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

art wrote:

...

Art:

For my "rule of thumb" uses, the equation:

0.13 x (wavelength)2

gets me into the ballpark. And, although the aperture of a thin wire is
almost nil, it is pictured as an ellipse-squared in the material I have
digested, the preceding equation giving its effective aperture area ...

You got anything better?

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:

I also meant to include in the above post, this antenna performs
admirably well with NO top hat (only a short whip) ... indeed, in that
form the "disrespect for aperture" is most notable.

JS