'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Mar 5, 6:55 am, 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.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


The difference is I believe there is more to be learned in the design
of anntena's, I have listened to what Art has to say and checked out
his theories for myself and find them compelling, unlike yourself who
gives the impression that you know it "all and there is nothing left
to learn that would be of any use to you, you have a knee jerk
reaction to reject any thing that Art put's forward regardless,
To you also keep digging

Derek

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:11:41 -0800 (PST), Derek
wrote:

I have listened to what Art has to say and checked out
his theories for myself

Give us an example of what you have done, not what you've read.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Mar 7, 3:45 am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:14 pm, (Dave Platt) wrote:
In article ,
Roy Lewallen wrote:

I highly recommend that you decouple the feedline with a current balun
(common mode choke). Better yet would be two, spaced about a quarter
wavelength apart. Small antennas can be made to look a lot better than
they really are if the feedline is allowed to become part of the
radiating antenna system, so unless the feedline is decoupled well, any
measurements you make will be subject to speculation as to whether the
radiation was from the antenna or the feedline.
It would also be interesting to use a simple current probe to sweep
along the feedline, and see what sorts of currents might be flowing
along the outside of the feedline, both with and without a good
common-mode choke or two in the feedline.

I agree. I think it's quite possible that even a decoupled feedline
will add enough radiation to make the antenna noticeably better
than it really is.
I'd prefer to see the source mounted *at* the antenna to make it
a decent comparison.

. . .

Even that might not be adequate, depending on the design of the
transmitter. Any power or other wires connected to the transmitter could
easily become part of the radiator, so they'd have to be decoupled. A
small, battery-powered transmitter with no connected wires would avoid
this potential problem.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL


You still don't understand! you are talking bull**** you have no
idea of the design of Art's antenna or of how it works or it's needs
yet you put up your remedies for old style antenna's.

I am sure Denny is a competent and independant operator and will be
aware of all the pitfall's of testing a new antenna and does not need
you to tell him how to go about it.
As Art said in a previous post Denny is free to do as he wishes Art
will have no input in the testing of the antenna, and nor should you

Keep on digging the hole is getting bigger.

Derek

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Mar 7, 8:20 am, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:11:41 -0800 (PST), Derek

wrote:
I have listened to what Art has to say and checked out
his theories for myself

Give us an example of what you have done, not what you've read.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I will give you nothing. would you care to start digging?

Derek

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:14 pm, (Dave Platt) wrote:
In article ,
Roy Lewallen wrote:

I highly recommend that you decouple the feedline with a current balun
(common mode choke). Better yet would be two, spaced about a quarter
wavelength apart. Small antennas can be made to look a lot better than
they really are if the feedline is allowed to become part of the
radiating antenna system, so unless the feedline is decoupled well, any
measurements you make will be subject to speculation as to whether the
radiation was from the antenna or the feedline.
It would also be interesting to use a simple current probe to sweep
along the feedline, and see what sorts of currents might be flowing
along the outside of the feedline, both with and without a good
common-mode choke or two in the feedline.


I agree. I think it's quite possible that even a decoupled feedline
will add enough radiation to make the antenna noticeably better
than it really is.
I'd prefer to see the source mounted *at* the antenna to make it
a decent comparison.

But if the major radiation is from the feedline, that will mean the
antenna won't work as it is supposed to.

Since this is voodoo antennaland stuff, the antenna needs to be tested
as Art would suggest, not as we might like. And since most of the chaps
here are a lot smarter than me, I suspect everyone knows that his
antenna just might need that feedline radiation in order to work
"properly".

Now after the initial tests in whatever manner Art dictates, *then* the
feedline should be isolated to determine where the major radiation is
coming from.

At that point, your source at the antenna method is the ticket. That
would remove feedline effects altogether.

Is this test going to be written up somewhere? What is the test protocol?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Easier said than done, Mike.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

"Derek" wrote:
You still don't understand! you are talking bull**** you have no
idea of the design of Art's antenna or of how it works or it's needs
yet you put up your remedies for old style antenna's.

I am sure Denny is a competent and independant operator and will be
aware of all the pitfall's of testing a new antenna and does not need
you to tell him how to go about it.

As Art said in a previous post Denny is free to do as he wishes Art
will have no input in the testing of the antenna, and nor should you
____________

Objectively, Derek, for what reasons are you are so willing to believe the
claims that art makes for his "highly-efficient," shoe-box MW antenna, and
for your confidence in Denny's ability to measure its radiation
characteristics scientifically?

No BS, please. Facts count -- emotion does not.

RF

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:30:50 -0800 (PST), Derek
wrote:

Give us an example of what you have done, not what you've read.

I will give you nothing. would you care to start digging?

That was a start as any reasonable reader could see.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Mar 6, 4:49 pm, Derek wrote:


Spoken like a true neanderthal, they also refused to embrace new ways
of doing things and look what happened to them.
You are living in the past, keep on digging.

Derek

Well, where is the beef? Do you have any actual data to support
these magic claims? Hummm.. Thought not..
I'm using actual experience with antennas to support
my disbelief. If what he says is true, I'd likely already
be using one.. I'm not against a dinky 160m antenna
with full size performance. But until I actually see
one work... Well, you might get it, or you might not..

How can I live in the past? I can only remember the past.
And *nowhere* in the past have I ever seen such a
device actually work as claimed.
So put up the data, or you get to digging...
You kind of remind me of that "Bret" dude who calls himself
John Smith, or whatever... :/
I'd rather be a slopehead than believe in the tooth fairy,
free lunches, and antennas that don't follow the rules
of science.
I have no doubt his antenna may radiate some..
But then again, most dummy loads do also..
Tales of QSO's using light bulb dummy loads used to be
quite common back in the past, which I can still remember
going back to the time of swatting at colorful plastic butterflies
hanging above my head in my baby crib.
MK

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

On Mar 6, 6:07 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
wrote:
I agree. I think it's quite possible that even a decoupled feedline
will add enough radiation to make the antenna noticeably better
than it really is. I'd prefer to see the source mounted *at* the
antenna to make it a decent comparison.

__________

Unless this antenna is itself balanced, most likely for best efficiency when
operating in this configuration there would need to be a conductor running
from the elevated tx chassis to a good r-f ground of some kind, either
buried in the earth or in the form of a counterpoise. Radiation from that
"ground" conductor could be many times greater than from what is considered
to be the antenna -- even though no feedline is present..

This is a common configuration used for so-called Part 15 AM installations
to get greater groundwave coverage from the 100 mW tx input power allowed
under FCC Part 15.219, by ignoring the 3-meter limit on the length of the
radiating structure given there.

RF

For some reason, I'd always got the impression that the antenna
was symmetrical and balanced.. But who ever knows for sure
with Art...
If this is the case, I wonder why he needs the garbage can lid, or
whatever metal he is using under it..
I had the impression in his various posts that he was trying to
avoid ground connections. But whoever knows for sure except
Art, and now maybe Denny... :/
MK

'SMALL' ANTENNA CRITERIA
 

Derek wrote:
On Mar 5, 3:23 am, wrote
.
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


Spoken like a true neanderthal, they also refused to embrace new ways
of doing things and look what happened to them.
You are living in the past, keep on digging.


Are we required to suspend disbelief for every new idea that comes
along? That would be chaos.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -