RadioBanter - Vincent antenna

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - Vincent antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/127617-vincent-antenna.html)

Richard Fry wrote:
"Cecil Moore"
The Zepp antenna is a 1/2WL monopole with no counterpoise.

Here are some comments by W8JI about the need for some kind of r-f
ground or counterpoise on Zepps and other end-fed ham antennas.

Nobody said the Zepp antenna is free of common-
mode currents. The wire connected to the antenna
obviously carries current while the floating wire
just as obviously carries no current at the open
end. Radiation from the series stub just didn't
matter with the Zeppelin airships.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Nov 27, 5:31 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote I don't believe any of the modeling programs are "aware" of what dynamics
are causing the DLM to outperform expected/modeled results--

__________

Using Vincent's own numbers for the performance of a 3.5 MHz standard DLM
shows otherwise, and that doesn't necessarily take a modeling program to
discover.

As I stated in my last post in this thread, I was NOT using NEC to model the
DLM in any form. I modeled a standard, base loaded monopole of the same
physical height as the 3.5 MHz DLM, and compared the NEC result for that to
the DLM data in the URI test report, and the DLM data to the well-known
performance of a standard 1/4-wave monopole -- which performance has been
accurately measured.by broadcast stations thousands of times over the last
70+ years.

That DLM system radiated only about 59% of the power applied to it, which is
well below the ~95% radiated by a standard 1/4-wave monopole using a
"broadcast type" buried radial ground.

Check the numbers for yourself.

RF

It doesn't matter. He mounted one on his bike, and he can
make contacts, so all the rules go out the window... :/
What I'd still like to see is the reinvention compared against
a same height short monopole which is purely top hat loaded.
I bet the DLM reinvention loses a bit of it's gee whiz status...
If the DLM is all it's cracked up to be, the LW aircraft beacon
boys should all be switching over real soon..
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.. :(
Using extended helical windings for short whips is nothing new
either.
The CB'ers have been doing it for years and years.
It's a valid concept which in *some* cases can give an
advantage, but it sure isn't anything new.
People whine that no one tries the DLM in the real world.
But I already tried my own versions of basically the same thing
many years ago. "for mobile use"
But I don't use any versions of that basic design any more because
it is proven inferior vs other more standard methods such as
top hat loading, or using a single large high Q loading coil
instead of a bunch of split narrow wound coils of lower Q and
higher overall loss.
I still stand by my previous statements that the DLM is not an
optimum design for a short vertical. It has various warts, which
I won't bother elaborating on.. There is not much point since it
will just fly off into space ignored by the usual DLM-Gaussian
campers.
MK

On 27 Nov, 11:01, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
"Cecil Moore"
The Zepp antenna is a 1/2WL monopole with no counterpoise.

Here are some comments by W8JI about the need for some kind of r-f
ground or counterpoise on Zepps and other end-fed ham antennas.

Nobody said the Zepp antenna is free of common-
mode currents. The wire connected to the antenna
obviously carries current while the floating wire
just as obviously carries no current at the open
end. Radiation from the series stub just didn't
matter with the Zeppelin airships.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil
W8JI is a competant engineer and well versed in "traditional"
antenna design but he is not without fault or error since
he is a human being. It is very worthwhile to read what
he has to say but if it doesn't agree on your thoughts
developed from first principles then you can't use the
info until the error is resolved. That is just like
reading a book without exercising discretion with
respect to the source.
Regards
Art

On 27 Nov, 10:48, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:32:46 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

On 27 Nov, 08:54, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:31:55 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

It is able to radiate on its surface and is unable to radiate
as it returns down the center of the wire.
(assuming the antenna is not tubular)
...
you have an
instrument that can detect the difference in radiation between a solid
wire and a tubular one - all other externalities being the same?
...
If a radiator is made of a tube of minimal thickness with respect to
skin
depth and the ends filled with the same diamagnetic
material where a fuse connects them, the fuse will blow when RF is
applied to the external surface

Hi Arthur,

Let's make this practical for 2M. The skin depth there is all of 30
millionths of an inch and we can talk about a tube with maybe 100
millionths of an inch wall thickness, so let's make it a tube with a 1
thousandth inch diameter with the conventional length of 39 inches.

What size fuse will blow?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What ever you want.There is nothing more to discuss
with you. Send what you refee to as your missives elswhere

"art" wrote
W8JI is a competant engineer and well versed in "traditional"
antenna design but he is not without fault or error since
he is a human being. It is very worthwhile to read what
he has to say but if it doesn't agree on your thoughts
developed from first principles then you can't use the
info until the error is resolved. That is just like
reading a book without exercising discretion with
respect to the source.
_____________

art,

As presumably you, also, are a human being, then shouldn't we all consider
the peculiar, unproven, and unique beliefs you post here with the same
discretion applying to you as you suggest for the statements of W8JI (and
others)?

And that is being rather charitable, as W8JI is basing his analyses on
proven and repeatable physics, not on the speculations you continue to post,
and which no one else has offered the least bit of provable corroboration.

RF

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

On 27 Nov, 10:48, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:32:46 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:
If a radiator is made of a tube of minimal thickness with respect to
skin
depth and the ends filled with the same diamagnetic
material where a fuse connects them, the fuse will blow when RF is
applied to the external surface

Let's make this practical for 2M. The skin depth there is all of 30
millionths of an inch and we can talk about a tube with maybe 100
millionths of an inch wall thickness, so let's make it a tube with a 1
thousandth inch diameter with the conventional length of 39 inches.

What size fuse will blow?

What ever you want.There is nothing more to discuss
with you. Send what you refee to as your missives elswhere

Hi Arthur,

So basically you are telling us you don't know how to distinguish a
hollow conductor from a solid one based on practical testing
demonstrating how an hollow conductor will "blow a fuse when RF is
applied to it." [No one is surprised you can't perform this.]

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 27 Nov, 14:42, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote W8JI is a competant engineer and well versed in "traditional"
antenna design but he is not without fault or error since
he is a human being. It is very worthwhile to read what
he has to say but if it doesn't agree on your thoughts
developed from first principles then you can't use the
info until the error is resolved. That is just like
reading a book without exercising discretion with
respect to the source.

_____________

art,

As presumably you, also, are a human being, then shouldn't we all consider
the peculiar, unproven, and unique beliefs you post here with the same
discretion applying to you as you suggest for the statements of W8JI (and
others)?

And that is being rather charitable, as W8JI is basing his analyses on
proven and repeatable physics, not on the speculations you continue to post,
and which no one else has offered the least bit of provable corroboration.

RF

What others think matters not to me. If I can follow thru from first
principles
of that which is stated then I am comfortable with it.
At the same time it is acknoweledged that radiation is still a mystery
to scientists
and I want to get to the bottom of things. If you are comfortable in
what you believe
then why the problem?

"art" wrote
At the same time it is acknoweledged that radiation
is still a mystery to scientists.
__________

Or just a mystery to you, perhaps?

Please quote the provable, scientific source(s) supporting an objective
research result showing that your stated belief that "radiation is still a
mystery" is valid.

RF

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:42:27 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

If I can follow thru from first
principles

Follow thru indeed.

This isn't rec.golf.clinic, and you can't even bogey the course. ;-)

On 27 Nov, 17:05, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote At the same time it is acknoweledged that radiation
is still a mystery to scientists.

__________

Or just a mystery to you, perhaps?

Please quote the provable, scientific source(s) supporting an objective
research result showing that your stated belief that "radiation is still a
mystery" is valid.

RF

I figured you were from the "All is known about antennas" group.
Why are you bothering with me when all is known?
We have nothing in common so why are you trying to advise me?
Why not educate the masses with respect to waves versus particles,
everybody will be very interested as to what emanates from a
radiator or visa versa when on the receiving end.Is it clones of
yourself that is needed to save the World?
As for you wanting me to quote something per your request,
you can forget all about that! I am not interested in
influencing your thoughts, What you have you can take to your
grave with complete confidence.