Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

Actually, old news from 3 years ago ...

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147

JS

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Actually, old news from 3 years ago ...

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147

JS

The guy doesn't even seem to realise that height is one of the prime factors
in optimising propogation, particularly at medium wave frequencies and vhf.
Building a tall mast costs plenty of money and if commercial radio stations
could broadcast efficiently from an antenna the size of a bean can, they
would have done it years ago.

This is surely just a couple of coils wound in opposite directions with
capacitive coupling and a capacity top hat to prevent coronal discharge and
maximise current in the top half of the antenna. Basically a form of top
loaded, inductively wound whip antenna tapped somewhere up from the base in
order to pick up a 50 ohm matching impedence at the design frequency. I
don't see any new or innovative principles at work here.

Now if he could make it work efficiently on all frequencies with 50 ohms
impedence and with no requirement for further matching or adjustment of any
sort, I would be impressed. :-)

Mike G0ULI

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

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

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

and mo

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060022883.html

JS

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

"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

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

"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

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

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

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

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

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

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

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

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.

..