View Single Post
  #423   Report Post  
Old November 15th 03, 07:00 PM
Art Unwin KB9MZ
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Mark Keith) wrote in message om...
(Richard Harrison) wrote in message ...
Mark Keith wrote:
"But I still feel I`m already building mine as well as they can be."

Close the patent office!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Nothing to patent. I didn't invent them. I think I see now why Roy
bailed out.
It's starting to get silly.
We are talking about something that is already very well known. Or at
least when applied to mobile antennas. There is nothing new about
optimizing the coil location to improve current distribution. The
various heights above the base have been hashed out and tested
ad-nausium till the cows come home. There is nothing new about using
a top hat to improve current distribution. Ditto on the
testing...There is nothing new about ground losses usually
overshadowing coil losses with most mobile setups. Yuri tells me to go
back to my rubber room, but read his previous post first,and I did.
But I see nothing there that is new as far as pertaining to mobile
antenna design. Not a single thing. Now if it's proven that errors
could been seen when modeling arrays, or whatever, I can see that as
useful. Not that I'm convinced it's a major problem yet mind you...But
I could see finding usable modeling improvement with complex arrays
much more likely than the lowly whip and coil.
When it comes to mobile antennas, I think they have pretty much
reached the state of the art as far as the design of a coil loaded
short antenna goes.


Can you tell me where I can find what the orientation of coil cross
section does for efficiency ?
There are circular cross sections, edge wound cross sections and also
the ribbon type that Collins uses where the ribbon is coiled on a
adjacent coil former, why did they choose this method?
I am pursuing efficiency, reduction of losses and Collins have a great
reputation so which form is the state of the art especially with
corner flux density.
Another question is that if we split up an inductance into two parts
does the form factor include the summation of inductances or does the
distance inbetween
where coil linkage is not fully formed affect efficiency for the
worse.
Discussion like this thread hopefully will enlarge our education to
see if such things matter . Another question I struggle with is to put
another element inside the coil where there is max flux density but
again it can't be resolved by modeling. With the multi antenna experts
onboard it is always a possibility that a modicom of information will
be provided that will benefit all.
As far as inductances, all is not known to my mind and I always would
like to be privy to more information, and not because I want to build
a whip






All variations of loading positions have already
been tested virtually non stop since at the very least the 50's, when
bugcatchers became very common. I've got a 1935 QST with a mobile on

snipThey have been beat to death
looking for the very last drop for 50 solid years. I've personally
beat them to death myself looking for the last drop since at least

snip Where's the all important beef?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just asking the fairly obvious. I
ask very simple questions and what do I get? Bafflegab deflection
tactics, rehashes of past social dilemmas, or just vague, totally
useless comments from one. I think I'm gonna bail on this thread also.
I have better things to do than chase my tail and bark at the moon. My
position on the current state of mobile antenna design is fairly well
known at this point. I'll just leave it at that. MK


Regards
Art