On 23 May 2005 14:27:05 -0500, Allen Windhorn
wrote:

Anyone seen this particular combination? Appears to have very good
performance.

Hi Allan,

Alas, yes, and nothing seems to have improved over the months - same
spelling errors, lax reporting, sloppy presentation, and a smattering
of conflicting claims:
"Vincent’s Plano Spiral Top Hat antenna at 7 megahertz is half the
size of a normal quarter-wave antenna operating at that frequency.
:Note it says half the size, later this will be changed
The URI antenna gain matched the performance of the ideal
quarter-wave antenna, and its bandwidth was nearly twice as wide.
:as usual, no specifics offered, later this "twice" will be changed.
...
"In addition, the gain of Vincent’s capacity Top Hat DLM antenna,
:in addition to WHAT?
which incorporates a helix, a load coil, a capacitive top hat
:it incorporates 3 items? or 2? Is the helix the coil? More change follows.
utilizing radial spokes at the top of the antenna and a horizontal
plane was nearly identical to the ideal quarter wave antenna. Its
bandwidth was greater than 5 percent of the operating frequency
:not twice the bandwidth anymore (and not even close to standard BW)
and the antenna is more than 70 percent shorter than an ideal
quarter wave antenna.
:not half size - 30% size, but this changes again.

"Vincent’s standard DLM antennas with a standard helix and load
coil were also tested at various frequencies. All exhibited gains
:it incorporates 2 items? Standard helix is the former coil above?
nearly equal to the ideal antenna with bandwidths of 3 to 10
:well, what exactly is being compared to here? Ideal is 3? or is it 10?
percent. The antennas were 33 to 40 percent shorter."
:now we are LARGER than half size

Let's see, we have a 30%, half size, 67% tall radiator with 3 (make
that 2) loads that matches (nearly) the gain performance of a standard
antenna exhibiting somewhere between 3% and 10% bandwidth.

I note that the link (sic, the poor html authoring makes this simply a
text inclusion) to the Navy test site is NOT to the Navy Test Report,
but simply to the Navy test site (even the cfa web pages can produce a
link like that).

Tedious puffery at best.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC