View Single Post
  #12   Report Post  
Old June 18th 07, 03:19 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Jimmie D Jimmie D is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 287
Default Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!


wrote in message
oups.com...
i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip
would give roughly the same results.

On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote:
On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote:

Jimmie D wrote:


...


Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when
used with
a very high quality ground system.


Jimmie


Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly,
with efficiencies in the single digits ...


JS


I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?
I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of
this
inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info.
The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing
something new.
Art




Even a 6ft verticla can be made to perform reasonably well on 40m when used
with a good ground system, the ground system thay were using is probably as
close to ideal as you can get. The big difference is in using a short
antenna with a poor to mediocre ground system, then they stick out like a
sore thumb I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results
except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full
size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as
"comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent
they posted.What would be the point of doing a test like this if you didnt
get qualatative data? Without the data the st might as weel have been, "hey
good buddy you sound fine over here at theWinn Dixie, I cant see my S meter
'cause the lights out on it but yo sound like 30 over to me"


Jimmie