On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:42:54 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:


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.

You might have me mixed up with someone else, Art. I have commented on
feedline radiation in this context, but my only posts about heating
problems was with that antenna produced by the U of Delaware in which the
initial press release touted that the original antenna was so efficient
that it burnt up when 100 watts was applied. Subsequently removed from
later text. I don't think that many people would believe that an antenna
that melts is radiating efficiently. Otherwise I only predict that your
feedline likely will radiate, not that it will heat.

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.

Sigh... would you like to point out the post(s) where I said all this?

Aside from that, I expect the feedline to radiate.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -