On Apr 12, 12:56 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
Art has modeled them all
too.

I think modeling is how he gets started with these things.
That freaking optimizer program that shows him how to
build a skewed 6 element antenna with the performance
of the usual 3 element. What a breakthrough... :/
I called that particular antenna the "cluster%$#@"....
Then then he abandoned that one and decided to go with the
coil antenna he's pushing now.
Viable? Sure it's viable if you don't mind a puny signal.
Note the Isotron.. To me, not a whole heck of a lot
different than what Art proposes. Arts version may
be slightly inferior though..
And some people do buy and use them.. Mostly
ones with yards the size of clothes closets and have
no other choice but to try small antennas of that ilk.
I doubt any of those users really feel like they are
setting the woods on fire.
I knew a guy here locally that ran one for a while
on 75m. He was able to radiate, but a vast majority
of the people on frequency could not hear him.
I think he retired that antenna after a while.
I suspect he ran out of hair to pull out...
And as mentioned, quite a few QSO's have been
made using dummy load light bulbs.
Usually by accident when they forgot to flip the
switch to the real antenna...
Is a light bulb viable as an antenna?
I suppose.. But don't try to claim it is an efficient
radiator.
To sum.. Art suffers delusions of grandeur induced
by various modeling program optimizers.
This can happen to anyone. But... most people
will verify if the data is true by comparing to known
reference antennas. Art does not do this.
He places unflinching blind trust into these programs.
And they have led him astray from reality.
Woe is Art.