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

On 26 Jun, 20:52, John Smith I wrote:
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

Look at the antenna book by Jasik , small antennas
section, where he shows examples of the increased aperture
by adding a top hat. The aperture diameter INCREASES
because of the side projection of the top hat, at
least thats the way he shows it.
Difficult to determine the fulcrum point for all cases shown
with a cursury look.
Regards
Art

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

What Buck has stated as well as what the inventor has stated
is in full agreement to what I have always stated and proved.
"The radiator can be any shape or size or angle etc.as long as
it is in equilibrium and resonant which is buried in the laws
of the masters" The question of apurture is purely a reflection
of efficiency which when included in a closed circle shows that
vividly with repect to enclosed area. The same antenna arrangement
is a reflection of Gaussian law and as such can be removed
from any ground assumptions that is inferred by those who have
done this and done that. That same element can be duplicated
to form a dipole of any shape to remove the inefficiencies of
ground and can even be multiplied in number to form an array in
accordance with the Gaussian antenna. It all comes down to actually
understanding the underpinnings of the formation of radiation
rather than learned laws where one is not interested in advancing
for the good of science. Once upon a time I saw an experiment formed
where a bunch of coils placed on a paper plate was placed on top of a
car
where radiation lit a fluerescent lamp..........same buried law.
And then we come to the fractal antenna...........same buried law
of which the mathematics given thoroughly proves tho rejected by ham
radio.
I know you can smell it.
Art Unwin KB9MZ......XG

"art" wrote
... I have always stated and proved. "The radiator can be
any shape or size or angle etc.as long as it is in equilibrium
and resonant which is buried in the laws of the masters"
____________

A distinction needs to be made between the ability of a conductor of any
size/shape to efficiently produce EM fields from the r-f current flowing
along it, and the capability of the associated transmitter and transmission
line to deliver that r-f current.

A good conductor of EVERY size/shape (including even a point source) will
radiate virtually ALL the r-f power that can be made to flow into it --
which quantity equals the product of the square of the r-f current at the
feedpoint, and the resistive term of the impedance there (ie, the radiation
resistance).

If the radiating structure (antenna) is not self-resonant, there will be an
impedance mismatch between it and the transmission line connected to its
feedpoint. This means that the antenna will not accept all of the
transmitter power that could be delivered it to by the transmission line.
But whatever power does transfer into the antenna will be radiated with the
same high efficiency as if the match was perfect.

There are many examples of non-resonant (highly reactive) antenna structures
that, with proper system design, radiate a very high percentage the power
available from the transmitter. Common examples of this are the monopole
radiators used by MW AM broadcast stations -- very few of which are
self-resonant.

High radiation efficiency is achieved in these non-resonant antennas by the
use of a matching network at the antenna feedpoint, which cancels the
reactance of the monopole, and transforms the r-f resistance term there to
match the Zo of the transmission line in use.

This results in an impedance match capable of passing nearly all the power
available from the transmission line, despite the fact that the antenna
itself remains non-resonant, and without setting up high standing waves on
the transmission line.

The only significant losses.then are the attenuation of the transmission
line, the loss in the matching network, and the loss in the r-f ground
system. In normal broadcast station practice these losses are small enough
for the groundwave field at 1 km to be 90% or better of the theoretical
value for a perfect radiator of that electrical height and applied power,
over a perfect ground plane.

Bottom line (N.B. Art): antennas do not need to be resonant to perform as
very efficient radiators.

RF