art,

Wideband antennas already are available with no need for the "tank
circuit/equilibrium" concepts, design methods and limited band segments you
think must apply.

The link below describes one: a commercial HF antenna that has essentially
the same radiation pattern from 2-30 MHz with an SWR less than 2.5:1 without
a tuner, and is nearly 100% efficient throughout that range.

Not too usable for most hams, but that will be due to economic and real
estate issues, not to the (real) laws of physics.

http://www.antenna.be/tci-501.pdf

RF

On 20 Dec, 11:41, "Richard Fry" wrote:
art,

Wideband antennas already are available with no need for the "tank
circuit/equilibrium" concepts, design methods and limited band segments you
think must apply.


This IS a log periodic design which provides for close segments of
resonance
limited only by the number of elements aplicable for a frequency
spread.
I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure
that it does
when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency.
This operates on the same principle of multi elements of different
lengths as
opposed to a mechanically lengthened radiator presently on sale for
amateurs.
You are dwelling too much on old teachings in a book that was around
when you
were young. The next generation will leap frog you as newer books with
fresh
concepts are printed. This will give lie that all is known about
antennas!
The antenna I described does the same thing while mounted on
the
top of the tower where consideration of ground plane is not an issue
and where
TOA can be varied by tilting, the latter becomming increasingly in use
in
present day communications.
Your education in radiation tho limited is commensurate with your
age and
experience,certainly not up to par for the future generation but
enough to
satisfy your particular life expectancy segment.

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:44:37 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure
that it does
when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency.

Hi Arthur,

Richard's example resonates from over a 10:1 region in the HF (in
other words ALL HF).

They have published their data, they have published their design. You
are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies,
specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific
radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 20 Dec, 13:30, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:44:37 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure
that it does
when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency.

Hi Arthur,

Richard's example resonates from over a 10:1 region in the HF (in
other words ALL HF).

They have published their data, they have published their design. You
are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies,
specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific
radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

No.
This group is for book followers. I have placed it in front of a
panel of my peers consisting of professors knoweledgable in the field.
You are welcome to follow the descriptions/instructions that I have
provided over the years if you have an ounce of inquisitiveness
but your niche in life is to mock and not enquire.
Go back to the thread of a thousand postings and go around the
circle once more while injecting snakes and ladders that go no where.
Remember, it took you several months to accept that the adition of a
time variable
to Gaussian law results in the same law stated by Maxwell. I haven't
got the time to
provide a thread of a 1000 postings to satisfy anybody that takes that
long to absorb
every step into new territory absent a book.
Art

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:05:54 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

They have published their data, they have published their design. You
are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies,
specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific
radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you?

No.

Hi Arthur,

Then you don't have anything to offer, do you? What a mooch.

**** IRONIC CONTENT FOLLOWS *****

Let's try this theory on for size.

Arthur, I have an antenna the size of a pin head that works 160M with
20 dB gain, when I operatered it from my basement. It uses the
Earth's magnetic lines of force to penetrate soil, rock, and
constructions. By using ultraminiature plates at right angles, the
Poindexter Vectrod takes on a helical twist that steers through
electron orbits to escape the resistorance of nucklei (wich everyone
nose is 100,000 times larger) thus reducing gain by 5 or 3 divisions.
It is provened by Faradsay laws which came before Gus the mangetic
plumber patended the north and south poles.

If you cannot prove this, then goe and warshipyour old dead gods and
put bernt oferings at there feeet because nonething isreally none but
low so eventhough fo' you to go say you no it, it no so - whoa! so
woe, how po'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Dec 20, 6:20 pm, Richard Clark wrote:


**** IRONIC CONTENT FOLLOWS *****

Let's try this theory on for size.

Arthur, I have an antenna the size of a pin head that works 160M with
20 dB gain, when I operatered it from my basement. It uses the
Earth's magnetic lines of force to penetrate soil, rock, and
constructions. By using ultraminiature plates at right angles, the
Poindexter Vectrod takes on a helical twist that steers through
electron orbits to escape the resistorance of nucklei (wich everyone
nose is 100,000 times larger) thus reducing gain by 5 or 3 divisions.
It is provened by Faradsay laws which came before Gus the mangetic
plumber patended the north and south poles.

If you cannot prove this, then goe and warshipyour old dead gods and
put bernt oferings at there feeet because nonething isreally none but
low so eventhough fo' you to go say you no it, it no so - whoa! so
woe, how po'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dang.. This is scary.. You mimic Art's bafflegab to a tee...
MK

On Dec 20, 2:44 pm, art wrote:

Your education in radiation tho limited is commensurate with your
age and
experience,certainly not up to par for the future generation but
enough to
satisfy your particular life expectancy segment.

I don't recall reading anything about your level of education
in things RF. I seem to recall you are a retired mechanical
engineer dabbling with things RF in your spare time.
It seems fairly obvious to me that your education in radiation
can't even deal with the present tense, much less the future.
I would strongly consider this before braying like a jackass
to every person you talk to that *does* have an education in
things RF.
But it is possible that if you do that, you will lose much of
the entertainment value that you provide. :/
So go ahead.. Make our day with even more RF bafflegab.
Like I once said, you make the EH antenna guy look fairly
sane by comparison. :/
MK

On Dec 21, 5:01*am, wrote:
On Dec 20, 2:44 wrote:

Your education in radiation tho limited is commensurate with your
age and
experience,certainly not up to par for the future generation but
enough to
satisfy your particular life expectancy segment.

I don't recall reading anything about your level of education
in things RF. I seem to recall you are a retired mechanical
engineer dabbling with things RF in your spare time.
It seems fairly obvious to me that your education in radiation
can't even deal with the present tense, much less the future.
I would strongly consider this before braying like a jackass
to every person you talk to that *does* have an education in
things RF.
But it is possible that if you do that, you will lose much of
the entertainment value that you provide. *:/
So go ahead.. Make our day with even more RF bafflegab.
Like I once said, you make the EH antenna guy look fairly
sane by comparison. * :/
MK