NEW 2 Bands in USA: 630meters (472-479 kHz) and 2200 meters (135.7-137.8 kHz )

Unfortunately 50 years as a ham has not broadened your horizons very much at all. Like K2MDA you don't have a grasp of anything beyond your immediate and limited comfort zone. Do you understand Claude Shannon's 1948 ground breaking treatise "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" published in the Bell System Technical Journal? Do you appreciate the fact that the rules for these new bands were developed by international agreement and have already been implemented in most other countries? I keep seeing pointless comparisons to VHF FM wireless microphones and HTs, to me this indicates a total lack of technical savvy. I don't think you understand the symbiosis between modern narrowband techniques enabled by technologies such personal computers and GPS based frequency standards. The FCC apparently has a far greater understanding of these issues and shouldn't be criticized for lack of technical knowledge or for supporting these bands and promulgating these rules.

In case we forgot, part of the justification for the Amateur Service was to further the radio art, you can't further the radio art by just doing more of the same thing!

73 Warren K2ORS

 

Warren,

Not sure what Shannon has to do with all of this. I think we all understand, at some level, the notion of sampling and bit rate.

I have lived thru the alleged 'enhancement of the radio art' and am a living poster-child for how that is derided in ham circles. We really don't seem to want innovation within Part 97 nowadays, if one has to generalize. Truly a shame, IMO.

I mean really: look at this year's Technical Achievement Award--the awardee deserves to be awarded--he is a great guy who has worked very hard to help others-- but the achievement is not technical. Presumably it is now difficult to find a true technical achievement within ham radio. That seems to be the message. I think this is a big example of the (lack of innovation) problem in ham radio at present. It isn't happening (in general) and is not awarded when it does. MO, yours may differ.

I do not believe we have a culture of innovation in ham radio, at least one that is as pervasive as in previous decades. So I have little hope that these new bands will produce anything truly 'new'.

Probably, as you note, waveforms will be the best ticket to approaching anything innovative on the 'Lowbees'. Equipment, probably not, and antennas, just plain 'nope'.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Nobody?
If you ever made a dipole or studied for you license you would know a dipole is half a wavelength. The required 315 meters will easily fit in a standard 2 acre lot.

 

What is a 'standard' 2 acre lot?

If it's two acres square, that's a bit under 300 feet on a side, and bisecting the square would give you a bit over 400 feet... not enough space for an almost 1000' dipole.

Your 'standard' 2 acre lot would have to be quite skinny in order to be long enough.

 

Sure there are going to be some folks, particularly in very rural areas, who may have room for a 630 meter dipole if they want one. Considering the vast majority of transmissions on these frequencies are vertically polarized however I doubt even many of those will put up such an antenna.

 

All the experts talking without thinking_____Because an acre is a measure of area, not length, it is defined in square feet. An acre can be of any shape-a rectangle, a triangle, a circle, or even a star-so long as its area is exactly 43,560 square feet. The most standard shape for an acre is one furlong by one chain, or 660 feet by 66 feet. Don't forget trigonometry; hypotenuse = longest leg. 663.39 feet for a "standard acre". Math is your friend.

 

Considering that half a wavelength above ground for even a 75 meter or 160 meter dipole is a substantial undertaking, most dipoles are essentially vertical radiators.

 

The height affects the angle of radiation. I've never heard anyone suggest that it changes the polarization.

 

Nice opening!

OK, if you say that silly shape is the most standard shape for an acre, then what do you say is the most standard shape for TWO acres? 660 x 132? 1320 x 66 ? Something else? C'mon, be the expert and do tell us unwashed heathens who can't think for themselves.

As I said in my post, after some thought, believe it or not, to fit a 630 meter dipole on a 2 acre lot, it would have to be quite a long lot, and very skinny relative to it's length.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever seen an acre (or two for that matter) lot that fits your description of 'most standard'. I would venture that the vast majority of 1 or 2 acre building lots are MUCH more toward the wide rectangle, or even square. Who on earth would want an acre lot that's only 66 feet on the short dimension?

 

Horizontal antennas will be counterproductive, as they will see ground as a close-spaced, absorbing (partial) reflector, projecting RF , for the most part, straight up. This will make such installations useless for all but the closest of contacts.

 

Sorry if I got your knickers in a bunch. It's not my acre (statute acre) but was defined by people much smarter than I as early as the 14th century.

 

It does not, as you say.

 

Well, no.

A dipole is a radiator with two sides, usually, but not always, fed in the middle, to produce one current max.

You are correct that hams almost always talk about 'dipoles' as meaning an electrical half wave.

But there are many dipoles which do not capture a full 1/2 wave.

 

As my 75 meter dipole consists of a 1/4 wavelength L wire tapped off the base of my vertical antenna and the second half of my dipole is the 32 radials under ground. Works excellent by the way.

 

I never said it wouldn't.

My contention is that it is more practical to build a loaded vertical antenna. A vertical antenna, even if loaded will give much better performance at 630m than a dipole. Experienced 160m operators have known this for over 100 years.