On Oct 11, 6:45 pm, 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

http://www.fi.uba.ar/materias/6654/d...FMFAntenna.pdf

Probably more than you ever wanted to know about short antennas.


Jimmie

On 11 Oct, 18:58, JIMMIE wrote:
On Oct 11, 6:45 pm, 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

http://www.fi.uba.ar/materias/6654/d...FMFAntenna.pdf

Probably more than you ever wanted to know about short antennas.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now a bunch of erronious information
He states for short antennas a good ground field is paramount
which is false. It is correct for a fractional wavelength antenna
but not for a short antenna. Then he goes on to relate a top hat with
efficiency
so the question is does the top hat make radiation per unit
length the same terminology as efficiency since the top hat does not
increase height?
Basically, if you have a fractional wavelength antenna then a ground
plane is
paramount to provide a low resistance to ground (power loss)for the
the ANTENNA circuit.
If a low resistance path to ground is not there then the
system is closed by the outside of the feed sheathing to transmitter
ground
which closes the ANTENNA system providing combination radiation as
well as system loss.
I say again, one must have equilibrium for maximum efficiency and that
requires a full wave length
radiator and at the same time holding to the LC ratio for that
length.
These are cardinal rules as shown by Gauss.
Regards
Art KB9MZ

On Oct 11, 4:25 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe it not the wire but the insulation on the wire, A little
dielectric heating would surely make it more broadbanded.


Jimmie

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

you contradict yourself now... you told us before that you used half
wavelength elements for you 'gaussian' antenna????

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.

Another contradiction. earlier you have said that the 'gaussian' elements
were simple straight halfwave elements????

and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations. just what
is in 'equilibrium' with what??

On 13 Oct, 03:55, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

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.

you contradict yourself now... you told us before that you used half
wavelength elements for you 'gaussian' antenna????

Hi David, back to your old tricks again eh?
If you go up a halfwave length and then come down a halfwaveleng you
then
have 2 x 1/2 so you don't have a half wave length anymore.
Watch the childrens hour on TV for the answer



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.




Another contradiction. earlier you have said that the 'gaussian' elements
were simple straight halfwave elements????


You have just got to watch childrens hour to get up to speed for your
mathematics, new math that is.

A gaussian antenna can be any shape, size or configuration as long as
it is in a state of equilibrium



and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations. just what
is in 'equilibrium' with what??

No David I am not going to go thru all that again,get yourself a
physics book or Google around
Art

"Dave" wrote
and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??
__________

Art posted his definition in this thread on Oct 11. But no math
to support it.

\\ If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna which requires an element in equilibrium which means a
FULLWAVELENGTH. I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium but
here it is indispesable. //

What I get from his comments is that Art believes fractional wavelength
radiators are inefficient because they are not in equilibrium, ie, they are
not a full wave length and therefore don't act like a tank circuit (he
says) -- which he believes is necessary for efficient radiation.

I've sent Art several emails with NEC results and math-based discussion
showing that a 1/4-wave monopole working against a 2-ohm r-f ground plane
radiates about 95% of the power applied by a matched source between it base
feedpoint and r-f ground. This is the configuration used by virtually all
commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...Radiator10.gif

RF

On 13 Oct, 06:28, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Dave" wrote and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??

__________

Art posted his definition in this thread on Oct 11. But no math
to support it.

\\ If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna which requires an element in equilibrium which means a
FULLWAVELENGTH. I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium but
here it is indispesable. //

What I get from his comments is that Art believes fractional wavelength
radiators are inefficient because they are not in equilibrium, ie, they are
not a full wave length and therefore don't act like a tank circuit (he
says) -- which he believes is necessary for efficient radiation.

I've sent Art several emails with NEC results and math-based discussion
showing that a 1/4-wave monopole working against a 2-ohm r-f ground plane
radiates about 95% of the power applied by a matched source between it base
feedpoint and r-f ground. This is the configuration used by virtually all
commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...veFieldvsPower...

RF

When you said if the Gaussian antenna was real it would have been
invented long ago
or something like that and yet they are still giving out patents and
Nobel
prizes out for things that are newly discovered I lost interest in
your musings.
When you added things like an image is real I have to walk away
because you are
just not on my wavelength. I fed the half wave image and also hooked
it
up to a receiver and I heard nothing, let me know when you make a
contact
or maybe I should dig a little bit deeper!
Art
Art

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 13 Oct, 06:28, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Dave" wrote and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the
equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??

__________

Art posted his definition in this thread on Oct 11. But no math
to support it.

\\ If he understood Gaussian law then he could have made the Gaussian
antenna which requires an element in equilibrium which means a
FULLWAVELENGTH. I know you dislike the meaning of the term equilibrium
but
here it is indispesable. //

What I get from his comments is that Art believes fractional wavelength
radiators are inefficient because they are not in equilibrium, ie, they
are
not a full wave length and therefore don't act like a tank circuit (he
says) -- which he believes is necessary for efficient radiation.

I've sent Art several emails with NEC results and math-based discussion
showing that a 1/4-wave monopole working against a 2-ohm r-f ground plane
radiates about 95% of the power applied by a matched source between it
base
feedpoint and r-f ground. This is the configuration used by virtually
all
commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues
to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me
for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the
groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground
plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the
peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power
and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they
are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they
are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...veFieldvsPower...

RF

When you said if the Gaussian antenna was real it would have been
invented long ago
or something like that and yet they are still giving out patents and
Nobel
prizes out for things that are newly discovered I lost interest in
your musings.
When you added things like an image is real I have to walk away
because you are
just not on my wavelength. I fed the half wave image and also hooked
it
up to a receiver and I heard nothing, let me know when you make a
contact
or maybe I should dig a little bit deeper!
Art
Art


the basic problem is art that you forget we had a long conversation about
what a 'gaussian' antenna in your dream was. and you specifically said a
single halfwave dipole was a 'gaussian' antenna. you can go back and search
if you like, but i doubt that you will since you have now changed your
imaginary antenna. please art, go take a long walk... a very long walk, the
fresh air may do you good.

On 13 Oct, 06:28, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Dave" wrote and ONE MORE TIME.... define 'equilibrium'. write the equations.
just what is in 'equilibrium' with what??

__________

snip commercial AM broadcast stations, and its very high system
radiation
efficiency has been proven thousands of times since the earliest days of
broadcasting. Of course that is at odds with the beliefs Art continues to
post here and elsewhere.

In a response to my emails Art seemed to understand, and even thanked me for
"sticking with it." But I guess he was not convinced, because he started
this thread _after_ our email exchange.

RF
When a person E mails me in private he is suggesting an element of
trust
ie that it is private. When you betray that trust you can forget
about
any future discussion, private by E mail or public via the group
Art

Since my discussions with Art I put together a chart showing the groundwave
field generated at 1 km by several, fractional wavelength monopoles at
applied powers from 1-10 kW (see link below). I used a perfect ground plane
in preparing the chart, but the values would be only slightly less with a
2-ohm r-f ground.

ART: Note that the 1 kW field for the 1/4-wave monopole is exactly the peak
field of a 1/2-wave dipole in free space (about 313 mV/m). Taller
monopoles generate more groundwave field, given the same applied power and
r-f ground, because their radiation patterns have more gain in the
horizontal plane and less gain in other directions -- not because they are
more "efficient." All of the monopoles in this chart radiate all of the
power applied to them (100% efficient).

Also note, Art, that a 1/2-wave monopole and its ground image comprise a
full-wave antenna (eg, having your "equilibrium"), yet the 195-degree and
225-degree monopoles produce higher groundwave fields, even though they are
NOT by your definition "in equilibrium."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...veFieldvsPower...

RF

"art" wrote
Back to the Vincent antenna, he has designed an antenna that is
shorter than that known before. .... The input impedance is an
advantage over similar antennas and at the same time not
requiring a ground plain without being a problem to the transmitter.
He is also radiating well in comparison to the height of antenna and
the radiating system has the appearance of being efficient.
___________

Probably you'll agree that good, new antenna designs need more
than "the appearance of being efficient." Let's expand on this..

The link below leads to a calculation of the system radiation efficiency and
r-f bandwidth of a conventional, 30-degree, base-loaded monopole, using the
equations found in standard antenna engineering texts. This is the physical
height used for the "standard DLM" antennas tested by the Navy for the
University of Rhode Island. The coil and r-f ground loss was set to 2 ohms,
total, to approximate the conditions in the U-RI test.

This non-DLM configuration of a short monopole has a system radiation
efficiency of about 59%, and for 1 kW of applied power generates an inverse
distance groundwave field of 241 mV/m at 1 km.

A standard, 1/4-wave vertical monopole with a matching network and r-f
ground loss of 2 ohms, total, is about 95% efficient, and for 1 kW of
applied power generates an inverse distance groundwave field of about 306
mV/m at 1 km.

So the field of the 30-degree radiator is about 2.07 dB below that of the
90-degree radiator -- and that is due mostly to the much lower radiation
resistance of the 30-degree radiator (about 2.9 ohms vs about 36 ohms)
against the 2 ohms of other losses in each system.

The March 31, 2005 U-RI test report states that the 3.5 MHz standard DLM had
a measured groundwave field at 1 mile that was 2.33 dB less than the Navy's
reference monopole (whose electrical height is not stated, but presumably is
90 degrees). So the measured h-plane gain of that DLM was about 0.26 dB
_less_ than a conventional, base-loaded, 30-degree monopole -- although that
difference could be within the range of measurement and/or modeling error.

Also note, Art, that the DLM needs a good r-f ground, just as do all
monopoles, and especially short ones. The Navy went to great effort to
provide a very good r-f ground and propagation path for the range where the
DLM was tested.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...rtMonopole.gif

RF