On 4 Jul., 19:56, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 28, 10:53 pm, Buck wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT), Art wrote:
Not one person has given good reason why the quoted antenna
cannot work as stated, not one. By mathematics or actually making one
since heckling is regarded as a suitable replacement for true
knowledge now in the present hobby of ham radio.
First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret'
status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until
after it is agreed to. When I told Felix I might buy his plans (IIRC
they were only $35.00 at the time) but, I would need to first see the
agreement, he cut off communications with me.
I'll ask Felix again, what are the terms of agreement, or why are they
secret until we paid for the plans?
Because of his secrecy of his agreement, I can only speculate that he
is looking for marks, suckers, or fools to buy his antenna plans.
Only a fool would sign a check and turn it over to a stranger to fill
in as he desires.
Personally, I would love for Felix's antenna design to perform
according to his claims. I would be proud to have his ugly pole on
top of my car as I drive down the road working DX if it works as
claimed. ("ugly pole" is not meant to be derogatory, see my car to
understand.)
And Art, the fact is that only Felix has the obligation of proof. As
I see it, this is the issue:
Felix has made certain claims to a product which he is selling. The
evidence he is using to back up his claims doesn't hold up to the
standards set to establish such claims. He may have tried, as in he
tested his antenna against a loop, but there were discrepancies in his
test that would skew the results.
I think everyone knows that at one time, according to the laws of
aerodynamics, a bumble bee could not fly. The laws have been changed
so the Bumble-bee can now fly. Currently, I believe the general rules
of antenna theory say that a properly made 1/4 wave ground plane will
outperform a ground plane less than 1/10th wavelength in size. (I am
sure some of the EEs here can prove this mathematically or offer some
specific scientific law, but I am not trying to go there.) Felix
claims to have an antenna that can defy this rule, therefore, the
burden of proof lies on him, not the EEs in the group.
I will not say that there is not a design that can break the general
rule I stated above, but the evidence Felix is offering is sketchy at
best.
Buck
You are misunderstanding the situation with his antenna. What he is
doing is putting as much wire into the air which old timers still talk
about and then taking on the problem of feeding it. Since an antenna
can be any shape or size when in equilibrium he is following the first
part and getting around the need for equilibrium to get a smaller
antenna. This is somewhat like the Rhode Island antenna where winding
or distortion of a antenna was accepted first and the effort to place
it in equilibrium was taken on later .This was done by including the
transmission line in the antenna system which made a "smaller" antenna
Regards
Art
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW
www.lumpuckeroo.com
"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."
It is incredible , how silly and wrong the comments here are.
- All facts are disregarded and so many wrong things are
told, that I think, you all better remain with your wire antennas
as has been since 100 years ... and you better believe
that the world is flat and that an airplane never can fly,
as scientists teached some time ago ...
Maybe you will understand when the time is ready for that ...
-
I just tell you, that you can read the real facts he
http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm
and
if someone wants to know the contract, he has to sign
before obtaining the plans: Send me an email
and you will get all conditions - nothing is kept secret
as Buck wrote. Probably his mail was lost in the
Internet, and that is not my responsibility. Sorry.
With kind regards: Felix - HB9ABX
--... ...-- = 73