"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.

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

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

I can`t find it now, but I believe Mark, NM5K on this thread wrote that
my quotation from page 929 of Terman`s 1955 opus raised flags. I said I
was surprised in my original posting. I was aware at the time that Kraus
shows identical field paterns for a small loop an a short dipole, but
the E and H fields are exchaged between the two antenna types. The Kraus
diagrams are on page 58 of the 3rd edition of "Antennas".

I`ve learned not to quarrel with Terman. So, I reread the page 929
quotation. I posted it correctly. He did say a loop antenna responds
much less to the electric induction field than does a simple wire
antenna of comparable intercept area.

So I looked for a similar statement in Terman`s "Radio Engineering" in
an edition published in 1947. On page 664, I find:
"In the case of a doublet antenna, the electrostatic induction field
becomes proportionally stronger than the magnetic induction field as one
comes closer to the antenna. With the loop antenna the reverse is true."

We know that the induction, or near, field is equal to the radiation
field at about 1/6 wavelength. Closer to the radiator, the induction
field is much stronger. Farther away, the radiation field predominates
Our intrest is usually in the radiation, or far field. Measurements are
usually made several wavelengths away from an antenna to be sure the
induction field has become insignificant.

I`ve thought how and why my experience confirms Terman`s statements
but I won`t bore anyone with these thoughts.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI