Ed

Now I have really gone wrong. I think I'd better sign off on antennas.
I just posted to your previous thread with the impression that you were
rambling and probably didnt have a grasp. Now that you write this very
coherent post to this thread I realize that I have gone too far with my
criticism of you and your comment about the difference between antennas.

I actually beleive that you have alot of info on antennas and matching
devices. I could have stopped posting yesterday and be better off than I
now am.

Jerry


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Jerry Martes" wrote in message
news:idaUd.14101$QQ3.10031@trnddc02...
If you want to relieve the specs for a receiving antenna because some
aspects of antenna design arent important, thats OK. But, when you post
information that indicates that THEORY changes dependent on if the
antenna
is transmitting or receiving, you are wrong. I have tried to get you to
think it over with my previous posts. But you seem to want to bring
radiation of harmonics into this 'weak AM signal' discussion. Whats that
all about.

'Sorry if I took it off-track, Jerry, but I responded to the issue of
groundplanes, without having seen the earlier posts. I was just jumping in
on that point.

As for the theory, I may have left the wrong impression, but see my
comments
on polarization and front-end Q as well as harmonics. I didn't know what
you
know or not, and you asked about theory, so...

I didn't mean to confuse the OP but it looked like this discussion had
branched out. As Robert says, there's no way that a car is acting like a
ground plane (in antenna design terms) at AM broadcast frequencies. And
the
discussion seemed to long-gone at that point, anyway.

--
Ed Huntress