On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:18:08 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:
15 years ago I stated that radiation is in the form of pulses,all
laughed Since then I have itemised the steps to make the small antenna,
all laughed.

In refutation, the proof.

The info is in the archives many many times but to my knoweledge nobody
has tried it for themselves preferring to memorise what the books say.
Yes it does look like a tuned circuit on the end of a coax but what if
it is?

Actually, if that is what it is, then fine! antennas such as that are
perfectly legit. It will almost certainly use the feedline as a large
part of the radiator. This antenna bears some resemblance to the Isotron
line of antennas. Not for everyone, for sure, but I'm not going to get
into a definition war on what comprises a "good" antenna, at least in
this case..

But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

On a more serious note,
you consistently refer to heating problems or
feed line radiation. Will you be good enough to explain what creates
these
functions and why you can thus refer to them as my problems?
To put things in order.
My antenna does not require a ground system
Electrical WL is alwaysa WL or more in length.
Measurements at the antenna are devoid of reactance at the point of
resonance
Measurements at the transmitter is the same.
Movement away from resonance supplies reactance.
Conformance with Maxwells laws are adhered to.
Now all these facts have been stated many times before, yet you repeat
your views so the actions that create feedline radiation and antenna
melting
problems are totally different to what I understand.
When moving away from the resonant point it provides reactance in
addition to the resistance
All frequencies have more than one resonant point