"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Mike Kaliski wrote:

[stuff]

Quite obviously, you are missing the real point here ... here is more.


http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/n...&VNETCOOKIE=NO

http://electronicsweekly.com/Article...f+monopole.htm
http://www.uri.edu/news/vincent/report05/testreport.pdf
http://ema.arrl.org/article.php?sid=1025&mode=&order=0

JS

John

That is one beautifully constructed antenna and the antenna test facility is
to die for. All those radials and salt water!

Mike G0ULI

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
...

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Mike Kaliski wrote:

[stuff]

Quite obviously, you are missing the real point here ... here is more.


http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/n...&VNETCOOKIE=NO

http://electronicsweekly.com/Article...f+monopole.htm
http://www.uri.edu/news/vincent/report05/testreport.pdf
http://ema.arrl.org/article.php?sid=1025&mode=&order=0

JS

John

That is one beautifully constructed antenna and the antenna test facility
is
to die for. All those radials and salt water!

Mike G0ULI



Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with
a very high quality ground system.

Jimmie

Jimmie D wrote:

...
Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with
a very high quality ground system.

Jimmie

Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly,
with efficiencies in the single digits ...

JS

On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...

Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with
a very high quality ground system.

Jimmie

Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly,
with efficiencies in the single digits ...

JS

I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?
I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of
this
inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info.
The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing
something new.
Art

i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip
would give roughly the same results.

On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote:
On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote:

Jimmie D wrote:

...

Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with
a very high quality ground system.

Jimmie

Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly,
with efficiencies in the single digits ...

JS

I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?
I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of
this
inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info.
The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing
something new.
Art

wrote in message
oups.com...
i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip
would give roughly the same results.

On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote:
On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote:

Jimmie D wrote:

...

Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when
used with
a very high quality ground system.

Jimmie

Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly,
with efficiencies in the single digits ...

JS

I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?
I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of
this
inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info.
The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing
something new.
Art



Even a 6ft verticla can be made to perform reasonably well on 40m when used
with a good ground system, the ground system thay were using is probably as
close to ideal as you can get. The big difference is in using a short
antenna with a poor to mediocre ground system, then they stick out like a
sore thumb I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results
except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full
size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as
"comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent
they posted.What would be the point of doing a test like this if you didnt
get qualatative data? Without the data the st might as weel have been, "hey
good buddy you sound fine over here at theWinn Dixie, I cant see my S meter
'cause the lights out on it but yo sound like 30 over to me"


Jimmie

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:

I did nt see any qualitative data given
in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed
nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down
reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the
numbers had to be available so why werent they posted.

Heh, heh. Jimmie youze is throwin' 'round them scientifical terms
like "nearly as well" and "comparable to". Heck I'ze gettin' all
confoozlated. But not so confusticated that I'll not get me wonna them
mircle antennies!


Seriously though, you are right. There has been precious little
real data on this antenna since the first press release in '04.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

art wrote:

...
I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?
...

He states it uses a "2-dimensional helix", think about that (since I
can't find a pic or construction details), flatten a helix and you end
up with a zig-zag pattern of wire.

..

On 17 Jun, 18:40, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:

... I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?

...

He states it uses a "2-dimensional helix", think about that (since I
can't find a pic or construction details), flatten a helix and you end
up with a zig-zag pattern of wire.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ... etc. ... (poorly represented in ascii here)

This must drop the inductance of the "helix coil" drastically, leaving
you with only the self-capacitance of the conductor (-jX), which
requires a "loading coil" of +jX ...

Also, there is some text I interpret to suggest there is some additional
coupling somewhere at the center, however, I can't find enough material
to confirm or reject this ...

JS

One of the links provided pictures of the testing station which
I believe belonged to the Navy. I believe they have also applied
for a follow up patent that contains propriety information
that has not yet been released. True, we have had a string of
questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that
is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently
not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure
can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers.
When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend
ourselves as being antenna experts.
Art

art wrote:
... True, we have had a string of
questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that
is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently
not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure
can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers.
When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend
ourselves as being antenna experts.
Art


Art:

It is all in the numbers (odds.)

If you know how to gamble, you know how to play the odds. Show me one
street smart individual and I will show you someone who knows the ropes ...

Being a naysayer has great advantages, most experiments/"new inventions"
turn out less than what may have been expected ... playing the odds of
"naysaying" you can always claim a better than avg. "batting avg."

It's all in the game ... play it right and you expose the details.

Regards,
JS