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

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

"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

Derek wrote:
On Mar 7, 3:45 am, Roy Lewallen wrote:

snippage

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.

And yet, all we are given is "This is my design, it works, accept it!"

This whole thing smacks of alternative science, where everyone is
required to suspend disbelief, maximize credulousity (is that a word?
;^) ). Everyone has to accept it as true, and if you don't you are
subject to attacks. Somehow it becomes the job of the establishment to
prove it correct, and if they don't, it is discounted as conspiracy,
professional jealousy, incompetence, or in some of the more amazing
examples, not enough people believing in it..


Copper bracelets, magnetic water and bedsheets, super duper gas mileage
enhancers that Detroit doesn't want you to have, pyramids, crystals,
thought amplifiers, cold fusion, and on and on and on.


http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ics/signs.html


It's all there. Perhaps this is real, perhaps a new day is dawning in
antenna design. I would never dream of pronouncing the antenna a
non-starter with the paucity of information given. But a whole lot of
what is in that guide is here too.

Not the least impressive is that this revolution is starting in
rraa..... ;^)


Another possibility... since this whole 'tenna thing is working outside
of the mainstream, maybe they'll take it on over at "Mythbusters". You'd
have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to verify these
claims with than most of us here......


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
Everyone has to accept it as true, and if you don't you are
subject to attacks.

Mike, exactly the same thing is true for a 3 ns delay
through a 75m bugcatcher loading coil perpetuated by
gurus on this newsgroup.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

(snip) You'd have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to
verify these claims with than most of us here......


- 73 de Mike N3LI -


-----------------


If we could only get Kari Byron to do the show wearing a thong bikini. In
fact, all of the shows could be improved in a similar manner.

I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as "alternative
science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance off the top of
my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my hair, a good
portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and short term memories.

Some of the younger folks' minds have been prepared for the acceptance of
dimensional additions to our present paradym of physical reality. I agree
(or hope) that soon, other quantifiable aspects of additional dimensions
will pop into our reality. It would be interesting to play with the effects
of hyperdimensional physics in regard to our antennas. But, at the moment,
at least for we old fogies, we are stuck with playing within the current
four dimensions.

Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

(snip) You'd have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to
verify these claims with than most of us here......


- 73 de Mike N3LI -


-----------------


If we could only get Kari Byron to do the show wearing a thong bikini. In
fact, all of the shows could be improved in a similar manner.

No you have me all distracted, Ed. She's so darn cute in jeans and a
T-shirt (and no make up to boot) that the idea of.... never mind...
let's get back to the subject at hand.


I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as "alternative
science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance off the top of
my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my hair, a good
portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and short term memories.

Some of the younger folks' minds have been prepared for the acceptance of
dimensional additions to our present paradym of physical reality. I agree
(or hope) that soon, other quantifiable aspects of additional dimensions
will pop into our reality. It would be interesting to play with the effects
of hyperdimensional physics in regard to our antennas. But, at the moment,
at least for we old fogies, we are stuck with playing within the current
four dimensions.


I think that we would be stupid indeed to believe that "Its all known".
I personally believe that we'll be bending space and zipping off to the
galaxies(will that get us away from reality tv?) at superluminal "speed"
in the future. Who knows, we may even become immortal some day.

The skeptics have been wrong in the past. History is littered with them.

But, and this is very important, to pop that old chestnut in the
campfire as some sort of invalidation of the skeptics is not only a
non-sequitar, but really bad logic.

It does not follow that Art's antenna works because the Catholic church
persecuted Galileo, and was proven wrong.

His works have to stand on their own merit, not Galileo's.

I have great difficulty following what he writes. It is possible that I
am hopelessly dull, but I don't have that trouble with very many people.

Attempts at getting clarity have usually been met with his belief that
if you don't get it right away, you have to "go back to school, or
remarks similar.

What I have been able to garner of his theory of operation seems to be
that electrons, or particles or something, is jumping off the antenna
into the "aether", or something like that (zero point energy? quantum
matter pops? dark matter? cosmic Vicks Vap-O-Rub?) I dunno for sure - as
I is a dull boy sometimes...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ed Cregger wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

(snip) You'd have top admit that Kari would be a lot more pleasant to
verify these claims with than most of us here......


- 73 de Mike N3LI -


-----------------


If we could only get Kari Byron to do the show wearing a thong bikini. In
fact, all of the shows could be improved in a similar manner.

No you have me all distracted, Ed. She's so darn cute in jeans and a
T-shirt (and no make up to boot) that the idea of.... never mind... let's
get back to the subject at hand.


I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as
"alternative science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance
off the top of my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my
hair, a good portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and
short term memories.

Some of the younger folks' minds have been prepared for the acceptance of
dimensional additions to our present paradym of physical reality. I agree
(or hope) that soon, other quantifiable aspects of additional dimensions
will pop into our reality. It would be interesting to play with the
effects of hyperdimensional physics in regard to our antennas. But, at
the moment, at least for we old fogies, we are stuck with playing within
the current four dimensions.


I think that we would be stupid indeed to believe that "Its all known". I
personally believe that we'll be bending space and zipping off to the
galaxies(will that get us away from reality tv?) at superluminal "speed"
in the future. Who knows, we may even become immortal some day.

The skeptics have been wrong in the past. History is littered with them.

But, and this is very important, to pop that old chestnut in the campfire
as some sort of invalidation of the skeptics is not only a non-sequitar,
but really bad logic.

It does not follow that Art's antenna works because the Catholic church
persecuted Galileo, and was proven wrong.

His works have to stand on their own merit, not Galileo's.

I have great difficulty following what he writes. It is possible that I am
hopelessly dull, but I don't have that trouble with very many people.

Attempts at getting clarity have usually been met with his belief that if
you don't get it right away, you have to "go back to school, or remarks
similar.

What I have been able to garner of his theory of operation seems to be
that electrons, or particles or something, is jumping off the antenna into
the "aether", or something like that (zero point energy? quantum matter
pops? dark matter? cosmic Vicks Vap-O-Rub?) I dunno for sure - as I is a
dull boy sometimes...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

----------

I cannot argue with your point of view, Mike. We must stick with real
science and what has been proven when it comes to performing professionally.

However, being somewhat of a conjurer/writer of fiction, I like to permit
myself to venture from the accepted path from time to time. I suspect that
many scientific breakthroughs have been seeded and brought to fruition over
the centuries in much the same way.

I am not defending the OP's position. That is his job, not mine.

Ed, NM2K

In article ,
Ed Cregger wrote:

I would think that lots of new approaches in science began as "alternative
science/pseudo science" ideas. No, I can't name one instance off the top of
my head. Those instances are missing along with most of my hair, a good
portion of my previous superior cognitive abilities and short term memories.

One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift -
originally viewed by the mainstream as being pseudoscience (or at
least unproven), now adopted as "plate tectonics" and acknowledged as
a critically important process in the evolution of our planet.

In order for any "alternative science" theory to achieve mainstream
acceptance, I believe that it has to demonstrate the sort of
characteristics that other (mainstream) scientific theories do.
Specifically:

- It has to be falsifiable. The proponents of it have to be able to
say "OK, if it's wrong, here's how we could tell".

- It has to make testable predictions.

- It has to do a better job with those predictions, than the theories
against which it is competing. It must either (accurately) predict
things that other theories cannot predict, or (in some cases) it
must predict the same things as other theories predict, but do so
in a more "elegant" way.

Testability and falsifiability are the key issues, I believe.

Art has been talking about nontraditional antenna design ideas for
years. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time he's ever
actually provided a sample for an independent party to test.

I think it's only fair for the parties doing the testing, to be
allowed to perform whatever sorts of tests they feel are appropriate,
and report accurately on the test conditions and the results.

If Art or his proponents feel that some of these tests are invalid
(due perhaps to new, nontraditional theories about how the antennas
are supposed to function), then it's up to them to express these new
theories in some testable, falsifiable form, so that the theories can
be fairly evaluated by others.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Dave Platt wrote:
One good example, I think, is the theory of continental drift -

Another is that global warming is caused by the
sun, not by Al Gore's species.

Show me a guru who thinks he knows everything
and I will show you a very ignorant person.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com