Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:45:35 -0800 (PST), Derek
wrote:

The fact that it work's would count for nothing?.

Hi Derek,

What fact?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:22:43 GMT, "Lee"
wrote:

Yes, I already have a 3ft dia magloop 3-30megs also a 5ft square
magloop for 14-80megs..... both cover the 14meg band....
they work extremely well. and as they are virtually noiseles i hear
stations that can`t be heard on a regular wideband antenna
due to a better sn ratio, albeit, at reduced signal strength.....also,
unfortunately, with reduced transmission levels.....
( very good listening antennas ).

Hi Len (Lee?),

Are these commercial loops with substantial conductors (well beyond
what would be called wire)? If so, then pushing them into 80M is
going to be a trick unless the 3-30MHz model in fact works. If it
does not, it needs more capacitance, and that is going to be a loss
leader if you try to add any.

The only other limitation in the 20M band would be how high are they?

That`s why i need a larger, lower `Q` antenna ....which will also
fit in my garden space to t/x on.....

I like 20 meters a lot running Slowscan, Hampal and Digital Voice.

As far as 20M goes, your garden is long enough for a conventional
dipole - provided you have the support, and the direction favors your
need. If not, it seems unlikely you will gain anything over the
magloops. (Go for more height.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

On Jan 19, 8:45 am, Derek wrote:
On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:

"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's weard.

Derek

Define "works"...
Nearly anything will radiate to some extent. Even many dummy loads
and light bulbs. How much better than a dummy load would be the real
issue in the case of his small antenna.
If he did not test the antenna according to accepted methods commonly
used, this would not matter to you?
At the very least he could put up a full sized reference dipole,
chase the spiders from the innerds of his radio, and compare
them. He doesn't even have to actually transmit to do these simple
comparisons for himself.
But in order to prove an antenna to the big wide world out there, he's
going to need to test it on an excepted antenna test range, and then
provide all the data if he wants anyone pay much attention.
This would apply to anyone, not just Art.
It seems you would except his word on it, without actually seeing any
proof of this claimed full sized lunch from a dinky radiator.
That would be weird to me.
MK

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

On 19 Jan, 06:45, Derek wrote:
On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:

"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

* * So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
* * The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's *weard.

*Derek

Derek.
I thought you would like to know that I made another 160M antenna
today which isvery much smaller than the one I have on my tower. If
somebody takes you up on your bet you will be able to afford a trip to
Central Illinois and I will give it to you to take home to Sydney or
what ever.
It is compact enough for carry on luggage so it will not be a
problem.It is below zero temps
here at the moment but it has resonant points either side of 160M on
the ground one of which is 200 ohms the other is outside the scope of
my MFJ 259 . I could measure it on a SA if I have to but it is best
now to wait until spring unless a bet is made. When it goes up one of
the resonant points will move to 160M.
My next antenna to make will be small enough to put on a dinner plate
for the broadcast band but I really do need to fix the plasma tv as
the wife likes watching the tennis from down under on the big TV. I
believe it got a lightning pulse from the cable line so I need to
change out a relay or a transistor amplifier /switch to get it going
again. Small relays are known to weld anf the front end transisters
are not made to handle a high current, hopefully it is one of the two.
My Best Regards and many thanks for your confidence in my honesty.
G,Day
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG(uk)

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

On 19 Jan, 09:43, wrote:
On Jan 19, 8:45 am, Derek wrote:





On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:

"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

* * So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
* * The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's *weard.

*Derek

Define "works"...
Nearly anything will radiate to some extent. Even many dummy loads
and light bulbs. How much better than a dummy load would be the real
issue in the case of his small antenna.
If he did not test the antenna according to accepted methods commonly
used, *this would not matter to you?
At the very least he could put up a full sized reference dipole,
chase the spiders from the innerds of his radio, and compare
them. He doesn't even have to actually transmit to do these simple
comparisons for himself.
But in order to prove an antenna to the big wide world out there, he's
going to need to test it on an excepted antenna test range, and then
provide all the data if he wants anyone pay much attention.
This would apply to anyone, not just Art.
It seems you would except his word on it, without actually seeing any
proof of this claimed full sized lunch from a dinky radiator.
That would be weird to me.
MK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe to you, but some people on this newsgroup have alluded to my
honesty.
I never played hooky from school in my lifetime( well maybe a couple
of times)
I am not a redneck so I had no fears that education would deteriate my
inbuilt intelligence
like you did. So I was able to tuck a few years under my belt until a
free trip came about for my family and I to Central Illinois. Didn't
bargain on staying so I had to sell my house in London for a song. It
now costs so much I can't hardly afford to buy it back! By the way the
U.S. also subsidized the trip over, so your tax money was really
appreciated.
A former immigrant who made so much money over here that he stayed.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(uk)

PS.
The company paid for trips to Italy,Germany,Swiss Alps and England as
well as Hispanola,PR and other Islands in the Carabbian while I was
helping the company to move manufacturing offshore. Ofcourse the
engineering jobs were transfered later and I was real sorry to see the
guys go.Now I am retired and rarely go overseas, it is cheaper to pay
relatives to do the travelling.

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

"art" wrote (sic):
Derek. I thought you would like to know that I made another
160M antenna today which isvery much smaller than the one
I have on my tower.
__________

Congratulations. Universal scientific accolades, a place in history with
the Great Masters whose names you often quote, and huge financial rewards
may be in order for you and/or the nominated beneficiaries of your estate,
"art."

But first, what are the proven/provable radiation characteristics of your
new 160-m antenna design as you believe them to be, in comparison to those
of a conventional, proven 1/4-wave vertical monopole with a broadcast-type,
radial ground system?

Please show your work.

Otherwise...

RF

PS: Derek, "JS," and any other of art's groupies -- please feel free to
chime in.

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:22:43 GMT, "Lee"
wrote:

Yes, I already have a 3ft dia magloop 3-30megs

also a 5ft square magloop for 14-80megs

Typo should read - magloop for 14 - 3.5megs ( can go lower at higher `Q` )

..... both cover the 14meg band....


they work extremely well. and as they are virtually noiseles i hear
stations that can`t be heard on a regular wideband antenna
due to a better sn ratio, albeit, at reduced signal strength.....also,
unfortunately, with reduced transmission levels.....
( very good listening antennas ).

Hi Len (Lee?),

Len, Lee Leon Leonard or Leonardo .....no problem as the birth name is
Leonard...

Are these commercial loops with substantial conductors (well beyond
what would be called wire)?

HOMEBREW!!! .....3ft dia loop, ( 10 ft circumference ) 3/8" tube -
can be persuaded to 80meters ....
HOMEBREW!!! ......5`.0" square ( 20ft circumference ) loop 3/4" tube -
can persuade it to 160meters.

If so, then pushing them into 80M is

No problem....80meters isn`t the problem ! - they work!

going to be a trick unless the 3-30MHz model in fact works.

It works well in the design freq of 3 - 30 megs....can work lower at higher
`Q`
........higher `Q` not good!

If it does not, it needs more capacitance, and that is going to be a loss
leader if you try to add any.

Agreed.

The only other limitation in the 20M band would be how high are they?

Vertical - ground level for vertically polarised ground wave- with
directivity.
Horizontal - 30ft for horizontal `omni directional` polarization - less
gain
than a straight, horizontal dipole at the same height.

That`s why i need a larger, lower `Q` antenna ....which will also
fit in my garden space to t/x on.....

I like 20 meters a lot running Slowscan, Hampal and Digital Voice.

As far as 20M goes, your garden is long enough for a conventional
dipole - provided you have the support, and the direction favors your
need. If not, it seems unlikely you will gain anything over the
magloops.

(Go for more height.)

If you read the o/p, you wouldn`t question everything i have already
stated Richard!!!

I don`t want a fixed dipole at low height!! i want a rotary dipole on the
top
of my tower (mast)....i am aware i can fit a 33foot fixed, wire dipole into
a
35foot garden, lengthwise, but the length of my garden runs east/west so the
dipole would fire north/south - not good...... the magloops receive very
well,
with lower noise than a regular antenna, i can hear stations i wouldn`t
normally
hear on a regular antenna, plus, a horizontal dipole, generally, has more
gain
than a horizontal omni magloop at the same height but is a noisier r/x than
the
magloop, which makes the dipole better for t/x mode....Yes?...
My garden is 14ft wide and a 14meg dipole is 33ft+, i don`t want my
neighbours
complaining when half the antenna is over their garden when i`m working east
west...hence linear loading the dipole...to shorten it!!

All i requested was a suitable design configuration for a linear loaded
halfsize
rotary dipole to go on top of the tower and my reasons why.......
not a discussion on magloops ....

I`ll go with the linear short 1/4 wave vertical layout for each leg of the
dipole,
where half the element is fed back on itself down to 6 inches from the
ground
( or, in my case, to the mast ) with about 3 inch spacing of the element.

Regards.

Len ....( Lee, Leon Leonard Leonardo ).........G6ZSG....

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 01:36:22 GMT, "Lee"
wrote:

I don`t want a fixed dipole at low height!! i want a rotary dipole on the
top
of my tower (mast)....i am aware i can fit a 33foot fixed, wire dipole into
a
35foot garden, lengthwise, but the length of my garden runs east/west so the
dipole would fire north/south - not good...... the magloops receive very
well,
with lower noise than a regular antenna, i can hear stations i wouldn`t
normally
hear on a regular antenna, plus, a horizontal dipole, generally, has more
gain
than a horizontal omni magloop at the same height but is a noisier r/x than
the
magloop, which makes the dipole better for t/x mode....Yes?...

Hi Len,

Yes, but marginally. This is a double edged sword. The Q that gives
you such superlative receive characteristics is going to drive you
into CW mode in, perhaps, 80M, and certainly in 160M - not to speak of
the critical tuning. You have the height, something I missed from the
distraction of 20 other unrelated postings to this thread, so you have
solutions and that height is both far and away sufficient for the
upper HF, and more to the matter, the best practical solution for your
neighborhood. As to the antenna construction, you have answered the
Ohmic losses to a considerable extent, and you are aware of the
relationship of Ohmic Loss to Radiation Resistance. You would do well
to report to the group your SWR bandwidth for several of these bands
so we can get a grasp of the actual Q. Simply for 160/80/40/20, how
many KHz between the 2:1 points?

There are a lot of pluses there, except for the high Q on low bands.
You also express in your list of negatives that you don't seem to get
out (a transmit problem).

My garden is 14ft wide and a 14meg dipole is 33ft+, i don`t want my
neighbours
complaining when half the antenna is over their garden when i`m working east
west...hence linear loading the dipole...to shorten it!!

If I recall (as you have a lot of widely separate issues here), you
want to operate 20M. Your garden as you state here is too narrow (it
is) for the direction you desire. An efficient design is going to
demand end loading aka top hat style (long radial spokes at the end of
each arm of the dipole you want).The end loads, if sufficiently
developed (and not a simple installation, I suspect) could do it
without further loading with a coil somewhere (and if it were
anywhere, the good advice from years of reporting here would indicate
that it would be one half to two thirds out and away from the feed
point, on both sides). Another alternative is an inverted V which
would seem to be within your capacity (depends on where the tower is
sited).

As your interests span 20 down to 80 and Q intrudes into the bandwidth
you desire at the longer wavelengths, then lowering Q would only drive
down your efficiency and increase your complaint of getting out. It
seems you are rapidly moving away from the loops. You might (if you
can interpret the technical comments) try Arthur's contra-wound
inventions. No doubt, they too would make good receive antennas, and
the proximity of windings would lower Q, but this would come at a
severe loss of gain and sensitivity. A receiver has enough gain to
make up for this loss, but your transmitter is forever crippled with
the introduction of both Ohmic loss and its loss boost due to tightly
coupled currents.

A larger diameter antenna is called for if you are sticking with
loops, but that is probably unmanageable.

Another breed of loop, the halfwave open loop allows you to build an
omni horizontal polarized antenna in a small area, but we now enter
into other issues you have not discussed. What resources, other than
the tower, are available to you for supporting the linear loaded
dipole you seek? If you have four support points, your garden size is
not unsuited to a full half wave design, there are no Q issues, no
efficiency issues - except for matching to a 5 Ohm load. What can I
say? Compromise antennas demand care and feeding.


All i requested was a suitable design configuration for a linear loaded
halfsize
rotary dipole to go on top of the tower and my reasons why.......
not a discussion on magloops ....

I`ll go with the linear short 1/4 wave vertical layout for each leg of the
dipole,
where half the element is fed back on itself down to 6 inches from the
ground
( or, in my case, to the mast ) with about 3 inch spacing of the element.

You lost me entirely here. You want a horizontal dipole, and you will
build a closely coupled vertical system that will rotate where half
the element is within 6 inches of ground? Too much is left unsaid in
this description. Is your tower guyed? Freestanding? You are using
the mast (tower?) as half the antenna? Is the mast (tower?) grounded?

This sounds like you are top feeding a vertical quarterwave open
transmission line that rotates around one element. If so, your feed
line is going to really become a nightmare of isolation. It will show
varying horizontal/vertical directivity to a loss of 10dB in any
direction - if you can match to the near short circuit conditions at
the feed point.

I don't think this is what you mean, but what you describe is vague.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

On 19 Jan, 17:00, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote (sic): Derek. I thought *you would like to know that I made another
160M antenna today which isvery much smaller than the one
I have on my tower.

__________

Congratulations. *Universal scientific accolades, a place in history with
the Great Masters whose names you often quote, and huge financial rewards
may be in order for you and/or the nominated beneficiaries of your estate,
"art."

But first, what are the proven/provable radiation characteristics of your
new 160-m antenna design as you believe them to be, in comparison to those
of a conventional, proven 1/4-wave vertical monopole with a broadcast-type,
radial ground system?

Please show your work.

Otherwise...

RF

PS: *Derek, "JS," and any other of art's groupies -- please feel free to
chime in.

Get lost. You are not in the circle of a need to know,only the heckler
list.
You just can't handle the truth as I told you a ground plane is not
necessary.
They just supply unwanted noise anyway compared to a antenna away from
the ground surface.
If you want to be part of a bet then call Australia as I will not be
getting your posts anymore
because they are unproductive. But don't let that stop you in
arranging the bet to prove your points as I will still cooperate in
the adjudication.

Linear Loaded Antennas ??
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"art" wrote in message
...

Maybe to you, but some people on this newsgroup have alluded to my
honesty.

Haha, they merely "alluded" to your honesty, they were never able to
directly "attest" to it. How could they after hearing the whopper about of
the little antenna (a.k.a. "dummy load") for the big band?

I never played hooky from school in my lifetime( well maybe a couple
of times)

Is this another "allusion to", or "illusion of", said honesty?

I am not a redneck so I had no fears that education would deteriate my
inbuilt intelligence

Indeed, if you had such fears there wouldn't have been anything to worry
about since your "education" had no effect on your journey to intellectual
absurdity.

like you did. So I was able to tuck a few years under my belt until a
free trip came about for my family and I to Central Illinois. Didn't
bargain on staying so I had to sell my house in London for a song. It
now costs so much I can't hardly afford to buy it back! By the way the
U.S. also subsidized the trip over, so your tax money was really
appreciated.

At which point during your sucking at the teat of the US taxpayer did
insanity enter into the equation?

A former immigrant who made so much money over here that he stayed.

Of course you stayed, they *all* stay. In my travels worldwide I am often
able to gain the confidence of people in other countries to the point that
they eventually say the negative things about the US that are deep seated in
their minds. At the same time, when I was empowered to offer the prospect of
green cards (as I have been a few times, and did,), without exception the
response was overwhelmingly positive. So, if the US is so ****ty, why do
they want to come here? The only answer can be that their home countries are
****tier, which in fact they always are (including any place in London that
art could afford to live in). The intent of art's post is to insult and
enrage Americans on this thread by saying, take all the foreign aid that
you, in your stupidity and ignorance, gave to me and my family and shove it
up in your idiot country's posterior. But, lest art's groupies become
confused, remember that arthur stayed here by choice and he is quite happy
here, building broadcast antennas that fit on dinner plates; it might just
work after all, in the same country where it was possible to generate such
great profits for the inventor of the pet rock. Opportunities abound.



Pay no attention to him, Art, he's just another simple-minded nativist.
Actually, many people from India and China have come to Silicon Valley
and stayed long enough to get experience, after which, they went home,
started their own companies, and prosper to this day. Unless
AI4QJ is a Native American, he can't complain about immigration without
exposing himself as a hypocrite.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH