the standard antenna's on the web site, have a weight that span from 1 oz
to 4 oz for the smallest to biggest, respectively.

1/2 the linear dimension = 1/8 volume if Enron's finances were this
rudimentary, they would still be in business!

Hey consider this,

an antenna with 1/4 the aspect ratio (effective front viewed area) also has
a 1/4 chance of being hit by a defined shrapnel density specified in
military antenna requirements. AS FWT ARE smaller, they also posses a lower
probability of damage from gunfire for a given field.



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 16:40:59 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:


"Marc H.Popek" wrote in message
...
www.fwt.niat.net

This dielectric embedded antennas are smaller than naturally occurs and
yet
have a net gain

More correctly, they CLAIM a gain, relative to isotropic.

They? HE (the CTO in fact). American business has a recent history
of clown elevation.


If the antenna is smaller than a free space antenna, then it looses
capture
area.

Capture area is hardly an issue for even the full size antennas they
replace.

I would be very interested to know how they recoup that.
I suspect these antennas might need some power to drive an on-board
amplifier, which means that their gain claim is bogus, and what they
aren't
telling you is that the noise floor comes up also.

TANSTAAFL.

Hi Dave,

What is more to the matter is unstated issues of efficiency. I will
let the claims of 8 fold boons pass (which is marketese from the world
of ENRON). Compare these "advantages" of reclaimed volume to the
unanswered query of weight (no claims about density are there?).

Leftover halloween candy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC