Discussion:
Dressler D200S 144MHz amplifier
(too old to reply)
Cyclotron
2004-05-10 19:04:26 UTC
Hi , has anyone ever sold , seen or heard of the (QUITE noisy when
overdriven) Dressler (350W CW) 4CX350A 2 metre amplifier?

I have one, and wish to sell it to some deserving Meteor chaser or
Lunar explorer - but I can't work out what price anyone would wish to
pay!

Does the collective opinion of the 'net veer towards a Pint and a
Packet of Peanuts or would it more be in the league of the similarish
(except needing a small external 43 amps supply) Tokyo Hy-Power
HL-350VDX priced at about $790 in japan?

thanks,
have fun , David G8MDG (temporary QTH North Italy)
Walt Davidson
2004-05-10 22:54:01 UTC
On 10 May 2004 12:04:26 -0700, ***@hotmail.com (Cyclotron) wrote:

>Hi , has anyone ever sold , seen or heard of the (QUITE noisy when
>overdriven) Dressler (350W CW) 4CX350A 2 metre amplifier?

The Dressler amps were quite highly regarded back around 1980.
However, the ones with multiple 4CX250's were better than the single
4CX350 version, which resembles the infamous Japanese NAG "linear".

>I have one, and wish to sell it to some deserving Meteor chaser or
>Lunar explorer - but I can't work out what price anyone would wish to
>pay!

350 watts CW is positively QRP for serious eme or MS work on 2 metres!

>Does the collective opinion of the 'net veer towards a Pint and a
>Packet of Peanuts or would it more be in the league of the similarish
>(except needing a small external 43 amps supply) Tokyo Hy-Power
>HL-350VDX priced at about $790 in japan?

It's a bit dated now, isn't it? We used to reckon on about £1 per
watt for 2 metre amplifiers when new. For a 20-year-old used one, I
would think in terms of about one-third of that figure at most.

73 de G3NYY (ex-Tempo 2002 user for 2m MS)

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
jim.gm4dhj
2004-05-11 05:37:53 UTC
> 73 de G3NYY (ex-Tempo 2002 user for 2m MS)
>
> --
> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

You will know GM4CXM then ?
Walt Davidson
2004-05-11 06:01:39 UTC
On Tue, 11 May 2004 06:37:53 +0100, "jim.gm4dhj"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>You will know GM4CXM then ?

Yes, Ray and I have been friends for many years.
:-)

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
jim.gm4dhj
2004-05-12 06:50:33 UTC
"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 06:37:53 +0100, "jim.gm4dhj"
> <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >You will know GM4CXM then ?
>
> Yes, Ray and I have been friends for many years.
> :-)
>
> 73 de G3NYY
>
> --
> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

I once shared the same hotel room with him at Stoke on Trent in the late
70's before we both got married........be he wouldn't tell you THAT! .....
Walt Davidson
2004-05-12 09:20:06 UTC
On Wed, 12 May 2004 07:50:33 +0100, "jim.gm4dhj"
<***@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>> Yes, Ray and I have been friends for many years.
>> :-)
>>
>> 73 de G3NYY
>>
>I once shared the same hotel room with him at Stoke on Trent in the late
>70's before we both got married........be he wouldn't tell you THAT! .....

ROTFL!! We are not _THAT_ close!
:-)

73 de G3NYY
(I once shared a hotel room in Paris with Paul Weller in 1977)

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
jim.gm4dhj
2004-05-12 12:30:42 UTC
> 73 de G3NYY
> (I once shared a hotel room in Paris with Paul Weller in 1977)
>
> --
> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

Trust you to have a "topper" for every occasion.......
Stu
2004-05-12 14:21:44 UTC
> > 73 de G3NYY
> > (I once shared a hotel room in Paris with Paul Weller in 1977)
> >
> > --
> > Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
>
> Trust you to have a "topper" for every occasion.......
>

I am a little worried that you two maybe top of the roofs

Stu
Walt Davidson
2004-05-12 14:36:34 UTC
On Wed, 12 May 2004 14:21:44 +0000 (UTC), "Stu"
<***@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:

>I am a little worried that you two maybe top of the roofs

BONA!

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
jim.gm4dhj
2004-05-12 16:27:55 UTC
"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 14:21:44 +0000 (UTC), "Stu"
> <***@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I am a little worried that you two maybe top of the roofs
>
> BONA!
>
> 73 de G3NYY
>
> --
> Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

BONA ! FANTABULOSA!
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
2004-05-12 10:22:05 UTC
"jim.gm4dhj" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nPjoc.6$***@newsfe1-win...
>
> "Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 06:37:53 +0100, "jim.gm4dhj"
> > <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > >You will know GM4CXM then ?
> >
> > Yes, Ray and I have been friends for many years.
> > :-)
> >
> > 73 de G3NYY
> >
> > --
> > Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
>
> I once shared the same hotel room with him at Stoke on Trent in the late
> 70's before we both got married........be he wouldn't tell you THAT! .....
>
Is it legal for two blokes to marry?
--
;>)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
Cyclotron
2004-05-12 08:45:19 UTC
"jim.gm4dhj" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<lHZnc.1130$***@newsfe6-gui.server.ntli.net>...

> You will know GM4CXM then ?

No, I haven't met Ray yet - but it's always possible.....! When I
wrote "tempory QTH" I meant temporary in that the Main QTH is Leeds,
but I'll be in Italy working for maybe the next 10 years!

I also solved my puzzle of what a Dressler is worth - it's strange how
Usenet can focus the mind - I searched for ages to correctly value a
german 15kilogram box of EHT power supply and bits of bent metal that
make 2 metres go a long way.
Posted the question to "uk.radio.amateur". Then answered the question
myself with some lateral thinking the next day!. At least this link
should be of interest to any other dutch speaking radio enthusiasts or
RF bargain-hunters. Peter PA3CNX advertises at
<http://www.pi4utc.net/Advertenties.htm> amongst other things, his
Dressler D200 (with 4CX250B) is for sale at 525euro plus E75 for
external change-over relays.

73's David
Walt Davidson
2004-05-12 09:20:06 UTC
On 12 May 2004 01:45:19 -0700, ***@hotmail.com (Cyclotron) wrote:

> Peter PA3CNX advertises at
><http://www.pi4utc.net/Advertenties.htm> amongst other things, his
>Dressler D200 (with 4CX250B) is for sale at 525euro plus E75 for
>external change-over relays.

It is one thing to advertise it for that price; quite another thing to
get it! The D200 dates from 1978. Spare parts, especially for the
psu, are very hard to get.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Andrew Swiffin
2004-05-12 12:23:34 UTC
>
>
>>>> Walt Davidson<***@despammed.com> 12/05/2004 10:20:06 >>>
>On 12 May 2004 01:45:19 -0700, ***@hotmail.com (Cyclotron) wrote:
>
>> Peter PA3CNX advertises at
>><http://www.pi4utc.net/Advertenties.htm> amongst other things, his
>>Dressler D200 (with 4CX250B) is for sale at 525euro plus E75 for
>>external change-over relays.
>
>It is one thing to advertise it for that price; quite another thing to
>get it! The D200 dates from 1978. Spare parts, especially for the
>psu, are very hard to get.
>
>73 de G3NYY
>
>--
>Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
>
>

Indeed! Stick it on ebay though - they'll pay vastly over the odds for all kinds of junk there. In a just world you'd probably get £100 to £150 for it.

And to make 2meters go a long way you need rather more than a dressler... It'll make it go a medium way perhaps.

Andy gm8oeg
Walt Davidson
2004-05-12 14:03:45 UTC
On Wed, 12 May 2004 13:23:34 +0100, "Andrew Swiffin"
<***@antispam.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>Indeed! Stick it on ebay though - they'll pay vastly over the odds for all
>kinds of junk there. In a just world you'd probably get £100 to £150 for it.

That is exactly the price I had in mind. One pound per watt when it
was new; about one-third of that amount now.

>And to make 2meters go a long way you need rather more than a dressler...
>It'll make it go a medium way perhaps.

LOL! Quite so!
:-)

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Geoff
2004-05-12 15:11:41 UTC
"Andrew Swiffin" <***@antispam.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in
news:c7t507$3bd$***@dux.dundee.ac.uk:

> And to make 2meters go a long way you need rather more than a
> dressler... It'll make it go a medium way perhaps.

What is the furthest distance over which an amateur QSO has been made?
Something like 500,000 miles - on VHF and UHF and nicrowave bands! HF maybe
20,000 miles maximum!

Shame upon you Andy - from a G(M)8 too.

--
YG
Walt Davidson
2004-05-12 20:30:47 UTC
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Geoff
<***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>"Andrew Swiffin" <***@antispam.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in
>news:c7t507$3bd$***@dux.dundee.ac.uk:
>
>> And to make 2meters go a long way you need rather more than a
>> dressler... It'll make it go a medium way perhaps.
>
>What is the furthest distance over which an amateur QSO has been made?
>Something like 500,000 miles - on VHF and UHF and nicrowave bands! HF maybe
>20,000 miles maximum!
>
>Shame upon you Andy - from a G(M)8 too.

You've completely lost the plot, as usual, Geoff.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Geoff
2004-05-12 20:59:42 UTC
Walt Davidson <***@despammed.com> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:11:41 +0000 (UTC), Geoff
> <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Andrew Swiffin" <***@antispam.dundee.ac.uk> wrote in
>>news:c7t507$3bd$***@dux.dundee.ac.uk:
>>
>>> And to make 2meters go a long way you need rather more than a
>>> dressler... It'll make it go a medium way perhaps.
>>
>>What is the furthest distance over which an amateur QSO has been made?
>>Something like 500,000 miles - on VHF and UHF and nicrowave bands! HF
>>maybe 20,000 miles maximum!
>>
>>Shame upon you Andy - from a G(M)8 too.
>
> You've completely lost the plot, as usual, Geoff.

In what way Walt? 250W on 2m will go a fair way, considerably further
than (say) 20m. As you well know, EME is possible with 250W on 2m.

--
YG
Chris Kirby
2004-05-12 21:26:12 UTC
Geoff wrote:


>In what way Walt? 250W on 2m will go a fair way, considerably further
>than (say) 20m. As you well know, EME is possible with 250W on 2m.



It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.

73,
--
Chris
Brian Reay
2004-05-12 21:52:35 UTC
"Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Geoff wrote:
>
>
> >In what way Walt? 250W on 2m will go a fair way, considerably further
> >than (say) 20m. As you well know, EME is possible with 250W on 2m.
>
>
>
> It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.
>

250W erp is 24dBW, near enough.

The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
(That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)

So, the return signal is, at most, -226dBW, or -196dBm

Even without going as far as allowing for the SNR benefits of a narrow
bandwidth, rx antenna gain, etc that looks like needing an 'impressive'
receiver ;-)


--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio
Walt Davidson
2004-05-13 06:49:35 UTC
On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:52:35 +0100, "Brian Reay"
<***@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>"Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> Geoff wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In what way Walt? 250W on 2m will go a fair way, considerably further
>> >than (say) 20m. As you well know, EME is possible with 250W on 2m.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.
>>
>
>250W erp is 24dBW, near enough.
>
>The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
>(That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)
>
>So, the return signal is, at most, -226dBW, or -196dBm
>
>Even without going as far as allowing for the SNR benefits of a narrow
>bandwidth, rx antenna gain, etc that looks like needing an 'impressive'
>receiver ;-)

For once I agree with you, Brian. However, your figures are
exceedingly generous, given that the reflection losses involved are
very significant ... perhaps even greater than the path loss ... as
the moon is a very inefficient, non-focused reflector at 144 MHz.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Brian Reay
2004-05-13 17:39:18 UTC
"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...

> >Even without going as far as allowing for the SNR benefits of a narrow
> >bandwidth, rx antenna gain, etc that looks like needing an 'impressive'
> >receiver ;-)
>
> For once I agree with you, Brian.

OK Walt, so when do you register as a FL instructor ;-)

> However, your figures are
> exceedingly generous, given that the reflection losses involved are
> very significant ... perhaps even greater than the path loss ... as
> the moon is a very inefficient, non-focused reflector at 144 MHz.
>

Quite agree but I don't have a figure for the reflection coefficient of the
Moon in my memory ;-)

I only remembered the path loss by chance- I try not to be so sad as to
recall such things ;-)

--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio
Walt Davidson
2004-05-13 21:36:16 UTC
On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:39:18 +0100, "Brian Reay"
<***@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>OK Walt, so when do you register as a FL instructor ;-)

Never. It would be quite hypocritical of me to do anything to support
a scheme of which I heartily disapprove.

I am far from being alone in that view. I know of many former RAE
tutors who will have nothing to do with the FL scheme. The local
amateur radio club in my area discontinued the provision of amateur
radio training courses as soon as the Fools' Licence was introduced.
They have not been resumed.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Brian Reay
2004-05-13 23:03:51 UTC
"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:39:18 +0100, "Brian Reay"
> <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >OK Walt, so when do you register as a FL instructor ;-)
>
> Never. It would be quite hypocritical of me to do anything to support
> a scheme of which I heartily disapprove.
>
> I am far from being alone in that view. I know of many former RAE
> tutors who will have nothing to do with the FL scheme. The local
> amateur radio club in my area discontinued the provision of amateur
> radio training courses as soon as the Fools' Licence was introduced.
> They have not been resumed.
>

Nothing stopping them running training for only the new Advanced Licence
Exam, they don't have to teach the FL or the IL.

The shortage of training provision is at IL and Advanced level.

So, it is quite possible to support training and not compromise your
principles.

The syllabus is on the OFCOM side and content is no less demanding than the
RAE was- even some new topics.

--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio
Gareth S Nemisis
2004-05-14 04:56:05 UTC
"Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:39:18 +0100, "Brian Reay"
> > <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > >OK Walt, so when do you register as a FL instructor ;-)
> >
> > Never. It would be quite hypocritical of me to do anything to support
> > a scheme of which I heartily disapprove.
> >
> > I am far from being alone in that view. I know of many former RAE
> > tutors who will have nothing to do with the FL scheme. The local
> > amateur radio club in my area discontinued the provision of amateur
> > radio training courses as soon as the Fools' Licence was introduced.
> > They have not been resumed.
> >
>
> Nothing stopping them running training for only the new Advanced Licence
> Exam, they don't have to teach the FL or the IL.
>
> The shortage of training provision is at IL and Advanced level.
>
> So, it is quite possible to support training and not compromise your
> principles.
>

To quote the Chippenham CBer _STUPID BOY_ Sad Wally has no principles.
Airy R. Bean
2004-05-14 17:08:05 UTC
Hams of any value don't need to be trained, they'll
teach themselves.

_REAL_ Radio Hams of any value taught themselves the
Morse Code and tackled and then passed the 12WPM Morse Test.

No amount of self-agrandisement on the part of those who were
too lazy or too stupid, or both, to tackle and then pass the 12WPM Morse
Test when it was available to them will alter their position as
the Cesspit Bozos (CB) of this NG.

"Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> The shortage of training provision is at IL and Advanced level.
Binary Era
2004-05-14 17:33:09 UTC
Airy R. Bean wrote:

>_REAL_ Radio Hams of any value taught themselves the
>Morse Code and tackled and then passed the 12WPM Morse Test.

What was the situation pre-WWII (started by the Germans with an attack
on Poland, you will remember) regarding Morse as qualification for
Radio Amateurs?

--
Binary Era
Airy R Soul
2004-05-14 18:14:17 UTC
"Airy R. Bean" <***@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> Hams of any value don't need to be trained, they'll
> teach themselves.
>
> _REAL_ Radio Hams of any value taught themselves the
> Morse Code and tackled and then passed the 12WPM Morse Test.
>
> No amount of self-agrandisement on the part of those who were
> too lazy or too stupid, or both, to tackle and then pass the 12WPM Morse
> Test when it was available to them will alter their position as
> the Cesspit Bozos (CB) of this NG.
>
> "Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> > The shortage of training provision is at IL and Advanced level.
>
>
Cyberstalking noted
Barry Harris
2004-05-14 21:03:14 UTC
On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:08:05 +0100, "Airy R. Bean"
<***@lycos.co.uk> wrote:

>Hams of any value don't need to be trained, they'll
>teach themselves.

Apart from when they have been taught.

>_REAL_ Radio Hams of any value taught themselves the
>Morse Code and tackled and then passed the 12WPM Morse Test.

So if you have been 'taught' and 'trained' in CW, you aren't _REAL_?

>No amount of self-agrandisement on the part of those who were
>too lazy or too stupid, or both, to tackle and then pass the 12WPM Morse
>Test when it was available to them will alter their position as
>the Cesspit Bozos (CB) of this NG.

Do you have a book with 'CB' words in it?

(Those were queries and not arguments or threats before you wish to
twist what I have typed)

bH.
Gareth S Nemisis
2004-05-14 04:58:52 UTC
"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:39:18 +0100, "Brian Reay"
> <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >OK Walt, so when do you register as a FL instructor ;-)
>
> Never. It would be quite hypocritical of me to do anything to support
> a scheme of which I heartily disapprove.
>
> I am far from being alone in that view. I know of many former RAE
> tutors who will have nothing to do with the FL scheme. The local
> amateur radio club in my area discontinued the provision of amateur
> radio training courses as soon as the Fools' Licence was introduced.
> They have not been resumed.

If they are all like you then they are to be applauded- for recognising that
they are doing the hobby a great service in leaving the training to those
who have the future of the hobby in mnd and the skills to teach.

Bye, You Sad Wally.
Gareth S Nemisis
2004-05-14 05:03:48 UTC
"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:39:18 +0100, "Brian Reay"
> <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >OK Walt, so when do you register as a FL instructor ;-)
>
> Never. It would be quite hypocritical of me to do anything to support
> a scheme of which I heartily disapprove.
>

More like too lazy and self seeking to support anything worthwhile.
see sea oh ecks at you aitch see dot comm
2004-05-14 16:26:43 UTC
I didn't see anyone saying that it could be done with 250W ERP, however,
I have personally worked three stations off the moon with around 120W and
~11dB aerial system gain. I don't know what, if any, ground gain I saw
benefit from. Also, two of these were during the EME contest a couple
of years ago and were NOT in any way prearranged or assisted through
some spotting network.

I must admit that I surprised myself with that feat!

I have heard of a few that have been able to work off the moon on 2m using
50W and a single yagi.

Obviously, it takes a bigger station at the far end, and those contacts were
using CW.

With Joe Taylor's WSJT software using his JT44 digital mode, small tropo
stations (~100W and a single yagi) can easily make contacts off the moon
on two metres.
--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealth Technologies, MN013-N300, UNIX Solutions Group
6150 Trenton Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55440 1-763-744-1723
email: ***@uhc.com (work) ***@chris.org (home)
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Geoff
2004-05-13 11:22:06 UTC
"Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:***@uni-
berlin.de:

> "Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> Geoff wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In what way Walt? 250W on 2m will go a fair way, considerably further
>> >than (say) 20m. As you well know, EME is possible with 250W on 2m.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.
>>
>
> 250W erp is 24dBW, near enough.
>
> The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
> (That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)
>
> So, the return signal is, at most, -226dBW, or -196dBm
>
> Even without going as far as allowing for the SNR benefits of a narrow
> bandwidth, rx antenna gain, etc that looks like needing an 'impressive'
> receiver ;-)


As a matter of interest, EME is workable on 2m at the 200W level using a
single Yagi. See http://www.gm4jjj.co.uk/K6PF/k6pf.pdf for an example. I
was, of course, talking about a power amplifier output (the Dressler, where
we came in) of ~+24dBW, not the ERP, which would more probably be around
the +38dBW mark given a single long Yagi.

Also, my "old" single 4CX350A linear was capable of nearer +27dBW on

My point, to the original post in the sub-context, GM8EOG, was that his
assertation that 200W on 2m would only go a "medium distance" was rather
incorrect. If ~500,000 miles ia medium distance, what is "real DX", Mars
maybe (yes I know the Mars spacecraft have been heard by amateurs on
8.4GHz., but that is hardly 2m!).

Of course, Walt jumped in with both feet and little thought, as usual, but
one rather expects that.

--
YG
Geoff
2004-05-13 11:35:33 UTC
Geoff <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:***@158.152.254.254:

> Also, my "old" single 4CX350A linear was capable of nearer +27dBW on

Oops, hit the "delete to end of line key" whilst posting. The full line
should read:

Also, my "old" single 4CX350A linear was capable of nearer +27dBW on 2
metres, about 350W, which was more than my directional coupler could
handle.

--
YG
Jeff
2004-05-13 12:03:48 UTC
>
> Also, my "old" single 4CX350A linear was capable of nearer +27dBW on 2
> metres, about 350W, which was more than my directional coupler could
> handle.
>
Surely +27dBW is ~500W, 350W is more like +25.4dBW.

Jeff
Geoff
2004-05-13 14:22:01 UTC
Jeff <***@local.host> wrote in news:***@local.host:

>>
>> Also, my "old" single 4CX350A linear was capable of nearer +27dBW on 2
>> metres, about 350W, which was more than my directional coupler could
>> handle.
>>
> Surely +27dBW is ~500W, 350W is more like +25.4dBW.

Yep, Jeff., typo, from my notes it was actually +55.7dBm. I am certain it
would have done 500W, but at some risk to the valve and somewhat poorer
IP's.

--
YG
zpk
2004-05-13 20:56:41 UTC
On Thu, 13 May 2004 14:22:01 +0000 (UTC), Geoff
<***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:



The dB claims another victim ?????????????
Brian Reay
2004-05-13 17:27:07 UTC
"Geoff" <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@158.152.254.254...
> "Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in news:***@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
> > "Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@4ax.com...
> >> Geoff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >In what way Walt? 250W on 2m will go a fair way, considerably further
> >> >than (say) 20m. As you well know, EME is possible with 250W on 2m.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.
> >>
> >
> > 250W erp is 24dBW, near enough.
> >
> > The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
> > (That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)
> >
> > So, the return signal is, at most, -226dBW, or -196dBm
> >
> > Even without going as far as allowing for the SNR benefits of a narrow
> > bandwidth, rx antenna gain, etc that looks like needing an 'impressive'
> > receiver ;-)
>
>
> As a matter of interest, EME is workable on 2m at the 200W level using a
> single Yagi. See http://www.gm4jjj.co.uk/K6PF/k6pf.pdf for an example. I
> was, of course, talking about a power amplifier output (the Dressler,
where
> we came in) of ~+24dBW, not the ERP, which would more probably be around
> the +38dBW mark given a single long Yagi.

That is still leaving a lot to the recieving system- what will a good VHF rx
manage these days on SSB, say -120dBm for 10dB S/N ?

Reducing the bandwidth to, say, 300Hz gives us, say 10dB. Say another (net)
10dB for the rx antenna and feeder?

So, the original -196dBm, the +12dB from your revised number, +10dB for
the BW reduction, +10dB for the antenna and feeder.
Looks like -164dBm

OK, we don't need 10dB S/N at the rx but we've also assumed the moon is a
perfect refector.

I've scanned the pdf file but didn't notice a detailed link budget. I expect
there is on on the web somewhere.

> Also, my "old" single 4CX350A linear was capable of nearer +27dBW on
>
> My point, to the original post in the sub-context, GM8EOG, was that his
> assertation that 200W on 2m would only go a "medium distance" was rather
> incorrect. If ~500,000 miles ia medium distance, what is "real DX", Mars
> maybe (yes I know the Mars spacecraft have been heard by amateurs on
> 8.4GHz., but that is hardly 2m!).


Well, if we are being pedantic, the RF energy goes the same distance
regardless of frequency in free space, it just gets harder to make use of it
;-)

>
> Of course, Walt jumped in with both feet and little thought, as usual, but
> one rather expects that.

Yes, one does. If Walt passes it by I expect we can be sure the Chippenham
idiot won't ;-)


--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio
Geoff
2004-05-13 22:14:59 UTC
"Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in
news:***@uni-berlin.de:

> Well, if we are being pedantic, the RF energy goes the same distance
> regardless of frequency in free space, it just gets harder to make use
> of it ;-)

Well, much of the "HF" energy gets lost (misdirected) before it leaves
the influence of the Earth.

Nevertheless, EME has been and is worked from a 100W TX plus single long
Yagi station. Mostly it is to the "big guns", under "ideal conditions"
and using "exotic" techniques like JT44 etc. but a contact is a contact.

>> Of course, Walt jumped in with both feet and little thought, as
>> usual, but one rather expects that.
>
> Yes, one does. If Walt passes it by I expect we can be sure the
> Chippenham idiot won't ;-)
>

Is Chippenham a village? Must be :-)


--
YG
Brian Reay
2004-05-13 23:11:20 UTC
"Geoff" <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@158.152.254.254...
> "Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in
> news:***@uni-berlin.de:
>
> > Well, if we are being pedantic, the RF energy goes the same distance
> > regardless of frequency in free space, it just gets harder to make use
> > of it ;-)
>
> Well, much of the "HF" energy gets lost (misdirected) before it leaves
> the influence of the Earth.

Which is why I mentioned free space ;-)

>
> Nevertheless, EME has been and is worked from a 100W TX plus single long
> Yagi station. Mostly it is to the "big guns", under "ideal conditions"
> and using "exotic" techniques like JT44 etc. but a contact is a contact.

Don't doubt it, just would like to see the numbers. At the end of the day,
the basic rules of signaling apply.
>
> >> Of course, Walt jumped in with both feet and little thought, as
> >> usual, but one rather expects that.
> >
> > Yes, one does. If Walt passes it by I expect we can be sure the
> > Chippenham idiot won't ;-)
> >
>
> Is Chippenham a village? Must be :-)
>

Didn't you know that towns can have idiots to? They are just bigger, more
accomplished, idiots ;-)

--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio
g1lvn (Gareth)
2004-05-14 00:06:51 UTC
Hello, Brian!
You wrote on Fri, 14 May 2004 00:11:20 +0100:
??>>
BR> Didn't you know that towns can have idiots to? They are just bigger,
BR> more accomplished, idiots ;-)

The collective term for idiots (as flock of birds, pride of lions) is a
village. "A village of idiots".

With best regards, g1lvn (Gareth).
Replace "mycallsign" to reply by E-mail
http://www.g1lvn.org.uk
Walt Davidson
2004-05-14 06:06:59 UTC
On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:06:51 +0000 (UTC), "g1lvn \(Gareth\)"
<***@mycallsign.org.uk> wrote:

>The collective term for idiots (as flock of birds, pride of lions) is a
>village. "A village of idiots".

The collective term for a number of Lead Instructors is a folly, i.e.
"A folly of Lead Instructors".

Similarly, we have "A cacophony of M3s", "A whine of G7s" and "A
channel of G-nothings".

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Andy Cowley
2004-05-14 11:35:36 UTC
Walt Davidson wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:06:51 +0000 (UTC), "g1lvn \(Gareth\)"
> <***@mycallsign.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>The collective term for idiots (as flock of birds, pride of lions) is a
>>village. "A village of idiots".
>
>
> The collective term for a number of Lead Instructors is a folly, i.e.
> "A folly of Lead Instructors".
>
> Similarly, we have "A cacophony of M3s", "A whine of G7s" and "A
> channel of G-nothings".
>
>
Shame on you, Walt! You left out "A tantrum of G4s" and
"A misanthropy of G3s" ;-)

vy 73
Andy, M1EBV
p.s. I'll leave the M1s to you.
Walt Davidson
2004-05-14 16:46:42 UTC
On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:35:36 GMT, Andy Cowley <***@uwe.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Shame on you, Walt! You left out "A tantrum of G4s" and
>"A misanthropy of G3s" ;-)

ROTFL!

>p.s. I'll leave the M1s to you.

"A road-rage of M1s"?

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
l***@eternal-flames.gov
2004-05-14 17:56:50 UTC
On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:35:36 GMT, as the people stood transfixed by
the horror before them, the amorphous heap changed into the form of
Andy Cowley <***@uwe.ac.uk> and in a gasping rattle, it said:

>Shame on you, Walt! You left out "A tantrum of G4s" and
>"A misanthropy of G3s" ;-)
>
>vy 73
>Andy, M1EBV
>p.s. I'll leave the M1s to you.

An illegitimacy ?

Or is that just for the lazy old bar-stewards with G8 callsigns?

Old Nick.
Andy Cowley
2004-05-17 13:03:58 UTC
Walt Davidson wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:35:36 GMT, Andy Cowley <***@uwe.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Shame on you, Walt! You left out "A tantrum of G4s" and
>>"A misanthropy of G3s" ;-)
>
>
> ROTFL!
>
>
>>p.s. I'll leave the M1s to you.
>
>
> "A road-rage of M1s"?
>
>
Grrrr! Fair cop, guv. ;-)
Although "A road-works of M1s" works quite well.

73

Andy
Airy R. Bean
2004-05-14 17:09:54 UTC
A Lead-Instructor of Losers?

A Double-Patio of Morseless CBers?

"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:06:51 +0000 (UTC), "g1lvn \(Gareth\)"
> <***@mycallsign.org.uk> wrote:
> >The collective term for idiots (as flock of birds, pride of lions) is a
> >village. "A village of idiots".
> The collective term for a number of Lead Instructors is a folly, i.e.
> "A folly of Lead Instructors".
> Similarly, we have "A cacophony of M3s", "A whine of G7s" and "A
> channel of G-nothings".
Gareth S Nemisis
2004-05-15 10:57:47 UTC
"Walt Davidson" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:06:51 +0000 (UTC), "g1lvn \(Gareth\)"
> <***@mycallsign.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >The collective term for idiots (as flock of birds, pride of lions) is a
> >village. "A village of idiots".
>
> The collective term for a number of Lead Instructors is a folly, i.e.
> "A folly of Lead Instructors".
>

What about a reject from teaching and BT?
l***@eternal-flames.gov
2004-05-15 16:00:14 UTC
On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:57:47 +0100, as the people stood transfixed by
the horror before them, the amorphous heap changed into the form of
"Gareth S Nemisis" <***@soldier.org.uk> and in a gasping rattle,
it said:


>What about a reject from teaching and BT?
>

What about someone who can't even spell his own username?

Old Nick
Gareth S Nemisis
2004-05-15 16:49:19 UTC
<***@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 11:57:47 +0100, as the people stood transfixed by
> the horror before them, the amorphous heap changed into the form of
> "Gareth S Nemisis" <***@soldier.org.uk> and in a gasping rattle,
> it said:
>
>
> >What about a reject from teaching and BT?
> >
>
> What about someone who can't even spell his own username?
>

Why, who can't spell his own user name?
Airy R. Bean
2004-05-13 16:15:41 UTC
No doubt via "Peterson" Rays?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!


"Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
> (That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)
Argeth Nula Vanse
2004-05-13 20:18:35 UTC
"Airy R. Bean" <***@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> No doubt via "Peterson" Rays?
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!
>
>
Airy R. Bean still polluting this NG with his infantile outbursts and
tantrums, then?

I don't know what Airy R. Bean is referring to, but there's a tremendous
hypocrisy to be found in the axis of evil that is the Airy R. Bean
gangrenous degeneration.

Incurable Airy R. Bean never fails to identify himself with his rather silly
infantile tantrums and illustrate why he will _NEVER_ make it into the ranks
of Radio Amateurs with their gentlemanly traditions....

It makes Airy R. Bean look such a fool.

Grow up, Airy R. Bean.

Stupid Airy R. Bean.
--
Argeth Nula Vanse
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
2004-05-13 20:29:28 UTC
Argeth Nula Vanse" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Airy R. Bean" <***@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> > No doubt via "Peterson" Rays?
> >
> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!
> >
> >
> Airy R. Bean still polluting this NG with his infantile outbursts and
> tantrums, then?
>
> I don't know what Airy R. Bean is referring to, but there's a tremendous
> hypocrisy to be found in the axis of evil that is the Airy R. Bean
> gangrenous degeneration.
>
> Incurable Airy R. Bean never fails to identify himself with his rather
silly
> infantile tantrums and illustrate why he will _NEVER_ make it into the
ranks
> of Radio Amateurs with their gentlemanly traditions....
>
> It makes Airy R. Bean look such a fool.
>
> Grow up, Airy R. Bean.
>
> Stupid Airy R. Bean.

You're assuming he can read.
--
;>)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
Airy R Soul
2004-05-13 20:43:50 UTC
"Airy R. Bean" <***@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> No doubt via "Peterson" Rays?
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!
>
>
> "Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> > The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
> > (That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)
>
>
Cyberstalking noted
Gareth S Nemisis
2004-05-14 05:02:38 UTC
"Airy R. Bean" <***@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> No doubt via "Peterson" Rays?
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!
>

Nothing to contribute on the topic then Gareth? Seems to be a bit of a
problem for you.

I notice that your time with sheep is leaving you with a few of their
traits.

Not caught Scrappie as well, have you?
GrahamW
2004-05-15 08:51:39 UTC
"Airy R. Bean" <***@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> No doubt via "Peterson" Rays?
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!
>
>

I see that you haven't improved the value of your technical input to a
discussion since Westinghouse.

Graham
Chris Kirby
2004-05-14 07:37:53 UTC
Brian Reay wrote:
>Chris Kirby

>>
>> It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.
>>
>
>250W erp is 24dBW, near enough.
>
>The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
>(That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)


The free space path loss at 144MHz over 769116km (ie. to the Moon and
back) is 193dB.

HTH,

--
Chris
Brian Reay
2004-05-14 16:21:02 UTC
"Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Brian Reay wrote:
> >Chris Kirby
>
> >>
> >> It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.
> >>
> >
> >250W erp is 24dBW, near enough.
> >
> >The free space path loss for EME at 144MHz is about 250dB, as I recall.
> >(That doesn't allow for losses in the reflection process)
>
>
> The free space path loss at 144MHz over 769116km (ie. to the Moon and
> back) is 193dB.
>
> HTH,

Could well Chris, maybe the figure I had in memory includes the factor to
allow for the reflectivity of the moon. I confess is was some time ago I
used the number.

Either way, still leaves a bit of the gap to fill.- I did a quick search and
the sort of overall losses people seem to work on is nearer 250dB than
193dB.

--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio
Laurie
2004-05-14 16:43:49 UTC
Brian Reay wrote:
> "Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> The free space path loss at 144MHz over 769116km (ie. to the Moon and
>> back) is 193dB.
>>
> Could well Chris, maybe the figure I had in memory includes the
> factor to allow for the reflectivity of the moon.

The 250 dB loss figure does not account for the reflectivity of the moon but
it does take into account the moon's aperture. Ie it assumes that the moon
re-radiates all the power it collects, as an isotropic radiator.

73 Laurie - G6ISY
Airy R. Bean
2004-05-14 17:11:04 UTC
His error came from relying on Peterson Rays.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!!!!

"Laurie" <***@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:40a4f744$0$20514$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> Brian Reay wrote:
> > "Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> The free space path loss at 144MHz over 769116km (ie. to the Moon and
> >> back) is 193dB.
> > Could well Chris, maybe the figure I had in memory includes the
> > factor to allow for the reflectivity of the moon.
> The 250 dB loss figure does not account for the reflectivity of the moon
but
> it does take into account the moon's aperture. Ie it assumes that the moon
> re-radiates all the power it collects, as an isotropic radiator.
Geoff
2004-05-14 17:17:32 UTC
"Laurie" <***@despammed.com> wrote in
news:40a4f744$0$20514$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

> Brian Reay wrote:
>> "Chris Kirby" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> The free space path loss at 144MHz over 769116km (ie. to the Moon
>>> and back) is 193dB.
>>>
>> Could well Chris, maybe the figure I had in memory includes the
>> factor to allow for the reflectivity of the moon.
>
> The 250 dB loss figure does not account for the reflectivity of the
> moon but it does take into account the moon's aperture. Ie it assumes
> that the moon re-radiates all the power it collects, as an isotropic
> radiator.

Is it right to consider the moon as an isotropic radiator? I would
consider that the moon would "scatter" the radiation and a good
mathmatician could calculate the scattering parameter.

Perhaps not on 2m, but on the higher microwave bands, the directivity of
the illuminating aerial will be able to concentrate more power on the
area of the moon nearly perpendicular the the direction of illumination
and thus the albedo(?) would be correspondingly higher.

Has anybody done any work on this?

--
YG
Laurie
2004-05-14 17:27:40 UTC
Geoff wrote:
> Perhaps not on 2m, but on the higher microwave bands, the directivity
> of the illuminating aerial will be able to concentrate more power on
> the area of the moon nearly perpendicular the the direction of
> illumination

I think this would be a very tall order, given that the entire surface of
the moon only subtends an angle of half a degree when viewed from the earth.

--
73 Laurie - G6ISY
Geoff
2004-05-14 20:38:01 UTC
"Laurie" <***@despammed.com> wrote in
news:40a5018b$0$20515$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

> Geoff wrote:
>> Perhaps not on 2m, but on the higher microwave bands, the directivity
>> of the illuminating aerial will be able to concentrate more power on
>> the area of the moon nearly perpendicular the the direction of
>> illumination
>
> I think this would be a very tall order, given that the entire surface
> of the moon only subtends an angle of half a degree when viewed from
> the earth.

Yes, but there are some quite high gain dishes around on 10GHz. Of course
"pings" have been "heard" from the moon at optical frequencies.

--
YG
Laurie
2004-05-15 01:06:56 UTC
Geoff wrote:
> "Laurie" wrote:
>> the entire surface of the moon only subtends an angle of
>> half a degree when viewed from the earth.
>
> Yes, but there are some quite high gain dishes around on 10GHz. Of
> course "pings" have been "heard" from the moon at optical frequencies.

Indeed, but to get a beamwidth of 0.25 degrees at 10GHz a gain of about
57dBi is required.
This needs a dish of about 8 metre diameter. Also at 10GHz the losses have
increased from the 250dB figure at 144MHz to about 290dB so the 57dB gain
antenna is only doing what a 17dBi antenna would do at 144MHz. I have seen
some big dishes being used (especially in the US) but I think it's well
beyond anything I could ever contemplate. I can just imagine the neighbour's
reaction to a planning application for a dish bigger than the house !

--
73 Laurie - G6ISY
Geoff
2004-05-15 06:39:56 UTC
"Laurie" <***@despammed.com> wrote in
news:40a56d2f$0$20509$***@news-text.dial.pipex.com:

> Geoff wrote:
>> "Laurie" wrote:
>>> the entire surface of the moon only subtends an angle of
>>> half a degree when viewed from the earth.
>>
>> Yes, but there are some quite high gain dishes around on 10GHz. Of
>> course "pings" have been "heard" from the moon at optical
>> frequencies.
>
> Indeed, but to get a beamwidth of 0.25 degrees at 10GHz a gain of
> about 57dBi is required.
> This needs a dish of about 8 metre diameter. Also at 10GHz the losses
> have increased from the 250dB figure at 144MHz to about 290dB so the
> 57dB gain antenna is only doing what a 17dBi antenna would do at
> 144MHz. I have seen some big dishes being used (especially in the US)
> but I think it's well beyond anything I could ever contemplate. I can
> just imagine the neighbour's reaction to a planning application for a
> dish bigger than the house !

Yes, I know the trouble a certain Rochdale amateur has had with a certain
2.5m(ish) dish!

--
YG
Chris Kirby
2004-05-16 21:14:24 UTC
Geoff wrote:

>Yes, I know the trouble a certain Rochdale amateur has had with a certain
>2.5m(ish) dish!


The biggest aspidishtra in the world?


--
Chris
g***@nospamblueyonder.co.uk
2004-05-17 13:42:25 UTC
On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:14:24 +0100, Chris Kirby <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Geoff wrote:
>
>>Yes, I know the trouble a certain Rochdale amateur has had with a certain
>>2.5m(ish) dish!

That wouldn't be my mate Dave W, G6###, would it? I thought he had
traier mounted it for /P work.

Peter, G3PHO
Geoff
2004-05-17 15:24:52 UTC
***@nospamblueyonder.co.uk wrote in
news:***@news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:14:24 +0100, Chris Kirby <***@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Geoff wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, I know the trouble a certain Rochdale amateur has had with a
>>>certain 2.5m(ish) dish!
>
> That wouldn't be my mate Dave W, G6###, would it? I thought he had
> traier mounted it for /P work.

The very one! Trailer mounts do not attract the legitimate attention of
planning officers - so he said.

--
YG
Walt Davidson
2004-05-17 05:33:18 UTC
On Sat, 15 May 2004 06:39:56 +0000 (UTC), Geoff
<***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Yes, I know the trouble a certain Rochdale amateur has had with a certain
>2.5m(ish) dish!

"Oh, what a big one!
I’ve never seen one as big as that before."

;-)
73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Geoff
2004-05-17 07:14:07 UTC
Walt Davidson <***@despammed.com> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 15 May 2004 06:39:56 +0000 (UTC), Geoff
> <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I know the trouble a certain Rochdale amateur has had with a
>>certain 2.5m(ish) dish!
>
> "Oh, what a big one!
> I’ve never seen one as big as that before."
>
> ;-)

Oh shut up Walt, that's a bit childish, isn't it - even 7 year old M3's are
a bit beyond that.

--
YG
Walt Davidson
2004-05-17 07:51:42 UTC
On Mon, 17 May 2004 07:14:07 +0000 (UTC), Geoff
<***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[drivel snipped]

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
Binary Era
2004-05-14 17:26:34 UTC
Brian Reay wrote:

>"Chris Kirby" < wrote

>> The free space path loss at 144MHz over 769116km (ie. to the Moon and
>> back) is 193dB. HTH
>
>Could well Chris, maybe the figure I had in memory includes the factor to
>allow for the reflectivity of the moon. I confess is was some time ago I
>used the number.Either way, still leaves a bit of the gap to fill.- I did a quick search and
>the sort of overall losses people seem to work on is nearer 250dB than
>193dB.

A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!

Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.

While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?

Or will his response rest on bullshitting, lying, or side-stepping?

--
Binary Era
Geoff
2004-05-14 20:38:55 UTC
Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> Brian Reay wrote:
>
>>"Chris Kirby" < wrote
>
>>> The free space path loss at 144MHz over 769116km (ie. to the Moon
>>> and back) is 193dB. HTH
>>
>>Could well Chris, maybe the figure I had in memory includes the factor
>>to allow for the reflectivity of the moon. I confess is was some time
>>ago I used the number.Either way, still leaves a bit of the gap to
>>fill.- I did a quick search and the sort of overall losses people seem
>>to work on is nearer 250dB than 193dB.
>
> A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
> Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
>
> Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
> comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
>
> While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
> are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
> dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
> of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?
>
> Or will his response rest on bullshitting, lying, or side-stepping?
>

Go read Skolnik!

--
YG
Binary Era
2004-05-14 20:57:26 UTC
Geoff wrote:

>Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote
>
>> A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
>> Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
>>
>> Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
>> comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
>>
>> While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
>> are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
>> dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
>> of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?
>>
>> Or will his response rest on bullshitting, lying, or side-stepping?
>>
>
>Go read Skolnik!

Why?

--
Binary Era
Geoff
2004-05-14 21:23:12 UTC
Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> Geoff wrote:
>
>>Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote
>>
>>> A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
>>> Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
>>>
>>> Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
>>> comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
>>>
>>> While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
>>> are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
>>> dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
>>> of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?
>>>
>>> Or will his response rest on bullshitting, lying, or side-stepping?
>>>
>>
>>Go read Skolnik!
>
> Why?
>
Don't you know what Skolnik is?

--
YG
Binary Era
2004-05-14 21:26:01 UTC
Geoff wrote:

>Binary Era wrote
>
>> Geoff wrote:
>>
>>>Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote
>>>
>>>> A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
>>>> Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
>>>>
>>>> Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
>>>> comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
>>>>
>>>> While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
>>>> are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
>>>> dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
>>>> of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?
>>>>
>>>> Or will his response rest on bullshitting, lying, or side-stepping?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Go read Skolnik!
>>
>> Why?
>>
>Don't you know what Skolnik is?

Of course. But why should I read it?

--
Binary Era
Geoff
2004-05-15 06:40:51 UTC
Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> Geoff wrote:
>
>>Binary Era wrote
>>
>>> Geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>>Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
>>>>> Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
>>>>>
>>>>> Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
>>>>> comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross
Sections
>>>>> are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
>>>>> dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the
units
>>>>> of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or will his response rest on bullshitting, lying, or side-stepping?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Go read Skolnik!
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>Don't you know what Skolnik is?
>
> Of course. But why should I read it?
>
Read and learn.


--
YG
Binary Era
2004-05-15 07:07:59 UTC
Geoff wrote:

>Read and learn.

My OP was this:

"A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!

Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.

While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?

Or will his response rest on bullshitting, lying, or side-stepping?"

So, apart from forgetting to include 'spin-doctoring', which of the
four parts of the above are you referring to when you said 'Read
Skolnik'?

--
Binary Era
g1lvn (Gareth)
2004-05-15 09:10:34 UTC
Hello, Binary!
You wrote on Sat, 15 May 2004 08:07:59 +0100:

??>> Read and learn.

BE> My OP was this:

BE> "A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
BE> Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!

BE> Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
BE> comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.

Lot of Gareth's on the NG. Speaking for myself I have never worked in radar
except for my final year project at University when I built a FM CW
proximitry radar as used in guided missile fuses (my prof was ex MOD) I
remember it working quite well (I got a first). The idea was to distingusih
between 300miles of sea 4000 feet away and 100 feet of aircraft at 25 feet
away. It worked just as the computer simulation predicted. That was back in
the late eighties and used DDS - Direct Digital Sythesis (a type of DSP now
employed in a handful of commercial amateur transceivers) to generate the
CW. After I left university I took a job in computer networking rather than
radar, it seemed like an more interesting "new" field.

BE> While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
BE> are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
BE> dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
BE> of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?

All sounds a little tame.


With best regards, g1lvn (Gareth).
Replace "mycallsign" to reply by E-mail
http://www.g1lvn.org.uk
Gareth S Nemisis
2004-05-16 07:36:52 UTC
"Binary Era" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Geoff wrote:
>
> >Read and learn.
>
> My OP was this:
>
> "A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
> Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
>
> Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
> comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
>

Unlikely the Chippenham Bullshitter will comment. His foray into the radio
arena wasn't without its "problems". This explains his hatred of all things
military.
Brian Reay
2004-05-16 07:59:55 UTC
"Gareth S Nemisis" <***@soldier.org.uk> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Binary Era" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > Geoff wrote:
> >
> > >Read and learn.
> >
> > My OP was this:
> >
> > "A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
> > Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
> >
> > Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
> > comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
> >
>
> Unlikely the Chippenham Bullshitter will comment. His foray into the radio
> arena wasn't without its "problems". This explains his hatred of all
things
> military.

That is interesting, I wonder which company that was?

Drop me an Email and I'll do some research.

--
73
Brian
G8OSN
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk for FREE training material for all UK
amateur radio licences
www.phoenixradioclub.org.uk - a RADIO club specifically for those wishing
to learn more about amateur radio
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
2004-05-16 09:06:13 UTC
"Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> "Gareth S Nemisis" <***@soldier.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Binary Era" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:***@4ax.com...
> > > Geoff wrote:
> > >
> > > >Read and learn.
> > >
> > > My OP was this:
> > >
> > > "A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
> > > Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
> > >
> > > Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
> > > comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
> > >
> >
> > Unlikely the Chippenham Bullshitter will comment. His foray into the
radio
> > arena wasn't without its "problems". This explains his hatred of all
> things
> > military.
>
> That is interesting, I wonder which company that was?
>
> Drop me an Email and I'll do some research.
>
Judging by that photo of him you sent me, any company that gives you a photo
ID may have been put off by the number of cameras he broke.
--
;>)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
Walter Raleigh
2004-05-16 09:21:09 UTC
"Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI" <***@turner-smith.co.uk> wrote in message

> Judging by that photo of him you sent me, any company that gives you a photo
> ID may have been put off by the number of cameras he broke.
> --
> ;>)
> 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
> http://turner-smith.co.uk

Would love to see that ;-) Something to scare away the mice no doubt!


--

Walter R.
Airy R Soul
2004-05-16 15:10:13 UTC
"Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI" <***@turner-smith.co.uk> wrote in message
news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> "Brian Reay" <***@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> > "Gareth S Nemisis" <***@soldier.org.uk> wrote in message
> > news:***@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Binary Era" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:***@4ax.com...
> > > > Geoff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Read and learn.
> > > >
> > > > My OP was this:
> > > >
> > > > "A reflection/scattering loss of ~60 dB would well and truly put the
> > > > Moon in the same class as a Stealth Aircraft!
> > > >
> > > > Who do we know on ukra who worked in radar, and might well want to
> > > > comment? Gareth someting-or-other was the name, I think.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Unlikely the Chippenham Bullshitter will comment. His foray into the
> radio
> > > arena wasn't without its "problems". This explains his hatred of all
> > things
> > > military.
> >
> > That is interesting, I wonder which company that was?
> >
> > Drop me an Email and I'll do some research.
> >
> Judging by that photo of him you sent me, any company that gives you a
photo
> ID may have been put off by the number of cameras he broke.
> --
> ;>)
> 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
> http://turner-smith.co.uk
>
>
What was the link to that photo?
Geoff
2004-05-16 18:53:58 UTC
Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote in
news:***@4ax.com:

> While he's responding, he could also explain why Radar Cross Sections
> are compared in dBs, (dBsm), when RCS only relates to a
> dimension-balancing factor on the Radar Range Equation, has the units
> of square metres, and has nothing to do, in iself, with power?

Amongst other things, Skolnik explained much about radar.

Mind you, I do agree on your stance on the brainless wonder.
--
YG
Duncan Munro
2004-05-14 23:37:01 UTC
On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:23:12 +0000 (UTC), Geoff wrote:

> Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:***@4ax.com:

>> Geoff wrote:
>>>Go read Skolnik!

>> Why?
>>
> Don't you know what Skolnik is?

I thought it was a cheap lager...

--
Duncan Munro M0KGK
http://amateur.duncanamps.com/
BOF #023 FISTS #10815
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
2004-05-15 07:50:24 UTC
"Duncan Munro" <***@duncanamps.com> wrote in message
news:1fenf93e5wkx1$***@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:23:12 +0000 (UTC), Geoff wrote:
>
> > Binary Era <***@privacy.net> wrote in
> > news:***@4ax.com:
>
> >> Geoff wrote:
> >>>Go read Skolnik!
>
> >> Why?
> >>
> > Don't you know what Skolnik is?
>
> I thought it was a cheap lager...
>
Ask Airy.
--
;>)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
Walt Davidson
2004-05-13 06:49:35 UTC
On Wed, 12 May 2004 22:26:12 +0100, Chris Kirby <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Geoff wrote:
>
>
>>In what way Walt? 250W on 2m will go a fair way, considerably further
>>than (say) 20m. As you well know, EME is possible with 250W on 2m.
>
>
>
>It's erp that counts and I doubt that eme is possible with 250w erp.

Exactly.

But here again, Geoff has displayed his usual inability to keep up
with the plot.

73 de G3NYY

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com
g1lvn (Gareth)
2004-05-18 07:21:55 UTC
Hello, Walt!
You wrote on Wed, 12 May 2004 21:30:47 +0100:

??>>
??>> What is the furthest distance over which an amateur QSO has been made?
??>> Something like 500,000 miles - on VHF and UHF and nicrowave bands! HF
??>> maybe 20,000 miles maximum! Shame upon you Andy - from a G(M)8 too.

WD> You've completely lost the plot, as usual, Geoff.

500,000 miles EME (greatest distance to moon is approx 252,000 miles)
HF signals generally don't penetrate the ionosphere so you are limited to
multi-hop reflections of 20,000 miles max.

- good plot Geoff


With best regards, g1lvn (Gareth).
Replace "mycallsign" to reply by E-mail
http://www.g1lvn.org.uk