View Single Post
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 10th 04, 06:51 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Richard Clark
writes:

On 10 Apr 2004 14:59:24 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:
I don't think anyone could stumble onto a 5 band antenna by
simple cut and try.

I disagree! I think it not only could happen, but probably has happened
already, through a fortuitous combination of many factors.


Name one that works. And by works, is resonant in each band, and not
simply tuneable (as would be a common doublet).


Some forms of trap dipole and parallel dipole I have encountered were clearly
the result of cut-and-try rather than analysis and mathematical design.

But being able to come up with such a design that is well-documented and
reproducible is a whole 'nother thing. The Lattin antenna is a perfect
example of that.


Hi Jim,

The notion of a trapped antenna on the basis of resonant stubs
constructions is not shown in the data of my work to date, and
certainly not in the Lattin (insofar as the only interpretation
generally available on the net, setting the patent aside that is).


The title of the QST article (December, 1960) is "Multiband Antennas Using
Decoupling Stubs".

One of the key points goes to this notion of stub action. However,
the stub is not excited across its mouth, but along its length. This
is very distinctly exhibited in the numbers (the lack of correlation
of stub geometry to resonances). The constructions merely appear to
fatten a thin radiator and add capacitances and inductances that are
basically opportunistic - certainly no one has shown any correlations
that fit the geometries to the bands they are presumed to resonate to.

Hence my statement that caught your fancy. The Stub resonances
"should" explain the bands obtainable, and yet there has been
absolutely no supporting evidence to demonstrate that this occurs.

The claims of the QST article are that the stubs work as traps. It also
explains that the velocity factor is important in the whole design. The article
refers repeatedly to "tubular Twin Lead" as the optimum material for
construction because of its velocity factor of 0.8.

It does hold my interest, however, and I am hardly one to be put off
by failure's of other's theories - not with my more than 300 pages of
fractal data published in the face of fractal fools who confine
themselves to bragging about their science.

(grin)

73 de Jim, N2EY