart.
Ill have to dig into the interfaces much further.

Andy

--

*Dave - W?LEV*


--
Dave - W?LEV

--

*Dave - W?LEV*


--
Dave - W?LEV

On Feb 29, 2024, at 4:52?PM, N2MS <mstangelo@...> wrote:

?How about the term counterpoise as a return? If the return is a wire or wires we can refer to it as radial(s)?

I recall HF communications was tested on a Project Gemini Flight. I don't remember the details but they used R390A receivers at the ground stations.
I have a report about with the details. If found I will post it.

Since were discussing space and analyzers MFJ mentioned in one of their recent ads that their Antenna Analyzer was used by NASA. Does anyone have any information about this?

Mike N2MS

On 02/29/2024 6:52 PM EST W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:


Jim Lux, I just have a lot of trouble with RF energy and the term
"ground". It's maligned in the amateur circles. There is no need for
"ground" with RF fields, just a return.

Please comment.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:51?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:

ISS isn't using HF long wires, either. Most of its antennas are things
like patches (which are a sort of end fed dipole) or horns (which have tiny
monopoles in the feed point) possibly illuminating a dish.

There *are* spacecraft that use monopoles for HF and lower (they're
generically called "fields and waves experiments") - for them, the
feedpoint is the junction of the wire/boom with the spacecraft body, so
it's a fairly asymmetrical antenna. Cassini has several booms at
different angles.

And often, because a full size antenna for 1 MHz is quite large (300 meter
wavelength), the antennas are more "voltage probes", with a high Z
amplifier measuring the voltage at the base of the antenna.

On HF sounders (running around 9 MHz) such as MARSIS or REASON (the latter
is on Europa Clipper) it's an actual dipole, although not necessarily
resonant.

On *my* space vehicles (SunRISE mission), there's two crossed dipoles with
2.5 meter booms, feeding a balanced FET input preamplifier.



-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Feb 29, 2024 10:08 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance

The word counterpoise has no applications in amateur radio, but most times,
it is misused and misapplied. I just checked all my graduate and one
undergrad antenna references. Nowhere is the term "counterpoise" to be
found. Then I checked Wikipedia. The opening verbiage gives the
"standard" understanding, quoted below:

In electronics and radio communication, a *counterpoise* is a network of
suspended horizontal wires or cables (or a metal screen), used as a
substitute for an earth (ground) connection in a radio antenna system. It
is used with radio transmitters or receivers when a normal earth ground
cannot be used because of high soil resistance or when an antenna
is&hellip;
Read More

Further, the first reference listed in the Wikipedia article is Cebik.

For decades I have been using the term "image plane" in reference to the
more common (and misused) term "ground plane". I believe in using the term
"counterpoise", we truly are referring to the "image plane". So, Cebik is
correct in discouraging the (mis)use of the term "counterpoise". Indeed,
all my references include treatment of "image theory". Again, none of
these treat or address "counterpoise".

I also point out that the ISS has no mechanism of connecting to "ground"
for a "ground plane". But,.......drum roll........its occupants have
absolutely no trouble bidirectionally communicating with earth via a
number of RF links. Absolutely no "ground" involved.

Dave - W&Oslash;LEV

But the input of the NANOVNAs is wide open. Enough RF at any frequency
into that port, and compression and false readings will occur.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:37?PM Dragan Milivojevic <
d.milivojevic@...>
wrote:

Complete nonsense, I have a BT module tapped to my Nano H clone and there
are no issues. BT works at 2.4G, way out of the range of Nano.

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, 19:24 W0LEV, <davearea51a@...> wrote:

This very subject came to the surface about a year ago. I don't

remember

any resolution to the question of remoting any of the NANOVNAs via an

RF

or

BT link. Problem is even a radiating BT source at +10 dBm would likely
overload the VNA and more local BT energy could potentially damage the
front ends. The close proximity of a BT (or other RF technology) to

remote

the NANOVNAs is not a good idea.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 3:11?PM Andrew Harman <Nexus9d9@...>

wrote:

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:56 AM, John wrote:

AE6TY

I have the "H" model. I searched for AE6TY and SimSmith and found a
groupsio page, nothing immediately specific to the subject.
Looking at the BT to serial converters online it looks like they are

7pin

serial and most likely contain a serial uart.
Ill have to dig into the interfaces much further.

Andy

--

*Dave - W?LEV*


--
Dave - W?LEV

--

*Dave - W?LEV*


--
Dave - W?LEV

Can someone point me in the direction to find Nano VNA Saver for Windows
10 I cannot find it on github.com

Thanks

On Feb 29, 2024, at 4:52?PM, N2MS <mstangelo@...> wrote:

?How about the term counterpoise as a return? If the return is a wire or wires we can refer to it as radial(s)?

I recall HF communications was tested on a Project Gemini Flight. I don't remember the details but they used R390A receivers at the ground stations.
I have a report about with the details. If found I will post it.

Since were discussing space and analyzers MFJ mentioned in one of their recent ads that their Antenna Analyzer was used by NASA. Does anyone have any information about this?

Mike N2MS

On 02/29/2024 6:52 PM EST W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:


Jim Lux, I just have a lot of trouble with RF energy and the term
"ground". It's maligned in the amateur circles. There is no need for
"ground" with RF fields, just a return.

Please comment.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:51?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:

ISS isn't using HF long wires, either. Most of its antennas are things
like patches (which are a sort of end fed dipole) or horns (which have tiny
monopoles in the feed point) possibly illuminating a dish.

There *are* spacecraft that use monopoles for HF and lower (they're
generically called "fields and waves experiments") - for them, the
feedpoint is the junction of the wire/boom with the spacecraft body, so
it's a fairly asymmetrical antenna. Cassini has several booms at
different angles.

And often, because a full size antenna for 1 MHz is quite large (300 meter
wavelength), the antennas are more "voltage probes", with a high Z
amplifier measuring the voltage at the base of the antenna.

On HF sounders (running around 9 MHz) such as MARSIS or REASON (the latter
is on Europa Clipper) it's an actual dipole, although not necessarily
resonant.

On *my* space vehicles (SunRISE mission), there's two crossed dipoles with
2.5 meter booms, feeding a balanced FET input preamplifier.



-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Feb 29, 2024 10:08 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance

The word counterpoise has no applications in amateur radio, but most times,
it is misused and misapplied. I just checked all my graduate and one
undergrad antenna references. Nowhere is the term "counterpoise" to be
found. Then I checked Wikipedia. The opening verbiage gives the
"standard" understanding, quoted below:

In electronics and radio communication, a *counterpoise* is a network of
suspended horizontal wires or cables (or a metal screen), used as a
substitute for an earth (ground) connection in a radio antenna system. It
is used with radio transmitters or receivers when a normal earth ground
cannot be used because of high soil resistance or when an antenna
is&hellip;
Read More

Further, the first reference listed in the Wikipedia article is Cebik.

For decades I have been using the term "image plane" in reference to the
more common (and misused) term "ground plane". I believe in using the term
"counterpoise", we truly are referring to the "image plane". So, Cebik is
correct in discouraging the (mis)use of the term "counterpoise". Indeed,
all my references include treatment of "image theory". Again, none of
these treat or address "counterpoise".

I also point out that the ISS has no mechanism of connecting to "ground"
for a "ground plane". But,.......drum roll........its occupants have
absolutely no trouble bidirectionally communicating with earth via a
number of RF links. Absolutely no "ground" involved.

Dave - W&Oslash;LEV

On 02/29/2024 6:52 PM EST W0LEV <davearea51a@...> wrote:


Jim Lux, I just have a lot of trouble with RF energy and the term
"ground". It's maligned in the amateur circles. There is no need for
"ground" with RF fields, just a return.

Please comment.

Dave - W?LEV

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 7:51?PM Jim Lux <jimlux@...> wrote:

ISS isn't using HF long wires, either. Most of its antennas are things
like patches (which are a sort of end fed dipole) or horns (which have tiny
monopoles in the feed point) possibly illuminating a dish.

There *are* spacecraft that use monopoles for HF and lower (they're
generically called "fields and waves experiments") - for them, the
feedpoint is the junction of the wire/boom with the spacecraft body, so
it's a fairly asymmetrical antenna. Cassini has several booms at
different angles.

And often, because a full size antenna for 1 MHz is quite large (300 meter
wavelength), the antennas are more "voltage probes", with a high Z
amplifier measuring the voltage at the base of the antenna.

On HF sounders (running around 9 MHz) such as MARSIS or REASON (the latter
is on Europa Clipper) it's an actual dipole, although not necessarily
resonant.

On *my* space vehicles (SunRISE mission), there's two crossed dipoles with
2.5 meter booms, feeding a balanced FET input preamplifier.



-----Original Message-----
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Feb 29, 2024 10:08 AM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nanovna-users] where is the end fed natural resonance

The word counterpoise has no applications in amateur radio, but most times,
it is misused and misapplied. I just checked all my graduate and one
undergrad antenna references. Nowhere is the term "counterpoise" to be
found. Then I checked Wikipedia. The opening verbiage gives the
"standard" understanding, quoted below:

In electronics and radio communication, a *counterpoise* is a network of
suspended horizontal wires or cables (or a metal screen), used as a
substitute for an earth (ground) connection in a radio antenna system. It
is used with radio transmitters or receivers when a normal earth ground
cannot be used because of high soil resistance or when an antenna
is&hellip;
Read More

Further, the first reference listed in the Wikipedia article is Cebik.

For decades I have been using the term "image plane" in reference to the
more common (and misused) term "ground plane". I believe in using the term
"counterpoise", we truly are referring to the "image plane". So, Cebik is
correct in discouraging the (mis)use of the term "counterpoise". Indeed,
all my references include treatment of "image theory". Again, none of
these treat or address "counterpoise".

I also point out that the ISS has no mechanism of connecting to "ground"
for a "ground plane". But,.......drum roll........its occupants have
absolutely no trouble bidirectionally communicating with earth via a
number of RF links. Absolutely no "ground" involved.

Dave - W&Oslash;LEV