On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:07:40 -0700, art wrote:

will put to bed the negative comments from the naysayers.

Hi Arthur,

You mean like the -64 dBi gain reported by others?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:07:40 -0700, art wrote:

will put to bed the negative comments from the naysayers.

Hi Arthur,

You mean like the -64 dBi gain reported by others?

Hey, I've got an antenna here that does way better than that on 2m. And
its SWR is dead flat up to 3ghz.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:11:01 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 07:07:40 -0700, art wrote:

will put to bed the negative comments from the naysayers.

Hi Arthur,

You mean like the -64 dBi gain reported by others?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The actual details:

"antenna element circuit must be a TANK CIRCUIT"

Nothing said as to why (especially when other radiators work fine
without being a TANK CIRCUIT).

"element that has equal amounts of inductance and capacitance"

Notable in the violation of simple units (Henry does not equal Farad)

"requires a conductive length of insulated wire
( insulated from other windings) wound helically"

The notorious air cooled resistor - hence the -64 dBi gain.

Arthur even admits a special construction technique necessary for the:
"removal of the excessive heat from the radiator"

Further evidence of the poor results (i.e. -64 dBi gain).

"For a radiator in the 2 Mhz region
dimensions of the radiator will be in the order of
20 inches in diameter and
25 inches in height
tho these dimensions can be varied with respect to each other
dependent on frequency and materials used."

Classic dummy load.

"a tank circuit max radiation will occur when the capacitive
and inductive components are as large as possible ...

Called a conventional dipole?

... to achieve speeder release of energy."

Faster than light anyone? Or faster than friction? I would hate to
think the Neanderthals died out because they lacked a TANK CIRCUIT to
start a fire (although I am sure they could spell better).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC