Denny wrote:
Art,
I am convinced that you are experimenting in an area of antenna
practices that has been neglected... I am always interested in
advances on the art and practice of antennas... You hereby offered the
opportunity to drop by my qth with your reduced size 160 antenna... If
transportation is a problem I will fly my airplane to your area and
bring you back to Michigan, or arrange other transportation for you at
my expense...
I will personally mount your antenna at the top of a 150 foot tower
and we can measure the near field intensity and far field signal
strength developed by the antenna, compared to my normal size antennas
which are off another tower at a distance .. I am sure I can convince
a few of the regulars on here to be on the band and be ready to
participate with signal strength measurements, spectrum analyzers,
etc... This would form an excellent basis for an article for you to
publish - complete with reports from third parties - on a major
advance in the theory and practice of antennas...

If I am not convenient to you then I suspect that W8JI or others would
offer a similar testing range and I still would be happy to provide
transportation just to be a part of an exciting new chapter in radio
experimentation...


cordially,
denny - k8do

I suggest that you take pains to make sure the feedline is well
decoupled - a couple of current baluns, one at the feedpoint and one a
quarter wave down the line, should be adequate. An extra measure would
be to measure the common mode feedline current to make sure it's
minimal. That would go a long way toward silencing critics (like me) who
believe that reported good results from such small antennas are often
the result of feedline radiation -- that is, that the feedline is the
primary radiator and the "antenna" plays only a minor role.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL