On Jul 13, 10:04 pm, "Frank" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:57:23 GMT, "Frank"
wrote:

For 100 W input the total radiated power is 2 mW.

-47dB

It will take a whole lot more signal degradation to reach the Weak
Force threshold (about 83dB more, just to compare to the Strong Force
- much less a standard dipole).

Hi Frank,

With the disclaimer:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:38:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
My program is not Nec based so I am not familiar with that routine.,

Your results will no doubt be shunned as unauthentic (in spite of his
program being NEC based, but 20+ years older - we won't go into his
confusion of not knowing what NEC is).

I've noticed an old hobby horse trotted out to the starting gate:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:21:17 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
based on radiation per unit length of radiator

This nostrum was offered years ago to explain "efficiency," and no
doubt the corruption of what "efficiency" means will be used to muddy
the stupendous loss into figures of amazing merit.

It should come as no surprise that even allowing (patronizing the
authur as several contributors here desire) for this aberrant reading
of "efficiency" (per unit length) that the authur's Weak Force Antenna
design is not one ten-thousandth the size of the standard dipole. As
such, this new design is still not as "efficient per unit length" as a
standard dipole when the authur's terms are accepted.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Not sure what to say. I have designed some ultra compact vehicular
helices for 0.54 to 210 MHz. Network analyzer measurements
indicated the models as very close to that predicted by NEC2.

The project was abandoned due to very poor results -- even with
a 30 dB pre-amp the reception was unsatisfactory. The auto
manufacturers are desperate to have a vehicular BC/FM/Digital
antenna that fits into a "Sharkfin" shaped radome.

Heck, I may have to build one of Art's models and measure the
parameters.

73,

Frank

Obviously Frank I do not have your experience and for many years total
opinioni. I feel comfortable about most things is that it will never
work or it is a dummy load e.t.c.
I have never tested it for gain or anything like that as those sort of
things arouse the ire of hams more than anything.
One thing I am absoluetly positive is that I have made many antennas
of this design over the years and the measurementsmade on the SWR
meter in Aussi land is pretty much the same impedance that I get with
my MFJ 259 b. If I could model the antenna with interleaving then I
would have some idea with respect to testing. When I place a helix
over a helix of the standard design pre provided as an example I also
get similar impedances to what I measure
so it is the pre twisted wire and the fact that it then becomes four
interwound helixes is what makes the difference. When I have finished
my present work I am going to think things out all again or wait for
the others who are making them to present some observations. My flat
matt antenna seems like a good candidate for the shark fin arrangement
and that is one of them that I am sending to California! So for this
summer I will have to endure the continueing caustic comments of the
group who may well finish up on the correct side since they are
obviously in the majority. For me the only thing that needs to be
completed is a chamber test and Illinois University has one of these
so..........By the way Frank the antenna did quit well on a quick
sorty thru the TV channels where I anticipated just snow but I didn't
get to deep on that as I vie2wed it as novelty for if I want to mess
with 2.4 Ghz
Regards
Art
unwinantennas.com