On Mar 15, 7:46 am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:21 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:



Art wrote:

"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Considering that it meets Maxwells requirements and is at least a
wavelenght
of a radiator my expectations are much higher than yours

Typical of one with delusions of radiation grandeur...

I suspect that the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which
has a ground plane.

How many people do you know that use elevated ground planes
on 160m? This may or may not be a trick question.

I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small
physical size it could easily be uprated
to compete with a yagi!

I suspect it would also be capable of browning the food, if
said food was placed close to the device when high power
was applied.
But the last time I checked, food warmers are not known
as very good radiators of RF.

I would anticipate that in a couple of years the top band will have
twice as many users that it has now.

Because all of a sudden you show up using a sub par antenna?
How would this effect the number of users of that band?
Why would anyone modify their operating habits because
you refuse to use an antenna that is halfway efficient?

I am hoping also that its small size will allow for receiving
abililities in line with the angle of incoming
radiation via its manouvarability. Of course if all is already known
about radio this would seem impossible

Only to you I suspect...

but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs to see how it matches
up to my expectations.

Matches? This is the part of the system which is going to eat
your lunch. Chortle...

The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content.

I have no time to waste on sub par antenna designs.

If an antenna is at
least off one wavelength
and is in equilibrium I see no reason why it should not beat existing
antennas with ground plane losses

How many people do you know that use elevated ground planes
on 160m? This may or may not be a trick question.
But even if one was to use an elevated ground plane, or
even a ground mounted vertical, who are you to say if
the system is lossy or not?
I know of plenty of vertical systems on 160m which will
whip your puny shoe box antenna like a long lost stepchild,
regardless of the level of equilibrium noted.
Whatever that means...

regardless of its shape or size.

Regardless of shape or size... yea right...

Time will tell. Either way the
experimental trail undertaken I have found to
be very rewarding as many other amateurs have had when experimenting
with antennas and who refuse
to accept that all is known
Art

The only thing I "know" for sure is you have your
head stuck so far up your whiny kazoo it has clouded all rational
thought.

As an example..

I disagree that all experiments on antennas should stop based on the
proweress of your particular brain. You have consistently over
estimate your abilities

#1, define proweress...
#2 define your abilities, and then we will all vote as to who
has the greater level of proweress between the particular
brains in question.

Everyone is brain dead, except for prior Art. lol...
BTW, I said I would wait for your grand test before
I commented further, but seeing as you continue to spew
your silly bafflegab, and also horses ass comments to anyone
that dare question your silly crap, I retire my earlier stance.
MK