Art wrote:
"No where can I find reference to "size" in what the masters state."

It`s there if you look. Kraus is a certified master. In the newest
edition, the 3rd, of "Antennas" is found on page 12:
"The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as
IL=QV, where
I=time changing current
L=length of current element
Q=charge,C
V=time change of velocity or acceleration
Thus, time changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.
For steady-state harmonic radiation, we usually focus on current. For
transients or pulses, we focus on charge."

The above is the beginning of the chapter on "Antenna Basics". Everyone
interested in antennas needs ready access to this important book.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 23:19:39 -0600, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

It`s there if you look. Kraus is a certified master. In the newest
edition, the 3rd, of "Antennas" is found on page 12:

Hi Richard,

It takes Laport only 3 pages to name three references for the math
(Stratton, Skilling, and Kraus); provide the equation; and directly
state at the bottom of page 3:
"directly proportional to the current and to the
continuing on top of page 4:
"length of the doublet..."

No requirement for resonance, no mention of Q, the only resistance is
that of free space, nothing about equilibrium, just a straight answer.
The math has been confirmed by experiment, and it is duplicated in
models that are fully consistent with all scientific enquiry for the
past three centuries which exhibit every quality of the math and the
quotation above. The text has been made FREELY available here. No
need to purchase.

There are no pages with pictures to color, so reading that far can be
tough to master for one finding it difficult to search this out:
I have searched quite a bit for evidence that states that performance
of antennas can be rated by it's size.
"Quite a bit" sets the standard for the whimpering of whipped dog
denial. If just a teensy-weensy bit more effort were made, it is
obvious the complete investment in antennas the size of a
cracker-jacks box would collapse like the home-loan industry.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 7, 11:19 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"No where can I find reference to "size" in what the masters state."

It`s there if you look. Kraus is a certified master. In the newest
edition, the 3rd, of "Antennas" is found on page 12:
"The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as
IL=QV, where
I=time changing current
L=length of current element
Q=charge,C
V=time change of velocity or acceleration
Thus, time changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.
For steady-state harmonic radiation, we usually focus on current. For
transients or pulses, we focus on charge."

The above is the beginning of the chapter on "Antenna Basics". Everyone
interested in antennas needs ready access to this important book.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

But you arer forgettfull Richard, my antenna is a full wavelength
which meets
Maxwells requirements, it is just that the volume is small despite the
wavelength.
It is also not in conflict with "antenna basics" alluded to above. I
don't
understandwhat the beef is. Why are so many hams alarmed at the idea?
Regards
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 11:19 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"No where can I find reference to "size" in what the masters state."

It`s there if you look. Kraus is a certified master. In the newest
edition, the 3rd, of "Antennas" is found on page 12:
"The basic equation of radiation may be expressed simply as
IL=QV, where
I=time changing current
L=length of current element
Q=charge,C
V=time change of velocity or acceleration
Thus, time changing current radiates and accelerated charge radiates.
For steady-state harmonic radiation, we usually focus on current. For
transients or pulses, we focus on charge."

The above is the beginning of the chapter on "Antenna Basics". Everyone
interested in antennas needs ready access to this important book.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

But you arer forgettfull Richard, my antenna is a full wavelength
which meets
Maxwells requirements, it is just that the volume is small despite the
wavelength.
It is also not in conflict with "antenna basics" alluded to above. I
don't
understandwhat the beef is. Why are so many hams alarmed at the idea?
Regards
Art

its called 'experience' by most and 'knowledge' by those in the know.

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

On Mar 8, 10:21 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

There are no loads on my antenna so your statements are irrelavent
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Mar 8, 10:21 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

There are no loads on my antenna so your statements are irrelavent
Art

the whole antenna is a load.

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

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

"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.