On Sep 16, 12:58*am, John Smith wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 3:33 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I am begining to believe that there is really no interest in small
antennas

You are probably correct if you are speaking about "small" antennas as
they relate to HF.

No longer is there that much demand for shortwave bands to communicate
with, as you well know. This is the information age and the relative
bandwidth of HF is so small is to render HF useless, even for simple
email if widespread usage were desired. There's not much money in it.

Amateur Radio has been dying for decades ... just a fact. *Only the
reasons are debatable.



No money, no research.

I believe the AM Broadcast Band is very much alive and well ... they
would greatly appreciate a "small antenna."

No, they are declining if you are talking about anything over 200m.
They are also losing spectrum for example in 40m to amateurs.



Even if you had a shoebox 160m antenna that worked, your market would
quickly reach saturation point. You might get an enthusiastic
reception by the readers of CQ magazine or be honored by the folks at
ARRL but not much more. Is that why you are trying to link your
antenna "discoveries" to finding the holy grail of the Grand
Unification Theory?

Actually, I see no reason for HF to not be any-more-LESS usable than any
other RF Frequency. *Digital voice has simply not been adopted because
of the expense in replacing all the analog equipment with digital
equipment ... something which is sure to be "fixed" in the future ...

John, Quiz Question: Suppose you tried to modulate a 14 Khz carrier
with a 50MHz digital signal. Would that be possible? (Y/N) Where would
you locate the side bands? (________ and ________)