wrote:

...

OK. Nope, we don't need to chat anymore, that certainly put things into
proper perspective ...

JS

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 25, 12:36 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Huh!

And, you didn't even realize the rest of us were only getting about 50%
efficiency of a full size antenna, out of our shortened? (vs. the 98%
Vincents seems to be!)

Too bad, you could have shared back with us then and looked like a
superstar--instead of a fibber!

Oh well, I am sure you will be "right on it" next time ...

JS


Fibber? Where do you come up with this BS..Do you want me to
take a picture of it? Crap, you better get your head out of your
kazoo if you want me to talk to you.
I give you the benefit of the doubt by even discussing
it with you, but you start your usual smart ass remarks,
and basically pull a "Telemon".. I don't need to prove
anything to you. I could care less really. My mobile antenna is
as good as it can be, for the physical restraints, and
it got to that point at least 3-4-5 years ago..
I'm not going to run a hat on my mobile, and I accept
that loss in performance. That why I run a long 5 ft stinger
whip.
I don't feel the need to "reinvent" stuff and be a radio superstar.
I have better things to do with my time. 98% efficient? Over
what ground? Have they compared to a fully top loaded
vertical? A coax fed dipole is about 98% efficient.. :/
Must be one heck of a radial system is all I can say..
What does this look like on the back of that truck?
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/fd3.jpg
I got your fibber hanging..
That antenna started out as a 6 ft 20m hamstick
I got for free.
But I used it on 40m, by adding a 5 ft stinger.
Worked very well overall.
Then I stripped all the windings off and installed the
larger coil you see in the picture.
The other 5 ft version I have is the same , except it's coil
is mounted about 2.5 feet above the base, instead of 5,
and the helical windings at the base, and even some above
the large coil are still intact. The antenna works quite well.
But my antenna with no helical windings is more
efficient. But thats more due to coil location,
than less efficient coil loading.
I don't know who you think you are, but I was doing
what you are doing now, in 1988. That's when I
built that partly helical "plastic bugcatcher".
Many others were doing the same in 1958 I'm
sure...
If I had a digital camera handy, I'd already have a
picture waiting for you. You can tell by looking at
it, I've used it for years on end. It's about 19 years
old, and has thrashed many a tree branch.
I play mainly on 80 and 40 meters mobile.
Go do some testing there, and get back to me.
This 10m testing on a mobile doesn't mean too
much to me.. It's easy to get high efficiency on
that band. Most any "wonderstick" will do.
Lets see this thing kill on 80m where the likelyhood
of ground loss overiding the coil loss kicks into play.
The low bands are the real test of a short vertical.
I saw one mention that elevating this antenna will
improve the performance. Heck, elevating most
any kind of vertical or GP will improve performance..
That antenna is not special in that regard..
It really surprises me that you seem to think this
is some kind of new technology.. What, you
live in a cave?
MK


Seems like I have seen a lot of Ham STIKS lately that were use to construct
homebrew antennas.

Jimmie

On Jun 25, 6:31 pm, "Jimmie D" wrote:


Seems like I have seen a lot of Ham STIKS lately that were use to construct
homebrew antennas.

Jimmie

They are good for tinkering with, and they are cheap.
A hamstick on it's own can be a real good antenna as is
if you modify it to work on a lower band by adding a longer
stinger.
Some brands vary though. Some have semi decent length
stingers from the factory, and some are real short, or have
no stinger. Those are the worst.
The one in the picture was a 6 ft 20 meter stick which
had no real stinger on it. It was pretty lame on it's designed
band. But I added a 5 ft stinger and used it for 40m.
Worked quite well on the trunk of my car. Almost bugcatcher
level performance with no large lumped coil.
So if one were to want to use a hamstick for a mobile,
they are better off to buy one for a higher band, and
then clamp various stingers to work the lower bands.
It will be more efficient than the sticks actually sold
for those lower bands. IE: my original antenna which
John Smith seems to think I've made up in my mind,
was a CB antenna originally. A firestick I think..
I got it free too.. I've never spent a dime on any of
my mobile antennas... Well, except for wire
in some cases.
I added the coil to work 80 and 40. But on 20-10,
I just used various lengths of stinger, and the coil
was bypassed with a jumper. That antenna on 20m,
is better than most that are sold for 20m.. :/
More stinger, and less windings.. Also the methods
of windings can effect current distribution. The better
versions wind more coil up high, as to resemble a
lumped coil in that location.
This improves current distribution same as it would
with a normal lumped coil..
Many of the sticks have a winding at the base just
for matching. But the matching portion can be
included with the main lumped coil too. It doesn't
have to be at the base. But my latest version has
no helical windings. Just the large coil. It's pretty
much purely a "plastic bugcatcher"..
MK

John Smith I wrote:
A DLM by unknown builder: http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/dlm.jpg



I saw the picture. It looks like a coil base not much unlike the
ham-stick, then a piece of wire back to ground, presumably a match,
above the helical, is a piece of brass or copper wire, then a regular
loading coil, and another piece of brass or copper for the stinger.

It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Buck wrote:

...
It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.

Buck:

Take a look at the patent. You have to create an account to view it,
the account is free:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.html

Regards,
JS

Buck wrote:

...
It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.

Hopefully, this URL will take you right to a schematic of the antenna:

http://tinyurl.com/2tqon2

JS

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:44:13 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Buck wrote:

...
It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.

Hopefully, this URL will take you right to a schematic of the antenna:

http://tinyurl.com/2tqon2

JS

The section below with pictures made a difference. I saw that the
patent is in concept, that is the arrangement of the coils for the
desired effect and the design of coils which can be helical, squared
off, etc.

Thanks.

Buck
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Buck wrote:

...
The section below with pictures made a difference. I saw that the
patent is in concept, that is the arrangement of the coils for the
desired effect and the design of coils which can be helical, squared
off, etc.

Thanks.

Buck

Buck:

Yeah, all that alright.

However, he also claims the "arrangement" he has increases the impedance
of the 1/4 wave shortened antenna to 72-100 ohms. This is interesting
in and of itself, shortened antennas tend to have impedances in the
single digits and are difficult to match efficiently ...

I am just beginning to toy with this version, maybe can get serious this
weekend ...

Regards,
JS

On 26 Jun, 13:34, John Smith I wrote:
Buck wrote:

...

The section below with pictures made a difference. I saw that the
patent is in concept, that is the arrangement of the coils for the
desired effect and the design of coils which can be helical, squared
off, etc.

Thanks.

Buck

Buck:

Yeah, all that alright.

However, he also claims the "arrangement" he has increases the impedance
of the 1/4 wave shortened antenna to 72-100 ohms. This is interesting
in and of itself, shortened antennas tend to have impedances in the
single digits and are difficult to match efficiently ...

I am just beginning to toy with this version, maybe can get serious this
weekend ...

Regards,
JS

John, I know nothing about vertical whips and I haven't been following
the whole thread
but it does come to mind that the aperture, which is related to gain,
appears to be
determined by the smallest diameter drawn that can include the antenna
physical configuration.
Ofcourse to do this is to have the largest capacity hat as possible
with the minimum
wire resistance wire that obtains the highest resistance(coil
windings) meaning that even if
the actual resistance is high so is the radiation resistance. All
these factors
are varying in curve form ( See Terman for typical curves of all
variables)
so you may get some insight on what is really happening by reviewing
the
cross over points of some of these curves relative to the diameter of
the capacity hat.
Take all of this with a pinch of salt but the answer may well be there
some where
when looking for the size of the aperture.
Regards
Art

art wrote:

...
but it does come to mind that the aperture, which is related to gain,
...
Regards
Art

Yes Art, this IS the most perplexing of all ... the aperture ...

How can you reduce an antenna with a "capture" of 1, to a "capture" of
..3333333 and not suffer a signal loss of related proportions.

I ponder this.

Regards,
JS