Those that can get access to a copy should look at the Radio Society of
Great Britain, RadCom Magazine, December 2007 issue, Technical Topics column
by Pat Hawker G3VA. The topic? 50 Years of amateur antennas. He covers a lot
of the perennial topics of debate in this newsgroup and provides some
excellent commentary on element lengths, feedline lengths, SWR, ATU's, modes
of operation and some of the controversy. Okay, it has probably all been
covered elsewhere in books, on websites and in this newsgroup, but there is
a lot of useful information condensed into a couple of pages. Almost a
substitute fro Kraus and Terman! :-)

Mike G0ULI

Mike Kaliski wrote:
Those that can get access to a copy should look at the Radio Society of
Great Britain, RadCom Magazine, December 2007 issue, Technical Topics
column by Pat Hawker G3VA. The topic? 50 Years of amateur antennas. He
covers a lot of the perennial topics of debate in this newsgroup and
provides some excellent commentary on element lengths, feedline lengths,
SWR, ATU's, modes of operation and some of the controversy. Okay, it has
probably all been covered elsewhere in books, on websites and in this
newsgroup, but there is a lot of useful information condensed into a
couple of pages. Almost a substitute fro Kraus and Terman! :-)

Mike G0ULI

Does he cover the radiation of antennas from 377 ohm "sweet spots", and
the concept of using antennas to match free space's impedance?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Pat Hawker was the only part that I read but lately he seems to be
rambling.
The antenna reporter isn't really putting out anything of interest for
the
regular ham either tho I was pleased with the experimenting for QRP
I terminated my subscription to Radcom this year because there rarely
was anything else that was interesting. Wrote them a letter earlier
this year
but they didn't even acknoweledge it.
Have been to the HQ by the way at St Albans or was it Hatfield?
Art

Mike Kaliski wrote:
Those that can get access to a copy should look at the Radio Society of
Great Britain, RadCom Magazine, December 2007 issue, Technical Topics column
by Pat Hawker G3VA. The topic? 50 Years of amateur antennas. He covers a lot
of the perennial topics of debate in this newsgroup and provides some
excellent commentary on element lengths, feedline lengths, SWR, ATU's, modes
of operation and some of the controversy. Okay, it has probably all been
covered elsewhere in books, on websites and in this newsgroup, but there is
a lot of useful information condensed into a couple of pages. Almost a
substitute fro Kraus and Terman! :-)

Mike G0ULI

art ) writes:
Pat Hawker was the only part that I read but lately he seems to be
rambling.

I'm rather surprised that he's still doing the column. It's been
thirty years since I bought a collection of Technical Topics, and later
I found a used one dating from the sixties. I have no idea when
he started doing it (wait, I guess if this is "50 years of antenna topics"
then it must be fifty years), but I suspect nobody has had such a long
running column in the ham magazines.

Of course, such columns are relatively easy to write, since it's a filtering
of a lot of material down to it's essence.


Michael VE2BVW

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
Those that can get access to a copy should look at the Radio Society of
Great Britain, RadCom Magazine, December 2007 issue, Technical Topics
column by Pat Hawker G3VA. The topic? 50 Years of amateur antennas. He
covers a lot of the perennial topics of debate in this newsgroup and
provides some excellent commentary on element lengths, feedline lengths,
SWR, ATU's, modes of operation and some of the controversy. Okay, it has
probably all been covered elsewhere in books, on websites and in this
newsgroup, but there is a lot of useful information condensed into a
couple of pages. Almost a substitute fro Kraus and Terman! :-)

Mike G0ULI

Does he cover the radiation of antennas from 377 ohm "sweet spots", and
the concept of using antennas to match free space's impedance?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hi Roy,

He does mention that antennas possess radiation resistance, not to be
confused with and not the same as, characteristic impedence (or feedpoint
impedence) and that the characteristic impedence will vary along an antennas
length.

As for the actual point(s) along an element at which an antenna radiates
(transfers energy to free space) with maximum efficiency, he makes no
comment.

I seriously doubt that there is anything in the article that you would
dispute.

It seems that everyone was so busy laughing on this newsgroup, that no one
has actually provided any information as to whether any detailed research
has ever been carried out as to what is going on within the radiating
elements of an antenna. There is loads of theory in the text books, but I
have yet to see any empirical measurements or results. I am aware of the
research into small loops carried out by Professor Underhill (also published
in RadCom) but it seems that even his results have been disputed.

I may have submitted the post, tongue in cheek, to stir things up a bit, but
on reflection there seems to be something of merit in the idea. I am
revisiting the appropriate chapters in Kraus and Terman to see where the
error in my logic is. In the absence of any direct evidence of
contradiction, I think it may be worth developing this idea and making a few
measurements of my own to see what the truth of the matter is. Amateur radio
is supposed to be a learning experience, right? And you can't learn without
making mistakes. After 40 years of following the diktats of professional
communications and electronic theory, I think the time is right to kick off
the traces and challenge some of the accepted authodoxies. I do know all the
conventional stuff, it just doesn't satisfy my soul.

You probably know more about antennas than anyone has a right to know Roy,
but it's a strange universe out there and it's just possible that there's a
few more things to learn yet.

Regards
Mike G0ULI

"art" wrote in message
...
Pat Hawker was the only part that I read but lately he seems to be
rambling.
The antenna reporter isn't really putting out anything of interest for
the
regular ham either tho I was pleased with the experimenting for QRP
I terminated my subscription to Radcom this year because there rarely
was anything else that was interesting. Wrote them a letter earlier
this year
but they didn't even acknoweledge it.
Have been to the HQ by the way at St Albans or was it Hatfield?
Art

Mike Kaliski wrote:
Those that can get access to a copy should look at the Radio Society of
Great Britain, RadCom Magazine, December 2007 issue, Technical Topics
column
by Pat Hawker G3VA. The topic? 50 Years of amateur antennas. He covers a
lot
of the perennial topics of debate in this newsgroup and provides some
excellent commentary on element lengths, feedline lengths, SWR, ATU's,
modes
of operation and some of the controversy. Okay, it has probably all been
covered elsewhere in books, on websites and in this newsgroup, but there
is
a lot of useful information condensed into a couple of pages. Almost a
substitute for Kraus and Terman! :-)

Mike G0ULI

Hi Art,

That is true, but he has been a columnist for years and years, and there
must come a time when you start to go round in circles. Rather too much
emphasis on low noise mixers and old valve circuits for my taste but
sometimes there is a real gem, like this month. The homebrew column that has
been appearing for the last few months has been very good and very
practical. The head office is in Potters Bar, just off the M25 motorway.
They have quite a nice station that licensed visitors can operate, with
prior notice. The staff are always friendly but are rather busy all the time
so are not really in a position to stand around having long chats.

Cheers
Mike G0ULI

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:47:05 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

It seems that everyone was so busy laughing on this newsgroup,

Hi Mike,

As well crafted a line for trolling as any....

that no one
has actually provided any information as to whether any detailed research
has ever been carried out as to what is going on within the radiating
elements of an antenna.

This, as the lawyers would say, argues a fact not yet in evidence.
Your statement appears to be one that can only be satisfied by meeting
a string of conditions:
1. The actuality of "actually," who is the arbiter of this? This
group has long experienced denial by inventors that their theories
have never been "actually" disproved. "Actually" is one of those
rubbery words that fits any argument that lack definition;
2. "detailed research?" Another qualifier that invites the rejection
of any contribution for lacking unspecified requirements;
3. "what is going on?" Now THERE is a technical goal for detailed
research to be provided as information.
4. "within the radiating elements?" Is this to presume there is some
distinct radiation from "within" elements? This would be a remarkable
measurement achievement to tease it out from the rest. [Could we use
a Gaussian sieve?]

There is loads of theory in the text books, but I

If you moved to the fiction shelves would you say there is loads of
drama in them? [More to the matter, what would you expect?]

have yet to see any empirical measurements or results.

Of what? Actual detailed results of what is going on within radiating
elements?

Help us out here. What instrumentation would be used? What units of
measure would be employed? (In "what is going on" are we talking
about Ohms, Volts, Amperes; or swimming, having a party, or getting
laid off?). What qualifies as detail? How would we recognize it
being actual?

I am aware of the
research into small loops carried out by Professor Underhill (also published
in RadCom) but it seems that even his results have been disputed.

Hmm, tantalizing, but how do small loops relate to "what is actually
going on?" More so, where within the loop did Professor Underhill
make his measurements, and what were they of? [I might point out
here, editorially, that little content was posted by you up until this
point, and it has evaporated following its solitary mention. If you
stripped out everything, and simply fleshed out this sentence into a
paragraph, it might be meaningful.]

I may have submitted the post, tongue in cheek

Then the joviality that your post heralds is merited, isn't it? This
is called leading with your chin.

, to stir things up a bit, but
on reflection there seems to be something of merit in the idea.

As your post seems to be wholly unrelated to the topic, and apparently
a stream of consciousness from another thread, then this idea is
adorned with rather vague suggestions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ahhh, at it again.

A careful argument based on semantics, the authors choice of words, and
standing on the arguments that no mistakes exist in our present
knowledge and that new discoveries in the deep workings of antennas are
yet to be discovered ...

Yanno Richard, you argument is really the same argument--over, and over,
and over again ...

I keep wondering if others ever notice, or they all, to the VERY LAST
ONE, are too polite to point out how childish it all really is?

Regards,
JS

Mike Kaliski wrote:
and that the characteristic impedence will vary
along an antennas length.

Well, that's obviously false. The characteristic
impedance of a horizontal wire above ground is
constant at 138*log(4D/d)

The characteristic impedance is not to be confused
with the voltage to current ratio existing on a
standing-wave antenna any more than the characteristic
impedance of a transmission line is to be confused
with the voltage to current radio existing along
its length when the SWR is not 1:1.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote:
and that the characteristic impedence will vary along an antennas length.

Well, that's obviously false. The characteristic
impedance of a horizontal wire above ground is
constant at 138*log(4D/d)

The characteristic impedance is not to be confused
with the voltage to current ratio existing on a
standing-wave antenna any more than the characteristic
impedance of a transmission line is to be confused
with the voltage to current radio existing along
its length when the SWR is not 1:1.

Have you verified this experimentally, Cecil? If you did,
how did you do it?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH