Antenna physical size
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil`s question about continuously loaded antennas is appropriate. I
suspect the wire size needs to be modeled too, but Cecil knows much more
about loading coils than I do.

I doubt that, Richard. When the length of a dipole is
much, much greater than the diameter of the wire, the
antenna will scale appropriately. But what happens when
the length of the antenna is not a lot greater than the
diameter of the wire?

It is the same problem as trying to use water in scale
models of boats. It just doesn't work.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Antenna physical size
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
"When the length of a dipole is much, much greater than the diameter of
the wire, the antenna will scale appropriately.

Yes. An assumption made to ease calculations is that the diameter of the
radiator is vanishingly thin. Art`s antenna configuration is something
of a mystery to me but I infer that it may be a dipole in which the two
lengths of wire have been wound into coils and not extended to their
maximum length. Further, my guess is that the dipole is resonant so that
it readily accepts energy. Such antenna elements, I believe usually emit
energy in the radial mode and resemble the continuously loaded vertical
antenna as shown on page 6-28 in the 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna
Book.

Description of the resonant element includes:
"The relationship between length of wire needed for resonance and a full
quarter wave at the desired frequency depends on several factors. Some
of these are wire size, diameter of the turns, and dielectric properties
of the form material to name a few. Experience has indicated that a
section of wire approximately one half wavelength long, wound on an
insulating form with a linear pitch (equal spacing between turns) will
come close to yielding a resonant quarter wavelength. Bill Orr says
about the same thing on page 78 of "Vertical Antennas". Continuing from
the Antenna Book: "Therefore, an antenna for use on 160 meters would
require approximately 260 feet of wire spirally wound on the support."

If Art has made a dipole of two such 1/4-wave elements, it should have
about a full wavelength of wire which I believe is consistent with his
miserly description.

Performance of a full wave of coiled wire will be much less than the
performance of the same wire stretched out into a straight line at the
same height above earth.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 8, 11:21 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Considering that it meets Maxwells requirements and is at least a
wavelenght
of a radiator my expectations are much higher than yours
I suspect that the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which
has a ground plane.
I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small
physical size it could easily be uprated
to compete with a yagi!
I would anticipate that in a couple of years the top band will have
twice as many users that it has now.
I am hoping also that its small size will allow for receiving
abililities in line with the angle of incoming
radiation via its manouvarability. Of course if all is already known
about radio this would seem impossible
but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs to see how it matches
up to my expectations.
The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content. If an antenna is at
least off one wavelength
and is in equilibrium I see no reason why it should not beat existing
antennas with ground plane losses
regardless of its shape or size. Time will tell. Either way the
experimental trail undertaken I have found to
be very rewarding as many other amateurs have had when experimenting
with antennas and who refuse
to accept that all is known
Art

Antenna physical size
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 11:21 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Considering that it meets Maxwells requirements and is at least a
wavelenght
of a radiator my expectations are much higher than yours
I suspect that the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which
has a ground plane.
I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small
physical size it could easily be uprated
to compete with a yagi!
I would anticipate that in a couple of years the top band will have
twice as many users that it has now.
I am hoping also that its small size will allow for receiving
abililities in line with the angle of incoming
radiation via its manouvarability. Of course if all is already known
about radio this would seem impossible
but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs to see how it matches
up to my expectations.
The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content. If an antenna is at
least off one wavelength
and is in equilibrium I see no reason why it should not beat existing
antennas with ground plane losses
regardless of its shape or size. Time will tell. Either way the
experimental trail undertaken I have found to
be very rewarding as many other amateurs have had when experimenting
with antennas and who refuse
to accept that all is known
Art

of course all is known, we have been trying to tell YOU that but you won't
believe it and insist on trying things that are known NOT to work. you will
learn, it will be a long and hard experience from what we have heard from
you on here, but you will learn someday that there ain't no such thing as a
free lunch when it comes to antennas.

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 15, 11:31 am, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Mar 8, 11:21 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Considering that it meets Maxwells requirements and is at least a
wavelenght
of a radiator my expectations are much higher than yours
I suspect that the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which
has a ground plane.
I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small
physical size it could easily be uprated
to compete with a yagi!
I would anticipate that in a couple of years the top band will have
twice as many users that it has now.
I am hoping also that its small size will allow for receiving
abililities in line with the angle of incoming
radiation via its manouvarability. Of course if all is already known
about radio this would seem impossible
but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs to see how it matches
up to my expectations.
The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content. If an antenna is at
least off one wavelength
and is in equilibrium I see no reason why it should not beat existing
antennas with ground plane losses
regardless of its shape or size. Time will tell. Either way the
experimental trail undertaken I have found to
be very rewarding as many other amateurs have had when experimenting
with antennas and who refuse
to accept that all is known
Art

of course all is known, we have been trying to tell YOU that but you won't
believe it and insist on trying things that are known NOT to work. you will
learn, it will be a long and hard experience from what we have heard from
you on here, but you will learn someday that there ain't no such thing as a
free lunch when it comes to antennas.

Nothing free....I have done a lot of work. Now I get the benefits of
that work.
I disagree that all experiments on antennas should stop based on the
proweress of your particular brain. You have consistently over
estimate
your abilities

Antenna physical size
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:46:31 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I suspect that the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which
has a ground plane.

Hi Æther,

Suspect away, but the best you could accomplish is in the digits to
the right of the decimal place of percent efficiency. On the S-Meter
scale of any listener, that would be an invisible shift of the needle.
Of course, their only experience of this antenna will be at least a
10dB drop from a conventional antenna which would be easily seen on
the S-Meter.

I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small
physical size it could easily be uprated
to compete with a yagi!

Suspect some more, but that is not going to happen unless you have
more elements, widely dispersed (and we've been there before, and the
yagi is more efficient than any of your usual suspects). As you
discard planarity, so do you discard directivity unless you drive
every element directly. You don't do this, and you have yet to
exhibit the knowledge of why you have to, to meet your claims.

This lack of knowledge, in itself, clearly reveals that not all is
known about antennas. However, others who can accomplish recovering
this directionality do exhibit this knowledge. The readers can
discern how the remainder of your post lacks in this regard.

I would anticipate that in a couple of years the top band will have
twice as many users that it has now.

The Solar cycle will have more to say about that than any suspicion.

I am hoping also that its small size will allow for receiving
abililities in line with the angle of incoming
radiation via its manouvarability.

No need for hope, transistor pocket radios have been doing that for,
what, 50 years? Even there, loop sticks have probably been around
longer than that. Try transmitting through one and discover fire
again.

Of course if all is already known
about radio this would seem impossible

No, if everything written above has been forgotten (or never learned,
same thing) THEN it would seem impossible.

but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs to see how it matches
up to my expectations.

Without comparisons, any contact is bound to raise the estimation of
such expectations.

The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content.

The same archives show a multiplicity of "instructions." However, as
they all suffer in comparison to simple antennas, they are easily
dismissed against the claims presented for them.

It merely takes diligence to take them on one at a time, as they are
announced, and line them up like dominoes to watch them tumble in
line. The archive contains these results for all time. This design
is no different in that respect than the last, or the several before
the last.

If an antenna is at
least off one wavelength
and is in equilibrium I see no reason why it should not beat existing
antennas with ground plane losses
regardless of its shape or size.

And yet they don't, and so reason is not a principal component here so
much as wish and hope braced with the courage of ignoring knowledge.

Time will tell. Either way the
experimental trail undertaken I have found to
be very rewarding as many other amateurs have had when experimenting
with antennas and who refuse
to accept that all is known

The sad truth is that only one, maybe two here have the professional
contacts to antenna test sites, and you have refused their offers.

I have dog-eared the post:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:13:02 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
He volunteered
he answered
He has offered
He can make
let him do
how he wants
ask him
he may chose
He has been
He deserves our respect.

It is notable you always fail to identify "Him." Throughout the
entire post you use the impersonal "He" and never a name.

So, I am going to turn you slowly on the spit over the fire of
dignity, are you going to use "His" name? We have call signs that
makes us brothers, can Cain acknowledge Abel?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 15, 7:46 am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:21 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:



Art wrote:

"---my antenna is a full wavelength which meets Maxwell`s requirements,
it is just that the volume is small despite the wavelength."

In 1949, I worked at the KPRC-KXYZ broadcast plant. Another operator
there, J.L. Davis, W5LIT had a new 1949 Ford in which he installed a
surplus ART-13 and a PE-103 dynamotor. For an antenna he wound wire turn
by turn on a bamboo pole until it was resonant on a slice of the
75-meter band.

When J.L. modulated, Q in the coil produced a tip corona on the first
good peak and modulation became loud without a receiver.

The 20th edition of the ARRL Antenna Book on page 16-13 says this about
continuously loaded antennas: "The general approach has been to use a
coil made from heavy wire (#14 or larger), with length-to-diameter
ratios as high as 21. British experimeters have reported good results
with 8-foot overall length on the 1.8- and 3.5 MHz bands. The idea of
making the entire antenna out of one section of coil has been tried with
some success."

Art`s antenna containing a "full wavelength" of wire would likely
feature a greater loss than J.L.`s 1/4-wave resonant coil from simply a
greater length of wire while both have peactances balanced to zero.
Art`s lower Q would probably kill the corona, increase the bandwidth,
while losing the gain that a fullwave straight conductor enjoys.

Cecil can probably report on results of continuously loaded mobile
antennas versus a bug catcher loaded whip in the California shoot-outs.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Considering that it meets Maxwells requirements and is at least a
wavelenght
of a radiator my expectations are much higher than yours

Typical of one with delusions of radiation grandeur...

I suspect that the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which
has a ground plane.

How many people do you know that use elevated ground planes
on 160m? This may or may not be a trick question.

I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small
physical size it could easily be uprated
to compete with a yagi!

I suspect it would also be capable of browning the food, if
said food was placed close to the device when high power
was applied.
But the last time I checked, food warmers are not known
as very good radiators of RF.

I would anticipate that in a couple of years the top band will have
twice as many users that it has now.

Because all of a sudden you show up using a sub par antenna?
How would this effect the number of users of that band?
Why would anyone modify their operating habits because
you refuse to use an antenna that is halfway efficient?

I am hoping also that its small size will allow for receiving
abililities in line with the angle of incoming
radiation via its manouvarability. Of course if all is already known
about radio this would seem impossible

Only to you I suspect...

but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs to see how it matches
up to my expectations.

Matches? This is the part of the system which is going to eat
your lunch. Chortle...

The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content.

I have no time to waste on sub par antenna designs.

If an antenna is at
least off one wavelength
and is in equilibrium I see no reason why it should not beat existing
antennas with ground plane losses

How many people do you know that use elevated ground planes
on 160m? This may or may not be a trick question.
But even if one was to use an elevated ground plane, or
even a ground mounted vertical, who are you to say if
the system is lossy or not?
I know of plenty of vertical systems on 160m which will
whip your puny shoe box antenna like a long lost stepchild,
regardless of the level of equilibrium noted.
Whatever that means...

regardless of its shape or size.

Regardless of shape or size... yea right...

Time will tell. Either way the
experimental trail undertaken I have found to
be very rewarding as many other amateurs have had when experimenting
with antennas and who refuse
to accept that all is known
Art

The only thing I "know" for sure is you have your
head stuck so far up your whiny kazoo it has clouded all rational
thought.

As an example..

I disagree that all experiments on antennas should stop based on the
proweress of your particular brain. You have consistently over
estimate your abilities

#1, define proweress...
#2 define your abilities, and then we will all vote as to who
has the greater level of proweress between the particular
brains in question.

Everyone is brain dead, except for prior Art. lol...
BTW, I said I would wait for your grand test before
I commented further, but seeing as you continue to spew
your silly bafflegab, and also horses ass comments to anyone
that dare question your silly crap, I retire my earlier stance.
MK

Antenna physical size
 

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:57:41 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Build a small scale model that can be tested indoors and report its
characteristics. Antennas are scaleable.

That's more easily said than done. One of the critical characteristics
of a small antenna is loss. And to correctly replicate loss in a scaled
antenna requires scaling the conductivity of the conductors as the
square root of the frequency. To scale to a higher frequency requires
that the conductivity be better than the original. Unless the original
is made from lead and the scale factor moderate, this wouldn't be
possible.

If what I suspect is true, would not the coax also need to be scaled?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

Antenna physical size
 

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:46:31 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:


Considering that it meets Maxwells requirements and is at least a
wavelenght of a radiator my expectations are much higher than yours I
suspect that
the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which has a ground plane.

A full length vertical is what you are talking about?


I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small physical
size it could easily be uprated to compete with a yagi!

Now here do you mean a directional antenna of your kind, or which?



Of course if all is already known about radio this
would seem impossible but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs
to see how it matches up to my expectations.
The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content.

Art, throw me a bone here. I've looked in the archives a bit, and you've
been a prolific poster! I saw a 160 meter vertical you were posting
about, but it had a radial system, and I don't think this one does.


-73 de Mike N3LI -

Antenna physical size
 

On Mar 15, 8:52 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 06:46:31 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:
Considering that it meets Maxwells requirements and is at least a
wavelenght of a radiator my expectations are much higher than yours I
suspect that
the output will exceed that of a 160 M antenna which has a ground plane.

A full length vertical is what you are talking about?

I also suspect that if I diddn't concentrated so much on small physical
size it could easily be uprated to compete with a yagi!

Now here do you mean a directional antenna of your kind, or which?

Of course if all is already known about radio this

would seem impossible but in a few weeks I myself will have a few QSOs
to see how it matches up to my expectations.
The archives show all the building instruction but it appears that
readers have concentrated on
nonsensical retorts without reading the content.

Art, throw me a bone here. I've looked in the archives a bit, and you've
been a prolific poster! I saw a 160 meter vertical you were posting
about, but it had a radial system, and I don't think this one does.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

OK mike one last time.
Make a former to wind apon.
Set it up vertically and secure so that it doesn't fall over.
Get two reels of insulated wire preferbly pre wound paired
wire on each reel. Join the paired wires
Put the joint at the rear of the former with one reel to the left
and one reel to the right.
Wnd one wire clockwise and then wind counterclockwise the
wire from the other reel. Repeat these two functions making
sure the overlapped wires stay parallel with each other.
When you have completed the length of the spool then join
one wire to another wire from the opposite reel. You now have two
wires in your hands
one from each of the reels. These two wires are what you connect to
the transmission line..
Suggestions for the former. Make two cross arrangements using 1/2 inch
plastic piping.
At each of the 8 ends place a tee connection. Four pipes around a foot
long can the join the two sections,
Use tees instead of elbows so the antenna is easier to mount.
If you want it to be all frequencie:
Cut a 1/2 inch plastic pipe in half,' length wise.
Make wire loops and fit them over the cut pipe and solder them tight.
Place a quick start threaded rod inside the cut pipe with a motor at
one end.
Make a electrical wiper to place on the quick start thread to make
electrical
connection to the loops as the motor turns.
Connect a meter to one of the start wires and disconnect it from the
joint.
Place a sowing needle on the other end of the instrument and pierce
the
wires in sequence until one
gets to the coax connection points marking each wire that is
connected to the meter.
Connect the marked wires to the loop that were made sp electrical
contact
can be made to the threaded shaft
Connect the shaft to one of the wires that consists of the feed
points.
Rejoin the wire connections at the start point so that now you have a
complete electrical
circuit starting at the feed points
Place assembly anywhere and apply power and have a qso.
Now will somebody that is savvy with computors do that excercise that
I suggested
with regard to tipped radiators and report on it before you make this
antenna or start
tilting towers around ten degrees sinc the change is not worth it when
calculating total gain?
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG (uk)
Art