On Aug 12, 8:31*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Aug 12, 3:42 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Aug 12, 3:21 pm, dave wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
Use your own thread to ask for assistance on your question.
*Be prepared to answer why you are requesting this personal service .
I asked a question on this thread with respect to the main advantage
for hams that linear
polarization has over CP. I have no resistance to change if it can be
justified. I see
that it can pick up signals that linear antennas cannot hear because
of a 30 db attenuation
where as CP has only a 3 db attenuation!
Compared to what?
I thought he said earlirer that it had a 3 db gain

When I modeled my antenna the max gain was CP I then checked for
linear gains
on the same set up and they were 3 db down. I suppose I should have
set it up for max linear gain and then checked CP gain on the same set
up. (Made a note to myself for future). For end fed antenna, the gain
max was around 13 dbi but 10 dbi seemed to be more the norm. What
really pleased me was the near 50 ohm impedance feed.
The biggest advantage is that people with small yards will now have no
problems on getting on top band with directional antenna and be able
to use the whole band! However, regardless on the ideas I have checked
out on it I am very confident that hams will immediately will be able
to improve it in ways I have not thought of. As with all thoughts
others will say I knew that but I couldn't be bothered because once
the dots are connected
everything appears to be obvious. A jigsaw puzzle with all the parts
turned over is tremendously hard to solve. Once you have seen the
picture it is a different ball game.
The antenna is extremely quiet, and as I have mentioned before the
audio quality is such that I immediately look at the meter only to see
it on the low side. Perhaps the CP pickup
does not register the same as for linear. It is my hope that all will
tackle building one this fall
so that the improvement horizon will broaden while I am still around.

And except for his ridiculous claims he will give no details of the
antennas he makes the claims for.

You are a fraud Art.

tom
K0TAR

No, I am not Tom you are just extending your mouth. Obviously those
who give me a hard time don't get to share. There are others who do
not give me a hard time who get to share.
If you are an outsider to every thing then I understand why you lean
on the term "ridiculous"
Remember the discussion on Gauss? You never did reverse your position
which is against classical physics so you are an unproven quantity to
most with respect to antennas and radiation.
You could, ofcourse, provide a list of polarity changes upon collision
instead of your dart throwing which is never accurate. Why don't you
plonk me or are you just a nasty person?
Maybe you can start a separate thread for just you and me so you can
sound off, insult and have a good time.