'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Shucks, I have an antenna that's no bigger than a baseball, and it gives
better than a 1.5:1 SWR over more than the whole HF band when I connect
it directly to my transmitter. If I hang it up real high, the SWR gets
better yet.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Well heck, I have one the size of 2 shoe boxes that will handle a KW
from 160m through 70cm with less than 1.35:1. Bird made it. Decades
old and still works perfectly.

tom
K0TAR

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Feb 15, 6:46 pm, art wrote:
On 15 Feb, 15:29, (Richard Harrison) wrote: Art wrote:

"My present antenna, which is for 160 m and above, is about the size of
two shoe boxes and is less than 2:1 swr (50 ohm) across the band when
situated at the tip of my tower."

Outstanding! An effective antenna needs to be an appreciable portion of
wavelength in some dimension.

If Art`s antenna is an appreciable portion of 525 feet it can radiate
well on 160 meters.

Any length of wire carrying an RF current is capable of radiation.

*******
Yes, but it is not useable if C and L for the length involved and
frequency of use is not adhered to.
Implicit in Maxwell's laws is that a radiator can be any size or shape
as long as it is in equilibrium. Without the inclusion of that last
word
all laws of the masters are invalid.

Define equilibrium. As far as I can tell, you seem to infer
that being in "equilibrium", means that it is resonant.
I hate to break it to you, but being resonant is no sure
road to efficiency as a radiator of RF.
How many hundreds of feet of wound 22 gauge wire does this
device contain?
Seems to me, if I ponder all the laws of the "masters",
you have reinvented an air cooled dummy load that probably
won't handle too much power before it becomes so hot as
to melt whatever is close to it.
Maybe I suggest a Heathkit "Cantenna" as a better oil
cooled substitute that can be ground mounted for ease of
use. You can blast it with your 8877 for short periods
of time, and I doubt it will melt any plastic that is lying
next to it. Requires no tower, and no need for garbage can
lids.
According to the law of Art, it is in equilibrium, and
should satisfy all the requirements of the masters,
whoever they may be, and wherever they may lie.
MK

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:33:33 -0800 (PST), wrote:

How many hundreds of feet of wound 22 gauge wire does this
device contain?

Hi Mark,

Perhaps for Arthur's twist on an old concept, but for his argument's
sake, he need only lift off the shield for his finals with their Plate
Tank circuit to achieve "equilibrium." And how effective does this
full wave radiator perform? Hertz walked away from it 120 years ago
when everyone thought 160M was useless SHF.

I would point out this observation of the Plate Tank is not original
to me. It was pointed out to Arthur, in eham (a forum of his choice
for comity and gentlemen's conversation) where he flipped the fellow
off and never looked back.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Art wrote:
"It is not physical size that is important with respect to a dish it is
the wavelength between two objects that counts. A simple helix antenna
can use a reflector in place of a ground plane not used as an optical
ray reflector."

Yes, but, size matters even when you are told it doesn`t. A dish usually
makes the path length equal between its frontal plane and focal point
for all rays by the parabolic curvature of its reflector. Everything
stays in phase by virtue of traveling the same distance through the same
medium. The bigger the dish, the higher the gain.

On the helix antenna invented by Kraus, Terman writes on page 909 of his
1955 opus:
"The directive gain is appreciable, a six-turn helix having a diameter
of 0.30 lambda sith a spacing of 0.30 lambda between turns developing a
gain of 45 when provided with a reflecting screen at the input and that
is normal to the helix axis. A helical antenna is relatively broadband
in its characteristics."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Gentlemen.

It is now over two weeks since Art made his offer to Denny to supply a
model of his new antenna for testing, ( and should by now have been
delivered ), which gives all the naysayers a last chance to nail their
colours to the mast.
For my part it is my belief that Art's antenna will be a major
advance in the design of antenna's of the future, so, what say you
gentlemen, do you agree, or disagree?.

Just to make things even, it is my belief that someone, who has the
respect of most ham's in this group,( including the indomitable
Richard) has a finger in this pie.


Derek.

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Mar 4, 5:52 am, Derek wrote:
Gentlemen.

It is now over two weeks since Art made his offer to Denny to supply a
model of his new antenna for testing, ( and should by now have been
delivered ), which gives all the naysayers a last chance to nail their
colours to the mast.
For my part it is my belief that Art's antenna will be a major
advance in the design of antenna's of the future, so, what say you
gentlemen, do you agree, or disagree?.

Sorry, I don't believe in the tooth fairy, free lunches, or dummy
loads on sticks. Or should I say dummy loads on towers...

Just to make things even, it is my belief that someone, who has the
respect of most ham's in this group,( including the indomitable
Richard) has a finger in this pie.

Well, Yoda is pretty good at what he does. But I doubt if
even the force® can save this project.
Like I have said, if I thought it was possible to achieve full
size performance from a shoe box sized jumble of several
hundred feet of thin 22 gauge wire, I would have already built one.
But unfortunately, I have no such delusions of RF grandeur.
BTW, if even both of the Richards, "I'm not sure which one
you consider indomitable", had a finger in the pie, but
the rest of the world refused to stick their finger in the pie,
how would that make things even?
Myself, I have trouble seeing either one of them falling for
this fairy tale of full size antenna performance from a
mini sized dummy load on a stick. Even if it is air cooled.
Does this help clarify my stance on this small sized subject?
I try to avoid any gray areas that might give the impression
that I think this device even has a remote chance of it's
claimed full sized success as a radiator of RF.
But in case some still get confused by what I say, let me
rephrase in a manner that most all will understand.
What a load of horse manure says I...
MK

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Derek wrote:
Gentlemen.

It is now over two weeks since Art made his offer to Denny to supply a
model of his new antenna for testing, ( and should by now have been
delivered ), which gives all the naysayers a last chance to nail their
colours to the mast.
For my part it is my belief that Art's antenna will be a major
advance in the design of antenna's of the future, so, what say you
gentlemen, do you agree, or disagree?.

Just to make things even, it is my belief that someone, who has the
respect of most ham's in this group,( including the indomitable
Richard) has a finger in this pie.


Derek.

There are people who will happily believe most anything without any
credible evidence. Examples abound - believers in homeopathy, astrology,
and alien abductions to name just a very few. Believers in Art's antenna
claims are in this category. I'm not.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
There are people who will happily believe most anything without any
credible evidence. Examples abound - believers in homeopathy, astrology,
and alien abductions to name just a very few. Believers in Art's antenna
claims are in this category. I'm not.

However, you and W8JI seem to believe that the delay through
a 75m bugcatcher loading coil can be 3 ns. Compared to that
belief, astrology seems pretty logical.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
Derek wrote:
Gentlemen.

It is now over two weeks since Art made his offer to Denny to supply a
model of his new antenna for testing, ( and should by now have been
delivered ), which gives all the naysayers a last chance to nail their
colours to the mast.
For my part it is my belief that Art's antenna will be a major
advance in the design of antenna's of the future, so, what say you
gentlemen, do you agree, or disagree?.

Just to make things even, it is my belief that someone, who has the
respect of most ham's in this group,( including the indomitable
Richard) has a finger in this pie.


Derek.

There are people who will happily believe most anything without any
credible evidence. Examples abound - believers in homeopathy, astrology,
and alien abductions to name just a very few. Believers in Art's antenna
claims are in this category. I'm not.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


Don't forget the Audiophools!

John, KD5YI

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Art did ship me one of his antennas a week or two back... I have it in
my shop...
I will indeed put this interesting antenna to an objective and
thorough testing with a full report here... I am always excited to
learn something new...

It is 19F outside this morning and blowing hard, with wind and snow
forecast through the week and into the weekend, and I am unlikely to
climb the big tower in this...
I will attempt within a week to put it on a small 50' tower I have
attached to my shop and get some baseline impedence and field strength
measurements... Then as soon as the weather allows I will move it to
the big tower for a good test against my full size antennas...


I am sorry to have to put this off a bit, but given the weather and
that my family is hurting at the moment my free time is limited...

denny / k8do