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

On 17 Jun, 20:57, John Smith I wrote:
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

Very true unless you have to state why
Art

art wrote:

...
Very true unless you have to state why
Art


Art:

You missed, but not by much; change that to, "... unless you have to
CORRECTLY state why."

Regards,
JS