Amateur TV (ATV) and TV license
V100
you don't have a TV license (because you don't actually watch domestic TV),
it is illegal.
This applies to all amateur bands where ATV operation can be used, e.g.
70cms, 23/24cms.
Why should you need a TV license? The only TV I am interested in is amateur
TV. I don't watch TV so I don't have a TV license! I don't even have a TV. I
use a monitor to display the amateur TV pictures on.
It doesn't seem fair to me that I am still required to have a TV license,
even just to watch my local ATV repeater on 24cms. It's a disgrace quite
frankly.
Frank Turner-Smith
news:b892lq$6js$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
reception of television transmissions.' It doesn't specify TV broadcasts or
programmes. I suppose you even need a licence if you have a security camera
with a 2.4GHz link. Just be thankful it's not one licence per TV, YET!
:>(
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI, just renewed my TV licence - OUCH
Harry Bloomfield
says...
You don't need a license to watch amateur television transmissions, you
only need a license for watching broadcast television.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT)
http://www.ukradioamateur.org
Richard Kaulfuss
<frank.tur...@baesystems.com> wrote:
>"V100" <v10...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:b892lq$6js$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> If you are operating ATV equipment, i.e transmitters and/or receivers, but
>> you don't have a TV license (because you don't actually watch domestic
>TV),
>> it is illegal.
>> This applies to all amateur bands where ATV operation can be used, e.g.
>> 70cms, 23/24cms.
>>
>> Why should you need a TV license? The only TV I am interested in is
>amateur
>> TV. I don't watch TV so I don't have a TV license! I don't even have a TV.
>I
>> use a monitor to display the amateur TV pictures on.
>>
>> It doesn't seem fair to me that I am still required to have a TV license,
>> even just to watch my local ATV repeater on 24cms. It's a disgrace quite
>> frankly.
>>
>>
>Unfortunately, the licence is required to 'operate equipment for the
>reception of television transmissions.' It doesn't specify TV broadcasts or
>programmes.
It used to. When did they make the change? (I no longer need one now
that my mother lives with us - she gets a free one.)
--
Dick
zpk
>If you are operating ATV equipment, i.e transmitters and/or receivers, but
>you don't have a TV license (because you don't actually watch domestic TV),
>it is illegal.
>This applies to all amateur bands where ATV operation can be used, e.g.
>70cms, 23/24cms.
>
>Why should you need a TV license? The only TV I am interested in is amateur
{
you sound like MEGHZ or RF-MAN with your argument equivalent to
why do i have to do a morse test to get hf when i wont use morse code?
or
why cant i operate on 28mhz when i can already operate on 50mhz?
}
if it can receive and show a picture from bbc-1 then you need
a tv-license - regardless of whether you watch bbc-1
over here...a bloke was done for no licese for having a tv aerial on
his roof and ne'er a sign of a tv in his house !
Who@botmail.com Don
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message > >I suppose you even need a
licence if you have a security camera
> >with a 2.4GHz link.
>
> video tapes/DVDs/etc. Whether you own them or are hiring them.
>
If you watch the videos/DVDs on a domestic TV set then you need a licence.
You need a monitor or a TV with the tuner disabled to watch pre-recorded
tapes/DVD without a TV licence. And if you use a Video you also need to
disable the tuner.
oscura
I dont't drive so why should I pay for the roads?,
I don't smoke so why should I pay for those who suffer?,
I don't actualy do anything usfull for society.......
Diphthong
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:17:37 +0100, "V100" <v10...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >If you are operating ATV equipment, i.e transmitters and/or receivers, but
> >you don't have a TV license (because you don't actually watch domestic TV),
> >it is illegal.
> >This applies to all amateur bands where ATV operation can be used, e.g.
> >70cms, 23/24cms.
> >
> >Why should you need a TV license? The only TV I am interested in is amateur
>
> {
> you sound like MEGHZ or RF-MAN with your argument equivalent to
> why do i have to do a morse test to get hf when i wont use morse code?
> or
> why cant i operate on 28mhz when i can already operate on 50mhz?
> }
>
LOL, and you still haven't got a GOOD answer for them, have you?
Harry Bloomfield
W...@botmail.com> says...
|If you watch the videos/DVDs on a domestic TV set then you need a licence.
|You need a monitor or a TV with the tuner disabled to watch pre-recorded
|tapes/DVD without a TV licence. And if you use a Video you also need to
|disable the tuner.
|
|
|
Not true.....
You only need a license to watch television broadcasts. I suppose if you
were to watch a recording of a program which had been transmitted then a
license would be required. To watch videos DVD's and etc. no license is
required, but you must be able to prove that the equipment is not used
for the viewing of broadcast material.
zpk
wrote:
>
>Not so in the rest of the British Isles - you are still Brit's over
>there... Did I mention that? ;-)
>
>Take a look on www.tvlicensing.co.uk
we're obviously operating on the King George 'the wosit' rulebook :-)
The revision service from HMSO seems to have stopped around 1947....
i wonder why :-)
zpk
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:34:09 GMT,
>dmu_pke...@rondomondo.eircom.ru.tv.net (zpk) wrote:
>
>>we're obviously operating on the King George 'the wosit' rulebook :-)
>>
>>The revision service from HMSO seems to have stopped around 1947....
>>i wonder why :-)
>
>That was around the time your lot left The Commonwealth.
>Proving that even in Ireland they get some things right! :-)
and we still dont have an FL - THANK GOD! (sorry Nick)
Who@botmail.com Don
Don
Dave
"Don" <don W...@botmail.com> wrote in message
news:jRnqa.11$So1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> You're both wrong, but I wont argue the point.
>
> Don
Who are both wrong?
It would help if you quoted some of the post you are replying to.
DE G6 KHP
Dave
Ian Walker
Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAMtiscali.co.uk> writes
>In article <Vl5qa.36$1p5....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "Don" <don
>W...@botmail.com> says...
> |If you watch the videos/DVDs on a domestic TV set then you need a licence.
> |You need a monitor or a TV with the tuner disabled to watch pre-recorded
> |tapes/DVD without a TV licence. And if you use a Video you also need to
> |disable the tuner.
> |
>Not true.....
>
>You only need a license to watch television broadcasts. I suppose if you
>were to watch a recording of a program which had been transmitted then a
>license would be required.
Someone must hold a licence.
>To watch videos DVD's and etc. no license is
>required, but you must be able to prove that the equipment is not used
>for the viewing of broadcast material.
Er, no. In English law, with a few exceptions they must prove that you
have (intentionally) committed the offence. If you do not have an
antenna then it is arguable that you are not receiving broadcast
television programmes.
--
Ian G8ILZ
Ian Walker
<wal...@tiscali.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:16:27 +0100, Ian Walker <Jun...@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>Er, no. In English law, with a few exceptions they must prove that you
>>have (intentionally) committed the offence.
>
>out of the window back in the Thatcher era.
That precept has not been overturned.
>Intentionally? Does that mean it's a defence to say you accidentally
>did 34 mph in the 30 mph zone? I don't think so.
I must apologise for using the difficult word 'exceptions', you clearly
do not understand it. I further apologise for using the advanced
grammatical device of placing a subsidiary condition within parenthesis.
A lack of intent can sometimes be mitigating or negating of an offence,
but not always; determination of relevance is for the prosecution
department and the courts to decide.
Me thinks he doth protest too much!
--
Ian G8ILZ
Airy R Bean
Walt Davidson <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ll0navgilnjqn84e6...@4ax.com...
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
news:3eaba18e$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
speeding prosecutions have increased by about 100%, and all other driving
offences (careless driving, vehicle defects etc) have dropped by anything up
to 50%. Looks like the plods are taking the easy route and letting the
cameras do the work.
;>)
--
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
watch this space - if it moves, see your optician.
zpk
<g3...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>to 50%. Looks like the plods are taking the easy route
they musy have got a FL CD from Brian :-)
Airy R Bean
they habitually are?
zpk <dmu_pke...@rondomondo.eircom.ru.tv.net> wrote in message
news:3eabad4f...@news1.eircom.net...
Jeff
>
> Er, no. In English law, with a few exceptions they must prove that you
> have (intentionally) committed the offence. If you do not have an
> antenna then it is arguable that you are not receiving broadcast
> television programmes.
>
> --
> Ian G8ILZ
Unfortunately S.1 if the WTA is one of those exceptions
There is case law on this: R. v. Blake, TLR, 14/8/96 C/A; [1997]
Crim.L.R. 207
"The offence created by S.1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 of
establishing or using a any station...without a licence was an absolute
offence and
proof of mens rea was not required."
This was upheld in the Court of Appeal.
73
Jeff
zpk
<g8...@aerial.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>There is case law on this: R. v. Blake, TLR, 14/8/96 C/A; [1997]
>Crim.L.R. 207
>
>"The offence created by S.1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 of
>establishing or using a any station...without a licence was an absolute
>offence and
>proof of mens rea was not required."
>
>This was upheld in the Court of Appeal.
sort of makes the suggestion that the establishment of an M3 station
with any common or garden commercial txrx illegal.
Ian Walker
<g8...@aerial.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>.
>>
>> Er, no. In English law, with a few exceptions they must prove that you
>> have (intentionally) committed the offence. If you do not have an
>> antenna then it is arguable that you are not receiving broadcast
>> television programmes.
>
>
>There is case law on this: R. v. Blake, TLR, 14/8/96 C/A; [1997]
>Crim.L.R. 207
>
>"The offence created by S.1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 of
>establishing or using a any station...without a licence was an absolute
>offence and
>proof of mens rea was not required."
>
>This was upheld in the Court of Appeal.
I do not know the details of that, but I would contend that since the TV
is not established or used to receive 'television programme services' as
specified in the TV Licence the receiver is covered by the statutory
instrument of 1989 which exempted most receivers from WTA 1949 (etc.)
s1.
--
Ian G8ILZ
Jeff
> is not established or used to receive 'television programme services' as
> specified in the TV Licence the receiver is covered by the statutory
> instrument of 1989 which exempted most receivers from WTA 1949 (etc.)
> s1.
> --
> Ian G8ILZ
From memory, receivers capable of receiving TV images are specifically
excluded in the SI that exempts receivers from S.1 of the WTA.
However, I agree that no licence is required for watching video etc.
as long as the installation is incapable of receiving off-air.
Amateur TV, I guess, could be a problem if the receiver is capable
of receiving BOTH amateur and broadcast bands. (no problem
if receive is restricted to just amateur bands.
)
73
Jeff
g3...@blueyonder.co.uk
>Something to do with the F*******ing Liars that
>they habitually are?
You seem to have had a bad experience with the police force. What have
you got against them?
Dave
"Ian Walker" <Jun...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:MjgUK0EL...@newbrain.demon.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.19135e59d...@news.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
> Bloomfield <harry...@NOSPAMtiscali.co.uk> writes
> >In article <Vl5qa.36$1p5....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "Don" <don
> >W...@botmail.com> says...
> > |If you watch the videos/DVDs on a domestic TV set then you need a
licence.
> > |You need a monitor or a TV with the tuner disabled to watch
pre-recorded
> > |tapes/DVD without a TV licence. And if you use a Video you also need
to
> > |disable the tuner.
> > |
> >Not true.....
> >
> >You only need a license to watch television broadcasts. I suppose if you
> >were to watch a recording of a program which had been transmitted then a
> >license would be required.
No, not if the recording was made by some one else.
You can have a TV and a video recorder connected and watch a video/DVD
without a licence, provided that you do not have an aerial/antenna connected
to either device.
> Someone must hold a licence.
>
> >To watch videos DVD's and etc. no license is
> >required, but you must be able to prove that the equipment is not used
> >for the viewing of broadcast material.
The onus of proof is not with the holder of the equipment, but the DTI.
> Er, no. In English law, with a few exceptions they must prove that you
> have (intentionally) committed the offence. If you do not have an
> antenna then it is arguable that you are not receiving broadcast
> television programmes.
Roughly correct!
What is the case where your next door neighbour is receiving the TV
transmissions on his computer and is passing that recording to your house
via a network cable with a delay of 60 seconds?
Or indeed 2 seconds ;-))
Just where does the law stand on this ;-)
I look forward to the replies.
DE G6 KHP
Dave
Dave
"Jeff" <g8...@aerial.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b8ghj4$ql$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> .
> >
> > Er, no. In English law, with a few exceptions they must prove that you
> > have (intentionally) committed the offence. If you do not have an
> > antenna then it is arguable that you are not receiving broadcast
> > television programmes.
> >
> > --
> > Ian G8ILZ
>
> Unfortunately S.1 if the WTA is one of those exceptions
No it isn't. G8ILZ is correct.
The DTI have to prove to the court that there was intent, no matter what
your miss-quoted case may appear to say.
> There is case law on this: R. v. Blake, TLR, 14/8/96 C/A; [1997]
> Crim.L.R. 207
>
> "The offence created by S.1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 of
> establishing or using a any station...without a licence was an absolute
> offence and
> proof of mens rea was not required."
Translation required here, so that I can argue further, not being a scholar
of Latin.
> This was upheld in the Court of Appeal.
We will see, when you post about the mens rea aspect of this case.
DE G6 KHP
Dave
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
news:b8g8ce$9jdlv$1...@ID-185765.news.dfncis.de...
> "Airy R Bean" <SPAM@trap> wrote in message
> news:3eaba18e$1...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > Speeding is an offence of strict liability.
> >
> > Walt Davidson <wal...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ll0navgilnjqn84e6...@4ax.com...
> > > Intentionally? Does that mean it's a defence to say you accidentally
> > > did 34 mph in the 30 mph zone? I don't think so.
> >
> According to a Sunday Times report I've just seen, over the past year
> speeding prosecutions have increased by about 100%, and all other driving
> offences (careless driving, vehicle defects etc) have dropped by anything
up
> to 50%. Looks like the plods are taking the easy route and letting the
> cameras do the work.
> ;>)
believe to be initially conducted on the M42), you will be allowed to use
the hard shoulder of a motorway as another lane during congestion. What an
absolutely brilliant idea! A three lane car park becomes a four lane car
park, with the additional bonus of no emergency service vehicles being able
to get to the scene of an accident. Who appoints these cretins, where do
they find them and why can't they just leave them under their stones?
:>(
--
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
watch this space - if it moves, see your optician, (if you can get there.)
Who@botmail.com Don
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:p7akav8rtn3guh4q3...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 05:22:15 +0100, "Don"
> <Who.know...@botmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You're both wrong, but I wont argue the point.
>
>
> You won't argue the point because you're wrong and you know it.
> You are really G4SDW and I claim my 5p
>
Naw. Not right. but a G4*** I will admit to. No not a cop out I just feel
that there is far too much slanging done in this NG and I didn't want to
risk this becoming the same. However as you ask. I am required to have a
TV licence to 'receive' TV broadcasts. No mention of actually watching. If
the TV is connected to the mains, whether or not there is an antenna
attached, my TV is receiving broadcasts. In fact in my area I can get a
good almost noise free signal without even a screwdriver in the aerial
socket. That means that my TV is receiving broadcasts for which I require a
licence. It does not matter if I don't watch them. Same goes for a video.
Trying to prove I only use the TV as a monitor wont hold water. It has been
tried before. The guy got done. Only way to be sure is to actually disable
the tuner. Remove it.
Now what about using a PROPER monitor to watch someone elses pre-recorded
Corrie? That's what I want to know?
Don
Frank Turner-Smith
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:37:03 +0100, "Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI"
> <g3...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I've just heard of another brainwave from the DoT:- as an experiment, (I
> >believe to be initially conducted on the M42), you will be allowed to use
> >the hard shoulder of a motorway as another lane during congestion. What
an
> >absolutely brilliant idea! A three lane car park becomes a four lane car
> >park, with the additional bonus of no emergency service vehicles being
able
> >to get to the scene of an accident. Who appoints these cretins, where do
> >they find them and why can't they just leave them under their stones?
> >:>(
>
> bringing the entire motorway network to a standstill, they are saving
> lives!
>
> 73 de G3NYY
>
Of course, I should have seen the obvious. That will be why one of the more
sensible recent change proposals to motorway law, i.e. allowing you to pass
middle lane hogs on either side, was rejected.
;>)
oscura
feeder which is connected to an MFJ 969 ATU alongside the rig (Yeasu 875).
I would like to build a balanced ATU to sit at the bottom of the feeder and
wonder if anyone has tried this or has any designs. Would also be
interested in an automatic balanced atu if such a thing exists.
Martin M0MGM
oscura
Frank Turner-Smith
news:Xns936B7BE9CD...@130.133.1.4...
> Uttered Frank Turner-Smith with scant regard for uk.radio.amateur:
>
> > Of course, I should have seen the obvious. That will be why one of the
> > more sensible recent change proposals to motorway law, i.e. allowing
> > you to pass middle lane hogs on either side, was rejected.
> >
>
> pass a middle lane hog in the inside lane? Most of them will cut across
you
> at the last moment, just to be a nuisance. Worse, it'll be your insurance
> that pays up because "undertaking" is asking for trouble.
>
> I usually do the following on a clear motorway: Get as close as I can,
> deliberately check my speed to theirs, look pointedly in the mirror and at
> the idiot, then carefully move to the third lane. I then overtake and
quite
> deliberately move straight back to the first in one manoeuvre. They
usually
> get the message.
>
I find that works for SOME of them. The extreme cases are oblivious to
anything outside their little metal box and there's nothing you can do. I've
often wished I could flick a switch and transform my car into a 30 ton artic
when confronted with one of them.
M5WJF
balancing a homebrew ATU at the end of the feeder would seem a difficult
task unless this area is in a sheltered location.
M5WJF
Richard
"oscura" <(Anit-spam-remove to reply)osc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:3eacf8ea$1...@news.userve.net...
http://www.hamware.de/hardware/tuner402/at402-e.htm
Remote balanced tuner, but I'm sure it's not quite what you are seeking.
oscura
saturation problems. However may only real use has been on 80 and 40 where I
have had no problems and better signal reports!
"M5WJF" <n...@chance.com> wrote in message
news:b8j8e6$a3e$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Reg Edwards
=========================
Try another comic paper.
oscura
"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b8jcbu$rmk$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
John Mortlock
Ask on the specialist antenna news group rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Jeff
> > "The offence created by S.1(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 of
> > establishing or using a any station...without a licence was an absolute
> > offence and
> > proof of mens rea was not required."
>
> Translation required here, so that I can argue further, not being a
scholar
> of Latin.
>
> > This was upheld in the Court of Appeal.
>
> We will see, when you post about the mens rea aspect of this case.
>
> DE G6 KHP
>
> Dave
>
"Mens Rea" is the state of mind indicating culpability which is required by
statute as an element of a crime; ie "intent".
The case I quoted set a precedent that "intent" was not required as
an element for conviction under S.1 of the WTA.
Here are a few details of the case:
"Investigation officers heard an unlicensed radio station broadcast and
traced it to a flat where the defendant was discovered alone standing in
front of the record decks, still playing music and wearing a set of
headphones. Though the defendant admitted that he knew he was using the
equipment, he claimed that he believed he was making demonstration tapes and
did not know he was transmitting. The defendant was convicted of using
wireless telegraphy equipment without a licence, contrary to s1(1) Wireless
Telegraphy Act 1949 and appealed on the basis that the offence required mens
rea.
The Court of Appeal held that the offence was an absolute (actually a
strict) liability offence. "
So in summary, the defendant claimed that he was not aware that he was
transmitting (no intent to break the WTA), but the court and the Appeal
Court held that intent was not required and the conviction was upheld.
73
Jeff
Dave
Many thanks for your answer. It ranks as one, of only one, on this ng, that
explains a conviction by the DTI. Usually, there is some reference to the WT
act (widely held to contain only the words of the late forties version) and
then a brief reference to a court case that proves to be nothing like the
offence that occurred.
It is clear from the above, that intent did not need to be proved. I just
wish the DTI would do the same with some CBers around here.
DE G6 KHP
Dave
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
news:Xns936B7BE9CD...@130.133.1.4...
> Uttered Frank Turner-Smith with scant regard for uk.radio.amateur:
>
> > more sensible recent change proposals to motorway law, i.e. allowing
> > you to pass middle lane hogs on either side, was rejected.
> >
>
> pass a middle lane hog in the inside lane? Most of them will cut across
you
> at the last moment, just to be a nuisance. Worse, it'll be your insurance
> that pays up because "undertaking" is asking for trouble.
>
become the lane changer's fault.
;>)
--
watch this space - if it moves, see your optician.
Who@botmail.com Don
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:t7oqavkuibp3ai6f8...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:59:40 +0100, "Don" <don W...@botmail.com> wrote:
>
> >However as you ask. I am required to have a
> >TV licence to 'receive' TV broadcasts. No mention of actually watching.
If
> >the TV is connected to the mains, whether or not there is an antenna
> >attached, my TV is receiving broadcasts.
>
>
> Try an email to TVLO - I used to work for them when they were still BT
> - they'll confirm precisely what I've said. I was quoting it from a
> letter from them which (as it happens) I keep handy. :-)
>
Well Nick I won't pursue the er discussion. We keep our respective
positions. It's academic really since I have a licence both for my amateur
activities (silly I know but then I'm Law Abiding :-\) and TV receiving.
(even sillier).
And don't call me a pedant. Cyclists are the bane of motorists.
Don
g3...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
>In message <3eae2ba7...@news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>g3...@blueyonder.co.uk writes
>Why do you make that assumption?
>
>Have you never heard of the Birmingham 6, or Stefan Kizkco?
I'm asking Gareth, not you...
>
>Are you just making cheap jibes for the fun of it?
F8BOE Olivier
73 de F8BOE
"oscura" <(Anit-spam-remove to reply)osc...@btopenworld.com> a écrit dans le
message de news: 3eacf8ea$1...@news.userve.net...
Roger Muggleton
news_...@leighs.org (Leigh) wrote:
> Reg does not like the G5RV and, if you research into it, you will see
> why.
>
> Best make an Inverted-L or simple dipople, etc, for the bands you
> require.
Dipoles are by definition single band aerial (although a 40m dipole might
be useable on 15m). I assume an 'Inverted L' is really an end-fed quarter
wave, i.e. a single band aerial too.
The G5RV was meant to be useable on several bands, and solve the problem
of many amateurs who don't have the space for more than one wire aerial.
Being a compromise, it works better on some bands than others, but many
amateurs found it a useful design.
In the past I have made doublets that worked well and match easily on two
bands. By juggling the size of the doublet and the length of twin feeder,
it's not too difficult to do this by trial and error. And there is a
useful DOS program on Regs web site that will help with this. Doing the
same for more bands gets tricky. If you know how Regs software works, it
should not be too difficult to write an application to explore the
characteristics of a doublet for each amateur band, and thus derive the
dimensions of a best fit aerial for a given set of bands. Whether it will
radiate well on all these bands is another matter.
Roger.
Reg Edwards
> Reg does not like the G5RV and, if you research into it, you will see why.
>
=============================
Leigh, you got me wrong. But I know what you mean.
I have no likes or dislikes amongst the infinite variety of dipole+feedline
combinations. Otherwise it could be incorrectly interpretted as a dislike of
that fellow countryman of mine, Mr Varney, who first described the
dimensions to meet a particular purpose appropriate to the equipment
available in his day and age. It is unlikely such an antenna had never been
used before. It would have been fairly obvious to a radio engineer with a
similar radiation pattern in mind. I never met the distinguished man but I
was told 6 months we had both visited a rally on the same afternoon.
Quite simply the G5RV was designed to provide a broad 4-lobed radiation
pattern on the most popular of the amateur DX bands, 14MHz, simultaneously
with around a 100-ohm transmitter load over a feedline of no particular Zo
which suited the tuned-tank, link-coupled, valve-type RF power amplifiers
which everybody used in those days. There were no RF power transistors.
He described to amateurs how it worked with its 14Mz 1/2-wave line
transformer, most of whom had never heard of such a 'clever' arrangement
before. It caught on immediately because it did very well exactly what it
was intended for. Of course, as everybody soon found out for themselves, it
would also work reasonably well on one or two other bands. Remember,
mysterious T, Pi and L-tuners were seldom thought of by amateurs in those
days. There was just a swinging link near a fixed coil and a tuning
condenser which has its limitations except at its favoured design frequency.
As the G5RV popularity grew separate tuners also became fashionable. With a
bit of luck most bands from 80 to 10m could be tuned up. And as G5RV himself
pointed out, by strapping together the feedline wires the resulting
T-antenna worked well on 160 metres too provided you could find a good
ground connection. On 160m the nearest water pipe was usually saisfactory.
It still is.
And so you have it - an all round, all bands antenna.
But once you have a separate tuner between transmitter and open-wire
feedline, or the newly-arrived ladder lines, you are completely free of the
specified 102 feet. You can choose what you like provided it will fit into
your back yard and it doesn't annoy the neighbours.
It was the much heralded coming of RF power transistors which then allowed a
virtue to be made out of a vice - they objected to high-impedance tuned
tanks but were happy with low volts and lots of amps. The proposed
low-impedance alternative of a push-pull tuned tank using twin-gang 5000pF
variable air-spaced tuning capacitors was of course non-existent. And so,
with the coming of the bipolar, wide-band RF power transistor, the good old
faithful work horse, the tuned tank, first used by Marconi and his
contemporaries, completely disappeared from commercial low-power rigs. The
history of radio is littered with vices-come-virtues.
(Actually, a one-band, fixed-tuned-tank, 50-watt transmitter works fine with
a dust-iron toroid and a compression-type mica capacitor).
The age of the transistor+tuner+feedline+dipole had begun - except that
plagiarist old-wives, monthly magazines, annuals, proffiteering
manufacturers and, above all, radio newsgoups, between them have managed to
keep the Marzipan the Magician 102-feet of wire going for another
quarter-century longer than necessary.
Ian, why not do something like the forgoing obituary for RadCom.
---
Reg, G4FGQ
Reg Edwards
> should not be too difficult to write an application to explore the
> characteristics of a doublet for each amateur band, and thus derive the
> dimensions of a best fit aerial for a given set of bands. Whether it will
> radiate well on all these bands is another matter.
====================================
Whether it will radiate well is often more to do with where the stuff is
going rather than losses in the tuner or line or antenna or ground. Although
a 160m dipole can have high radiating efficiency on 10m, if the whole lot is
going narrowly off the ends or straight up into the air where nobody lives
it will not do very well.
---------------------------
There's no need to know what the software is doing. I can assure you if I
provided the Pascal source code you wouldn't have the remotest idea what on
earth was going on. Some weeks after writing a program like DIPOLE3 it I
have great difficulty in sorting out what it's supposed to be doing myself.
To effect modifications it is often easier to go back to square one and
rewrite everything.
As a special treat for G5RV worshippers, with one hit of a key, you can
enter dimensions of the G5RV, height above ground and the lengths of the
balanced and coax feedlines. You can insert a balun if you want. The
L-network tuner is automatically adjusted to match a 50-ohm transmitter and
its circuit configuration and L&C component values are displayed
The SWR and losses (efficiency) on both transmission lines and tuner are
calculated. But for your purposes the most important output data are the
input impedances (R+jX) of the antenna feedpoint, of the balanced line
section, and of the coax section if you have one.
Having entered all dimensions into the program all you have to do is sweep
the 'test' frequency up and down wherever you fancy.
As the test frequency passes through the various resonances the input
impedances pass through a minimum and the reactances change sign. To assist
with searching for resonances the reactances change colours as they change
sign.
The spectrum can be swept from 1.8 to 30MHz in no more time than it takes to
write down on paper a list of all resonant frequencies with the input
impedances and SWR's on both lines at those frequencies.
If you not happy with the results there's no alternative but to change
antenna or line lengths or both and sweep again.
Unless you have a number-crunching computer and 5000 man-hours of time to
write a Monte Carlo program to do the job.
---
Reg, G4FGQ
andrew
G3VKI <g3...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I've just heard of another brainwave from the DoT:- as an experiment, (I
>believe to be initially conducted on the M42), you will be allowed to use
>the hard shoulder of a motorway as another lane during congestion. What an
>absolutely brilliant idea! A three lane car park becomes a four lane car
>park, with the additional bonus of no emergency service vehicles being able
>to get to the scene of an accident. Who appoints these cretins, where do
>they find them and why can't they just leave them under their stones?
>:>(
And if you break down and get onto the hard shoulder, you will then get
some idiot doing 90mph ramming into the back of you. Real good idea by
the DoT !!!
Andrew Williamson GI0NWG / AC6WI
Homepage = http://www.gi0nwg.freeserve.co.uk/
One of the ZL9CI gang
http://www.qsl.net/zl9ci/
andrew
writes
>I don't go to school anymore so why should I pay for them?,
Who paid for your education?
>I dont't drive so why should I pay for the roads?,
I think you'll find that you get more from the motorists taxes than they
get from yours.
>I don't smoke so why should I pay for those who suffer?,
I'll give you that one!!
>I don't actualy do anything usfull for society.......
Your words.... ;-)
Jeff Cunliffe
>Something to do with the F*******ing Liars that
>they habitually are?
"The language of the CBer, it would seem....."
Ian Walker
<viv...@hotmail.com> writes
Some of the words are too long for a CBer!
--
Ian G8ILZ
Airy R Bean
However, a CBer might assume that the word intended
was, "F***ing", as, indeed, you did.
Perhaps CBers such as yourself are unable to count up to
7?
Jeff Cunliffe <viv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jsoabvovkr43rvu4n...@4ax.com...
Andy Cowley
>
> In article <Xns936EE011E6D...@130.133.1.4>,
> news_...@leighs.org (Leigh) wrote:
>
> > Reg does not like the G5RV and, if you research into it, you will see
> > why.
> >
> > Best make an Inverted-L or simple dipople, etc, for the bands you
> > require.
>
> Dipoles are by definition single band aerial (although a 40m dipole might
> be useable on 15m). I assume an 'Inverted L' is really an end-fed quarter
> wave, i.e. a single band aerial too.
>
A resonant dipole may be a single band aerial, but it is wrong to state that
a dipole is a single band aerial, certainly not by definition. With a suitable
matching network a dipole can be made to operate correctly on any arbitrary
frequency. Herr Hertz would never have got started if what you stated was true.
You seem to use the term 'doublet' to mean a non resonant dipole. A dipole is
any aerial which consists of two equal and opposite parts. The term 'dipole' does
not imply any particular relationship between aerial length and operating frequency.
The urban myth of 'resonance = efficiency' is the curse of ham radio. A matching
network constructed of suitable, low loss components can match a non resonant
aerial with an undetectably small loss in many circumstances. Open wire feeders
can be operated at VSWRs of several hundred without introducing unacceptable
losses. The only reason for the adoption of resonant aerials is to avoid the
losses in unsuitable (lossy) feeders at high VSWRs and allow the antenna to
be fed with coax.
What G5RV did popularise was a particular length of Hertzian dipole that was
relatively easy to tune on several bands, needing relatively easy to obtain
values for the matching network. The inclusion of 75 ohm coax in the feed
arrangements was a non optimal choice which even Louis Varney himself admitted
was better replaced by open wire feeder all the way to the matching network,
which, by the way, Varney also stated was required. The aerial is then a
simple non resonant dipole, fed with low loss open wire feeder, well known
and used before G5RV, and definitely not deserving of a new name.
vy 73
Andy, M3ABC
Peter Onion
Andy Cowley <andy....@uwe.ac.uk> writes:
> You seem to use the term 'doublet' to mean a non resonant dipole. A dipole is
> any aerial which consists of two equal and opposite parts. The term 'dipole' does
> not imply any particular relationship between aerial length and operating frequency.
>
Since W4RNL also uses the term "Doublet" in this way I think it is
quite acceptable. I would take far more notice of him than I would take
of you on antenna matters.
G0DZB
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
news:kpjfbvcffuhctdde4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:59:40 +0100, "Don" <don W...@botmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am required to have a
> > TV licence to 'receive' TV broadcasts. No mention of actually watching.
If
> > the TV is connected to the mains, whether or not there is an antenna
> > attached, my TV is receiving broadcasts.
>
>
> You need a licence to install or to use equipment in order to receive TV
> program services. That may sound deceptively similar to what you wrote,
> but the term "TV program services" does not mean any and all broadcasts or
> any and all transmissions, it means just those services defined in Section
> 2(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990. So you need no TV licence to receive
> amateur TV or indeed many commercial broadcasts originating from abroad.
>
> Tony
That must be a recent change, then. I always understood the TV licence to be
for the operation of TV receiving apparatus, irrespective of what the TV was
tuned to.
Gareth (G1LVN)
>
> That must be a recent change, then. I always understood the TV licence to be
> for the operation of TV receiving apparatus, irrespective of what the TV was
> tuned to.
> ;>)
As I understood it, owning anything with a TV tuner in it will count so you
cannot get away with a video and monitor (unless it's a play only video
player). I recall that blind people could get a discount if they had a TV audio
only radio.
If you've got something like an FT736 with the 23cms and video boards in it
connected to a monitor you wont need a TV licence since that'll only give you
reception on that amateur band (likewise for 70cms, though they'd probably argue
that 70cms is at the bottom of the UHF TV bands). Most other combinations of
satellite etc, require a standard TV somewhere in the equation.
no?
--
73 de G1LVN
Gateway details at: www.g1lvn.org.uk
(change "mycallsign" to reply by email)
send spam to ab...@theplanet.net
Gareth (G1LVN)
a handheld) and you or your houshold already hold a TV licence for the main
dwelling (e.g. students in halls of residence with a handheld TV) then you don't
need (a second) TV licence - the TV has to be a handheld one though and not
powered off an adaptor.
Gareth (G1LVN)
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:5atfbvgqeu9nlpvdb...@4ax.com...
didn't read the rest of the thread, so serves me right I guess.
Roger Muggleton
Cowley) wrote:
> A resonant dipole may be a single band aerial, but it is wrong to state
> that a dipole is a single band aerial, certainly not by definition.
Of course any dipole may radiate RF on any frequency, within reason. But
I've understood the word 'dipole' to be a short version of 'half-wave
dipole'. To me it is a doublet cut to be resonant on a stated band, and be
easy to feed (on that band), and have a well defined radiation pattern (on
that band). Perhaps you know a better word to describe this arrangement?
A forty metre half-wave dipole is not so easy to feed on 20 or 80. Yes, a
versatile ATU will manage the job, but the tuning is likely to be sharp
and the radiation pattern dissimilar to that on 40m. Hence it makes
more sense to vary the length of the doublet so that the aerial matches
more easily on the bands required. While the radiation pattern may be
unpredictable, at least it will match easily, and you'll be able to QSY
further without needing to retune the matching network.
Roger.
Andy Cowley
>
> In article <3EB7AA49...@uwe.ac.uk>, andy....@uwe.ac.uk (Andy
> Cowley) wrote:
>
> > A resonant dipole may be a single band aerial, but it is wrong to state
> > that a dipole is a single band aerial, certainly not by definition.
>
> Of course any dipole may radiate RF on any frequency, within reason. But
> I've understood the word 'dipole' to be a short version of 'half-wave
> dipole'. To me it is a doublet cut to be resonant on a stated band, and be
> easy to feed (on that band), and have a well defined radiation pattern (on
> that band). Perhaps you know a better word to describe this arrangement?
'resonant dipole'
I've always understood 'resonant dipole' or 'half-wave dipole' to be special
cases of the general class 'dipole', which I understand to mean any electrically
symmetrical antenna. 'Doublet' is given as an equivalent, alternate term by most
definitions I can find on-line. The U.S. patent department, for instance, uses
'doublet' throughout for all 'dipole' antennas.
So :-
A resonant dipole antenna is one cut to be 1/2,3/2,... lambda. One must of
course specify the frequency of interest. E.g. 'The G5RV is a 20 m resonant
dipole'
A half wave dipole antenna is a sub-class of resonant dipole. E.g. 'Each side
of a 2 m half wave dipole is about 19 1/2" long.'
A dipole antenna is _any_ antenna having two symmetrical radiating elements.
E.g. 'A wire dipole antenna of 35 metres overall length can be tuned with a
suitable matching network to work efficiently on any amateur band from 160 m
to 10 m'
In other words a dipole is still a dipole even if it is not resonant at the
frequency of interest.
The word 'doublet' may be substituted for the word 'dipole' in any antenna
context. It is more frequent in U.S. usage.
I agree that dipole is used in many ham contexts to mean 'resonant dipole'
and there is some usage of 'doublet' to mean a non resonant dipole, but
the U.S. patent department does not follow this distinction.
vy 73
Andy, M3ABC
Peter Onion
Andy Cowley <andy....@uwe.ac.uk> writes:
> I agree that dipole is used in many ham contexts to mean 'resonant dipole'
> and there is some usage of 'doublet' to mean a non resonant dipole, but
> the U.S. patent department does not follow this distinction.
Since when did they understand anything technical ?
Peter
Tech
"Airy R Bean" <SPAM@trap> wrote in message
news:3eb60...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...