By the way, when I mentioned the link to the SStran web site, I mentioned a video back in post #20 that is on youtube that I watched where a guy mentioned the SSTran AM broadcast antenna link plans in his description. His antenna is based on those instructions.
I figured it made better sense to add the link to that video to this topic. He takes a test drive, testing the range of his ground mounted AM antenna.
Have a watch.
AMT3000 range check part 1
Check out the antenna and grounding system, please note that this guy is in Canada.
The music he is playing sounds good, if you like big band music.
By the way, this is a two part video, make sure you read the video description in the comment area below the video by the author.
Bruce.
We hear it everyday the bigger the antenna for AM the better. But I had a phenomena I need to explain to you as I was experimenting. I first used the supplied wire of around 8 Ft that comes with the talking house 5 as I just could not get any real range and the Audio quality was Pure T you know what.
The highest meter reading in DC volts with my home made ATU was only 3 ½ maybe 4 volts if I really sat and tried to tune it over and over. Pretty crappy from this transmitter. I got an idea in my head to try something unheard of. Since my home brew ATU has a screw terminal I took my wire made for FM from my Whole House 3.0 transmitter and decided to try this wire and see just what I'd get from the meter. I got that bugger up to almost 8 volts DC. This means that my shorter wire was far more resonate than the 8 ft piece of wire that came with the Talking House 5.0.
The audio quality did seem to improve just a bit too as I have the window blinds holding the wire. The blinds have very thin metal pieces that make up the window blinds.
So did I stumble on the fact that with the Talking House AM Transmitter that thinner wire is better? And maybe because of the minute power levels we're using it is unlikely this transmitter can feed the power all the way to an 8 Ft piece of aluminum wire.
There is a question of ohms too but I'm sitting here with 8 volts going right to the antenna where as before I could not get that much out of the Transmitter.
Now the real test would be a drive test and a walk around test which I'll have to perform on this thing with this wire as I think I'm on to something here.
Boards of Canada.
Thay guy in the antenna demo video has a lot of good things going for him, I don't know what his ground conductivity is, but his area is pretty undeveloped where he was driving, so it's quiet and it's flat. I think the best thing he has going for him could be the clear area around his antenna, and the ground system's decent too.
Mr. Rich took a wrong turn in Post # 23, reproduced here:
________________________________________________________
Clip from Reply 22 of this thread (author = C. Blare):
... "Whenever we talk about loading coils for medium wave antennas I like to share this tid-bit from KGLFH printed on page 19.16 0f the Radio Handbook..."
Would you mind linking to even _one_ of your posts prior to Reply 22 here to support your allegation pasted above in this post?
BTW, the original source was K6LFH, not "KGLFH" as you stated.
Then you posted in Reply 22:
"... A loading coil mounted at right angles to the whip has been found to greatly improve the Q, as contrasted to the usual arrangement where the coil is in-line with the whip. ..."
Those conclusions were based on undocumented statements for mobile/portable antenna systems using capacity-hat top loading in the 80 & 40 meter ham bands, which configurations are not very likely to be acceptable to the FCC for unlicensed AM broadcast band systems/operators operating legally under Part 15.219.
Suggest that such concepts be fully researched and understood before believing/posting/implementing them as applicable to Part 15 AM systems.
________________________________________________________
1.) There is no "allegation" made nor any relevant reference to prior posts;
2.) No "conclusions" are reached by me nor the original author;
3.) A loading coil is not a capacity-top hat and is a separable topic;
4.) The fact that the antenna discussed in the reference was mobile/portable or designed for certain bands is not germaine to the discussion;
5.) The physical placement of a loading coil does not bear on legality under part 15;
6.) The concluding line: "Suggest that such concepts be fully researched and understood before believeing/posting/implementing them as applicable to Part 15 AM systems." .... a foolish statement on six levels.
Finding a metal box for the coil could get pricey. I have access to industrial electrical goodies that get demolitioned, so I come by this stuff at times. I'm looking for a suitable exterior, plastic box for my transmitter and have settled on a $20 cable tv box. A metal one doesn't come in at less than $50. And if I came across a box I'd consider mailing it to you but the postage might eat up the reality of you just buying it local. Hey! Consider going to a junk/recycling facility. They might have a box. Also, get friendly with a few contractors. They throw stuff away frequently.
I think you directed this at me. If so, thanks!!!
I am not needing a box, I am considering mounting my existing coil in my toolbox that I am using at present for my AM transmitter. I just haven't had time to test yet. I hate to mess with what I got, since it works fairly well.
I do have access to some decent sized ammo boxes that are fairly inexpensive. Anyone wanting to try this might consider that also.
Craig
Mr Blare, re:
1.) There is no "allegation" made nor any relevant reference to prior posts;
So you say, but the allegation was yours: "Whenever we talk about loading coils for medium wave antennas I like to share this tid-bit from KGLFH [sic] printed on page 19.16 0f the Radio Handbook..."
I asked you to prove your allegation by posting a link to at least one previous occasion of sharing such a tidbit -- which you have not done.
It is your burden to support the accuracy of your posts, not that of the readers of your posts. And who knows better the contents of, and the links to your posts than you do (or should do)?
The accuracy of the other 5 rebuttals in your reply 34 is left for their readers to research and accept/reject.
Another of the many errors in Post # 23 when Rich claimied: "Those conclusions were based on undocumented statements."
The "statements", by which I assume you mean those of the author, were documented by the fact that he was quoted in a book and then again by the fact that I quoted the him here.
And again we remind there were no "conclusions" made by anyone.
You have reached the height of speciosity.
As to linking to the previous several times I linked the same quote just repeat the present quote three times and it would be like that.
LOL Carl Blare and Rich should get on radio together, it would make for one hell of a comedy show! HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHHA!
I love it!
Carry on guys!
Bruce.
I concur, I think that it would make for a heck of a part 15 show. How about it guys???
Solipsism in philosophy is the doctrine that an individual projects the world.
The world projected by Rich is light years from the part 15 hobby world the rest of us project.
Consider his ravings:
"Documentation is not the natural consequence of a simple statement published in print or available on the Internet, even if you (and/or others) quote it, and believe that it is.
"In this case, documentation requires scientific study producing published results/data that can be replicated by independent investigators, and which is relevant to the operation of FCC Part 15 AM stations.
"So far you and your references have provided nothing of that nature."
Those comments would fit a medical white papers website or NASA space flight project but are miles from anything being done in part 15.
I won't be providing anything "of that nature".
Part 15 in 2016 has two laundry piles...
One is the hobbybroadcaster embarrassment which we talk about because it's so over the top.
The other laundry heap is Rich trying so consistently and persistently to discredit me which is bizarre in that I take no particular credit for anything significant.
The moderators don't want brawling members soiling the threads and many threads get closed when the topics become obscured.
Perhaps Rich would consider spreading it around a little and discredit other members for a change and leave me out of it.
This thread is about loading coils and some very interesting ideas have been presented, aside from any debunking that may have attempted to shut them down.
I haven't read the article about why a horizontal coil would work differently than a vertical one, maybe it could on over the ground plane of a car, with a cap hat? From my experience, coils by themselves don't have much of a field, the ferrite receiving loops or PVC coils with a few inches of wire on them. If the coil was really long I could see an effect, because the coil itself would be another radiator, but short as it is, it doesn't have the surface area.
Even the idea behind "thread drift" is kind of illogical when you look at it, because people read different parts of an article and filter out posts they don't want to read anyway.
I like to see the shootout with Carl and Rich, it shows that all is not rules and regs, I like the conservative versus liberal viewpoints, it makes for good talk radio. This is the fun site, I'd hate to see it get like other sites, (which I haven't really read, but infer their politics and quirks). I won't bother to stay at a site that tends to the draconian, I'll have fun on the radio instead.
In response to a post about horizontally mounted coils increasing Q, I had asked if the same situation could be posturized as possible if a coil were installed IN a metal box under the antenna. That is, if the antenna were mounted to the top of the box (outside), and the transmitter coil etc were INSIDE the box. This might be or might become a typical installation for some Part15'ers. In my case, I am using a metal toolbox with both the coil and antenna mounted to the top.
I propose, without basis or fact, that the coil mounted in the box would not have the reactance with the radiator and thus:
a) IF the coil were capable of increasing Q by being placed horizontally when NOT IN the proposed metal box, would it do so WHEN IN the proposed metal box?
b) There would be reactance/coupling with the metal box and I propose antenna matching (coil taps used) would be dramatically changed from the same installation of the coil mounted outside the box.
c) Comments - Theories???
I also want to propose that in regards to mobile applications on 40M and 80M:
1) A capacitance hat, the loading coil, radiator etc actually have a "sweet" spot in relation to the distance above the physical earth on vehicle. The theory is that a "coupling" takes place that actually increases efficiency in some situations.
2) This has been discussed at various times during "antenna shootouts". This vernacular is a term related to when Ham operators get together to test antennas and different configurations of those antennas. Vehicle style and composition may effect this also.
3) The above paragraph might be applied to a 180 meter installation (AM Band), if said antenna were were mounted either on a post or near ground with radials (as was possibly demonstrated in a earlier youtube link).
4) I have no hard data on it, but I would theorize a relation to wavelength would apply thereby further increasing efficiency.
5) I further theorize that since we can not fully rely on given knowledge for a true 180 meter (AM) antenna installation because of size limitations applied to us by Part 15 rules, that very little written data exists. Most software modeling falls apart falls apart outside of the given parameters it was designed for.
The concept of coils in use with Part 15 Am broadcasters is important. It is currently the best we have to match our limited radiators to the output of our transmitters for maximum efficiency and range. Time spent on this is a good investment.
Lets continue the discussion!!!
And I still think a good discussion regarding this topic would be a great topic for an upcoming "Blare on the Air."
I have my shoulder pads on... The ball is in the air...
About Reply 38 (C. Blare):
... "Those conclusions were based on undocumented statements."
The "statements", by which I assume you mean those of the author, were documented by the fact that he was quoted in a book and then again by the fact that I quoted the him here. ...
Documentation is not the natural consequence of a simple statement published in print or available on the Internet, even if you (and/or others) quote it, and believe that it is.
In this case, documentation requires scientific study producing published results/data that can be replicated by independent investigators, and which is relevant to the operation of FCC Part 15 AM stations.
So far you and your references have provided nothing of that nature.