art wrote:

...
What is wrong with the coax radiating?
Art

Personally, my major complaint is in the "lack of control" over antenna
performance/operating characteristics.

For instance, with the feed-line allowed to radiate, movement/placement
of the coax tends to affect SWR, radiation pattern(s), etc.--sometimes
dramatically. This is very undesirable, at least to me, in a
mobile/field-day/camping/etc. antenna ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

...
The patent, US 7187335, is a real hoot. I especially like the part
where he describes doubling the bandwidth by adding a parasitic
winding intertwined with the base coil helix.

Do you suppose his antenna is in equilibrium? Could proper application
of Artsian-Gaussian theory improve it even more?



73,
Gene
W4SZ

What? You don't see cutting the capacitance between winding turns as
causing some measurable effect which in turn affects a property of the
antenna proper?

Thicker conductor(s) usually means a measurable gain in bandwith, with a
parasitic element in such close proximity to the major element, a gain
in bandwidth is not that difficult to propose and attempt to
prove/disprove.

Regards,
JS

John,

The effects you mention may have some impact on bandwidth, but they
don't double it. And the capacitance probably increases, not decreases.
Placing an extra conductor between two capacitor plates increases the
capacitance. At the same time placing a grounded shield between two
capacitor plates reduces or eliminates the coupling between the original
plates. It is not clear to me which effect would dominate in this case.
In either case it is unlikely to be very important.

Lots of people understand how to make an antenna broadband; simply add
resistance. This is not always "bad". It is merely a choice.

Just for grins I did a little EZNEC experiment. I started with a base
loaded monopole that used a generated helix as the loading coil. I
adjusted and resonated the system to SWR = 1 and took a look at the
bandwidth. I arbitrarily took SWR = 2 as the bandwidth limits. I then
added a parasitic winding between the turns of the helix. This winding
was not connected to anything. I reran the simulations.

What I found was interesting, but not surprising.

When the wires were treated as lossless, there was virtually no
difference in bandwidth or any other parameter. The parasitic winding
had essentially no impact.

When I changed the wires to copper, the bandwidth increased in both
cases. However, in the case with the parasitic winding the new bandwidth
was 2.5 times as large as the case without the extra winding. The
resonant input impedance was also about 2.5 times larger.

There is only one plausible explanation for this observation. The
parasitic winding adds loss to the antenna system. I won't claim this is
"bad". Depends on the characteristics desired.

The bottom line is that there is no wondrous invention here. Either
Vincent knew about this effect and chose to ignore it, or he did not
understand what was happening. The capacitance explanation is just baloney.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:

...
73,
Gene
W4SZ

Well, OK. Post your EZNEC modeling mockup of the antenna and we'll
check it out ... :-)

JS

Jimmie D wrote:

...
Hi Gene, From the data posted by Vincent I dont think he is trying to be a
fraud. Maybe he is just unaware that the data he is discovering about short
antennas is about 70 or 80 years old. That would be giving him the benifit
of the doubt.

Jimmie



Post that 70-80 year old EZNEC mockup you are familiar with and we'll
check it out ...

JS

Gene Fuller wrote:
. . .
What I found was interesting, but not surprising.

When the wires were treated as lossless, there was virtually no
difference in bandwidth or any other parameter. The parasitic winding
had essentially no impact.

When I changed the wires to copper, the bandwidth increased in both
cases. However, in the case with the parasitic winding the new bandwidth
was 2.5 times as large as the case without the extra winding. The
resonant input impedance was also about 2.5 times larger.

There is only one plausible explanation for this observation. The
parasitic winding adds loss to the antenna system. I won't claim this is
"bad". Depends on the characteristics desired.

You can easily verify this by noting the change in gain as the extra
winding is added and deleted. You should also see a corresponding change
in feedpoint resistance, assuming that the extra winding doesn't change
the current distribution. A couple of additional interesting experiments
would be:

1. Increase the loss of the coil in a model without the extra winding
until the gain is the same as the model with copper loss and no extra
winding. Then see how the bandwidth compares to the original model with
extra winding.

2. Instead of increasing the loss of the coil, add a resistor to the
base of the copper loss non-extra winding antenna and adjust it so the
gain is the same as for the model with copper loss and extra winding.
How does the bandwidth compare to the original model with the extra winding?

The bottom line is that there is no wondrous invention here. Either
Vincent knew about this effect and chose to ignore it, or he did not
understand what was happening. The capacitance explanation is just baloney.

I'm afraid that's probably true. With antennas, you can choose any two
of efficient, and broadband, and electrically small. This antenna claims
all three, so I'm very skeptical.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

John Smith wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
Hi Gene, From the data posted by Vincent I dont think he is trying to be a
fraud. Maybe he is just unaware that the data he is discovering about short
antennas is about 70 or 80 years old. That would be giving him the benifit
of the doubt.

Jimmie



Post that 70-80 year old EZNEC mockup you are familiar with and we'll
check it out ...

JS

I dont have EZNEC, But I will trust you if you care to model a 1/4wl
monopole and compare it to an 1/8wl monople operating against a
perfect counterpoise. Fine enginneer that Art is he should have no
trouble in calculating field intensity at a receiving antenna 1 mile
away. I have total respect for the integrity of your work as long as
you show your math.


Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:

...
I dont have EZNEC, But I will trust you if you care to model a 1/4wl
monopole and compare it to an 1/8wl monople operating against a
perfect counterpoise. Fine enginneer that Art is he should have no
trouble in calculating field intensity at a receiving antenna 1 mile
away. I have total respect for the integrity of your work as long as
you show your math.


Jimmie


No.

We are talking about a small antenna ~25% of full 1/4 wave length which
performs as well or outperforms its full length 1/4 wave version.

We are talking about a 1/2 wave antenna which is only 20-30% the length
of its full length 1/2 wave version which performs as well or even out
performs its' full 1/2 wave length ...

Show me an EZNEC model of what the Navy tested for Mr. Vincent--indeed,
show me where anyone before Mr. Vincent was able to demonstrate a
working model capable of the above characteristics?

JS

On 11 Oct, 11:12, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message

...





art wrote:
On 9 Oct, 19:35, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
www.newswise.com/articles/view/532935
Yeah, ole' Robert Vincent is a sore spot in the NG, I'd imagine. Made
A$$'es out of all the "experts" and continues to do so ... sometimes
there is real justice.

Regards,
JS

Yup, the experts were not experts after all just phony's.
Ofcourse we now have to wait for comments like " I knew that all the
time",
"I have been using that method for years", "that was invented by
Mantovani
a hundred yeard ago but he just didn't get around to printing it"
Art

The patent, US 7187335, is a real hoot. I especially like the part where
he describes doubling the bandwidth by adding a parasitic winding
intertwined with the base coil helix.

Do you suppose his antenna is in equilibrium? Could proper application of
Artsian-Gaussian theory improve it even more?



73,
Gene
W4SZ

Hi Gene, From the data posted by Vincent I dont think he is trying to be a
fraud. Maybe he is just unaware that the data he is discovering about short
antennas is about 70 or 80 years old. That would be giving him the benifit
of the doubt.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said
Art

On 11 Oct, 15:45, John Smith wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:

...

I dont have EZNEC, But I will trust you if you care to model a 1/4wl
monopole and compare it to an 1/8wl monople operating against a
perfect counterpoise. Fine enginneer that Art is he should have no
trouble in calculating field intensity at a receiving antenna 1 mile
away. I have total respect for the integrity of your work as long as
you show your math.

Jimmie

No.

We are talking about a small antenna ~25% of full 1/4 wave length which
performs as well or outperforms its full length 1/4 wave version.

We are talking about a 1/2 wave antenna which is only 20-30% the length
of its full length 1/2 wave version which performs as well or even out
performs its' full 1/2 wave length ...

Show me an EZNEC model of what the Navy tested for Mr. Vincent--indeed,
show me where anyone before Mr. Vincent was able to demonstrate a
working model capable of the above characteristics?

JS

Gentlemen,
Vincent did produce a shorter antenna than was known before
with a 50 ohm impedance feed which is a huge advantage for designers
that want to hide, encapsulate or what have you for a small antenna
in this wifi age and nobody can take that away from him even tho his
knoweledge of antennas is limited.
If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna
which requires an element in equilibrium which means a FULL
WAVELENGTH.
I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium b ut here it
is
indispesable.
Even without the knoweledge of Gauss he came very close to Gauss
or the biggest discovery of the century
If one winds a half wave length in a clockwise direction starting
at the top going down and then repeating with another halfwave length
but winding it in a counterclockwise direction( preferably winding
both
wires at the same time) and then joining together the two wires at the
top
he would then have a copy of my Gaussian antenna.
Note that the errant current flow that Vincent has on the feed line
now has
a path to travel where it can radiate and still have a resistive match
at
the feed points. This by the way is bidirectional
Now one can again expand the Gaussian principle by making the antenna
height
less than the wound diameter to make a circular polarity radiating
antenna.
Also note that Gauss's work then leads to a maximum gain when the
antenna
is at right angles to the earth but knowing that a full summation of
all vectors
on the radiator is around 10 to 12 degrees from the radiator axis the
radiator
when tilted will maximise a particular polarity alone.
You can deride Vincents achievement as something useless but the
Gaussian antenna
is here,it is real and the mathematics regarding the extension of the
Gaussian
aproach gives an insight as to how radiation is really created which
has been
the goal of scientists for more than a hundred years.
And the experts on this newsgroup who were told of this first derided
it also.
Make a sample of a single wound antenna and then make a mirror immage
of same
and joining at the top. Then study it to determine if the windings of
an
inductor represents a portionof the resonant length...........
remember that augument, maybe you should revisit it! Yuri you can
provide
your normal account as to how antennas work in a contrary fashion.
And yes Roy you can repeat your phrase of "I don't understand it{"
As for others with computor programs you can alsomodel it for
yourselves
and then curse your computor.
Regards
Art KB9MZ......XG

On 11 Oct, 13:47, JIMMIE wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
Hi Gene, From the data posted by Vincent I dont think he is trying to be a
fraud. Maybe he is just unaware that the data he is discovering about short
antennas is about 70 or 80 years old. That would be giving him the benifit
of the doubt.

Jimmie

Post that 70-80 year old EZNEC mockup you are familiar with and we'll
check it out ...

JS

I dont have EZNEC, But I will trust you if you care to model a 1/4wl
monopole and compare it to an 1/8wl monople operating against a
perfect counterpoise. Fine enginneer that Art is he should have no
trouble in calculating field intensity at a receiving antenna 1 mile
away. I have total respect for the integrity of your work as long as
you show your math.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmy,
I don't have eznec either but I can still experiment the old fashioned
way.
As for a recieve antenna by next experiment gyrates in that direction.
Having proved that the inductance and capacitance of a radiator are
acting as energy sinks
that explode when the terminal are closed I am now going to place a
gaussian antenna between
two 8 by 4 sheets of aluminium sheeting which I purchased.I want to
act as a capacitor from which
my antenna will draw energy from to provide a larger aparture for my
antenna for receiving.
Question remains as to how the circuit for the large capacitor turns
out and what amount
of energy it will absorb that I can steal from it to aid my Gaussian
antenna.I suppose
I could resonate the capacitor at the same frequency that I want to
receive!!!!!
It can all be a failure but it will be one less to make in the future.
Art