Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

Ian Jackson wrote in
:
In the UK, amateur 'hamfests' and 'tailgate sales' used to be a fairly
leisurely affair, starting at a round 11am, and go on until 5 or even
6pm, allowing lots of time to wander around, meet your long-lost friends
etc (ie a 'good day out'). These days, opening time is often as early as
9am, with some dealers starting to pack up around noon. Ordinary
tailgate sales sometimes do start at early as 7am. Things ain't what
they used to be.


Yoiks! If they only started at 9 a.m. here...

Just possibly, there is a glimmer of hope. I have noticed that in the past
year a lot of the computer junk has gone away - do we really need that
Pentium 1 computer? (hint, the answer is no)

Perhaps this will return the hamfests to hams, and we can enjoy chatting
and socializing again, as well as selling our own "junk"

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, art wrote:
On 22 Jun, 17:21, John Smith I wrote:

wrote:

[stuff]

In countless physics labs, around the world, students complete
experiments done countless times before--and this is good ... it is
hoped, one day, they go on to complete experiments never done before, or
even ones not done properly, or those were important data was missed ...

That is simply all I point out ... an open mind never knows for certain.

Regards,
JS

He has done everything to do with antennas.

Nope.. But I've tried nearly every perversion of a short vertical
you can conjer up.. I bet a lot more than you have.
I tried the methods that guy is using a long time ago.
Do you think I should ignore all results of the tests I do?
If his methods were best, don't you think I would have one
mobile?


He has also read the WWW
from beginning to the end,

Not yet, but I have road runner cable now.
I'm working on it at a bit faster clip now...

nothing new he has done it all.

I haven't molested Paris Hilton yet...
But, actually, she's really not my type..
I don't really like whiny bitchettes...

I would
imagine that the antenna company that he designed antennas for
gave up and went bankrupt when he said he was going to retire.

And what company might that be?

I would imagine that is why the space ship landed today in
California no point in taking risks now that he has left.

If that's what you imagine, then you are fairly clueless.

IEEE is looking for an experienced antenna designer with
extensive knoweledge of all types of antennas with extensive
experience in determining worthwhile projects and be able to
smell those that would fool others.

I already have a job.. But maybe I could consult for them
part time. I can usually smell male bovine droppings from a fairly
good distance.

Must be able to provide
evidence of achievements that have benefited the advance of science.

I'll show mine, if you show yours...

Experience in winding coils accepted as well as evidence of
climbing towers to replace light bulbs.

I can wind a coil, but I've never climbed a tower to change a
light bulb. I would like to try it, but access to the local antenna
farm is fairly restricted. Mainly due to liability, insurance
purposes. BTW, I'm not an aggie... Does that give me extra
light bulb changer status?

Must be a EE with a
Masters from an accredited college

I'll get mine when you get yours...

with a history of writing
papers on the science of antennas as well as able to judge
antenna designs presented to the IEEE.

Sounds like a boring job.. I've decided I'll pass..
I'd rather fly a Southwest 737 than do something
as sleep inducing as that.

Trench diggers for
cable installations need not apply.

I've never worked for the cable company, but
like I say, I do have road runner cable now.
But our system is fiber optic, overhead lines,
etc.. No trenches around here.
But playing in the dirt does kind of appeal to me.

Maybe he will not be around to long as he is evidently
better than sliced bread in all the sciences.

If I'm not around *too* long, it's probably cuz I puff too
many cig's and drink about 22 cups of coffee a day..
You can see me hard at work here...
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/nm5k.jpg

I imagine that he made more money on the stock market
than the average broker

You really wonder about stuff like that?
You must really be bored...
If I were your doktor, I would recommend two prozac,
and call me monday morning, at which time I'll consider
a lobotomy if you haven't improved by then.
MK

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 22, 5:32 pm, wrote:

The *best* way to load a short vertical is with a large enough
capacity
hat to load the antenna with *no* loading coil needed.
And that is what your's truly would build if I had to have a contest
against his using the same height whip.

BTW, I realize if the antennas were for a low freq, I might
have to use a coil in order to avoid a hat that was just too
big to handle, but still, I would concentrate as much capacitive
loading at the top as I could, and use the minimum inductor
value to match the antenna. If we both have to use coil loading,
mine should win. The current distribution will be more linear
on mine. And in a case using a large hat, it really doesn't
matter where the coil is. The current distribution will still
be fairly linear as long as the hat is big enough.
That would be about the only case where I might consider
a base loading coil to reduce coil windings.
MK


I thought the base coil would be for impedance matching, maybe he is tapping
up on the coil to find a 50 ohm point.

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

On 23 Jun, 07:44, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
(both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)

This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...

However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...

JS, I would say that your results are significant assuming you used
the same ground plane. Given the tolerances involved and knowing
that the human ear would not be able to discern the difference
I think you have provided enough even for the poorest naysayer
to cogitate upon. They could say I misunderstood I suppose
To bring down the antenna length as much as
you have without a discernable difference will certainly gain
attention from mobilers. After all I doubt that any of them
considered competing with a testing station with respect to
a ground plane. Well done
Art






Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...

Regards,
JS

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

Jimmie D wrote:

...
I thought the base coil would be for impedance matching, maybe he is tapping
up on the coil to find a 50 ohm point.

That is exactly the way I interpreted his description/pics; and, it's
exactly the way I implemented it (a modified gamma match--implemented in
helix form?) The wire-length/inductance is a 1:1.4 ratio between bottom
helix and upper loading coil--with the 1.4 of the length in the upper
loading coil. An adjustable 20" length of conductor is used between
lower and upper coils. Top whip is a 20" length also. (10 meter design)

From what I estimate, it ended up using, VERY CLOSE! TO, a computed
half-wavelength of wire at 28.050! And, I mean within' 1-3 inches! I
honestly did not expect that ...

Tap ended up almost dead center in the bottom helix turns for a 50 ohm
match; a variable capacitor is in series with this tap point on the
bottom helix and used to tune out the inductance of the tap wire.

I kludged a var/cap together using two small sheets of light aluminum.
These sheets are rolled into tubes and made so one is a smaller dia and
slips very loosely into the one of a larger dia. I then cut some clear
plastic from a drink container, rolled it and use it as the dielectric
(withstands the 1-100 watts test signal) between the inner/outer tubes.
This makes a serviceable/usable var. concentric cap. Inner tube is
roughly the dia of a bic pen (~1/4 inch.)

#8 copper is used, except for the upper loading coil which is #10 copper.

Try one; prove me wrong; I dare ya!

Regards,
JS

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
(both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)

I assume you mean winding a 1/2 wave winding on a short stick.
I could see that maybe beating a 1/4 wave if the ground system was
not the greatest..
But I don't really see it happening over a good ground, where
the 1/4 wave isn't really stunted.
It's quite possible for for a 1/4 wave whip on a bumper, to
lose to a loaded whip half it's size, if mounted on the roof.
So on a car/truck, the location can make a big difference..
CB'ers have run those things for years under various names.
I can see cases with lousy grounds where a 1/2 wave, even
short might be worth a try. But I once did a comparion with my
standard "1/4 wave tuned" mobile on 15m, vs using my 40 meter
setup on 15m as a "extended winding" psuedo 5/8 wound whip.
The normal 1/4 wave setup was the best.


This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...

Ground, or lack of it could account for it. Same mount location, etc?
Bumper, trunk, or roof?
A mobile is not the best place to test vertical antennas.
Too quirky...The car is half the antenna.
Sure, you can see which one works best, but it's not a
very good test platform in general. I'd rather test over a
specified quantity of radials, if ground mounted.
Ditto for elevated, the only difference being the number
required drops as you increase height.

However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...

I don't know what navy data you are talkng about.

Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...

I don't know what you mean by "test jig".. What you have as far as
a "test" antenna, or having a location with a specified ground
quality?
MK

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

John Smith I wrote:

...

Anyway, in a relatively short period of time I should have expended all
my energy and ideas and know this antenna inside out--probably just a
couple of months or so ...

This time I am chucking all "laws" and just experimenting, I will
especially be trying things which "don't work!, and run contrary to
"accepted practices."

Regards,
JS

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

On Jun 24, 8:51 pm, John Smith I wrote:


Frankly, I think the high performance standard of mobile antennas has
just changed when small size and stealth are of importance ...

Sorry if I don't hold my breath waiting for this miracle to
happen.. :/

MK