On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:18:08 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:

15 years ago I stated that radiation is in the form of pulses,all
laughed Since then I have itemised the steps to make the small antenna,
all laughed.

In refutation, the proof.


The info is in the archives many many times but to my knoweledge nobody
has tried it for themselves preferring to memorise what the books say.
Yes it does look like a tuned circuit on the end of a coax but what if
it is?

Actually, if that is what it is, then fine! antennas such as that are
perfectly legit. It will almost certainly use the feedline as a large
part of the radiator. This antenna bears some resemblance to the Isotron
line of antennas. Not for everyone, for sure, but I'm not going to get
into a definition war on what comprises a "good" antenna, at least in
this case..

But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.


-73 de Mike N3LI -

On Mar 11, 9:54 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:18:08 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:
15 years ago I stated that radiation is in the form of pulses,all
laughed Since then I have itemised the steps to make the small antenna,
all laughed.

In refutation, the proof.

The info is in the archives many many times but to my knoweledge nobody
has tried it for themselves preferring to memorise what the books say.
Yes it does look like a tuned circuit on the end of a coax but what if
it is?

Actually, if that is what it is, then fine! antennas such as that are
perfectly legit. It will almost certainly use the feedline as a large
part of the radiator. This antenna bears some resemblance to the Isotron
line of antennas. Not for everyone, for sure, but I'm not going to get
into a definition war on what comprises a "good" antenna, at least in
this case..

But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

On a more serious note,
you consistently refer to heating problems or
feed line radiation. Will you be good enough to explain what creates
these
functions and why you can thus refer to them as my problems?
To put things in order.
My antenna does not require a ground system
Electrical WL is alwaysa WL or more in length.
Measurements at the antenna are devoid of reactance at the point of
resonance
Measurements at the transmitter is the same.
Movement away from resonance supplies reactance.
Conformance with Maxwells laws are adhered to.
Now all these facts have been stated many times before, yet you repeat
your views so the actions that create feedline radiation and antenna
melting
problems are totally different to what I understand.
When moving away from the resonant point it provides reactance in
addition to the resistance
All frequencies have more than one resonant point

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:42:54 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:


But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

On a more serious note,
you consistently refer to heating problems or
feed line radiation. Will you be good enough to explain what creates
these functions and why you can thus refer to them as my problems? To
put things in order.

You might have me mixed up with someone else, Art. I have commented on
feedline radiation in this context, but my only posts about heating
problems was with that antenna produced by the U of Delaware in which the
initial press release touted that the original antenna was so efficient
that it burnt up when 100 watts was applied. Subsequently removed from
later text. I don't think that many people would believe that an antenna
that melts is radiating efficiently. Otherwise I only predict that your
feedline likely will radiate, not that it will heat.

My antenna does not require a ground system
Electrical WL is alwaysa WL or more in length. Measurements at the
antenna are devoid of reactance at the point of resonance
Measurements at the transmitter is the same. Movement away from
resonance supplies reactance. Conformance with Maxwells laws are adhered
to. Now all these facts have been stated many times before, yet you
repeat your views so the actions that create feedline radiation and
antenna melting problems are totally different to what I understand.

Sigh... would you like to point out the post(s) where I said all this?

Aside from that, I expect the feedline to radiate.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

On Mar 12, 8:22 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:42:54 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:
But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

On a more serious note,
you consistently refer to heating problems or
feed line radiation. Will you be good enough to explain what creates
these functions and why you can thus refer to them as my problems? To
put things in order.

You might have me mixed up with someone else, Art. I have commented on
feedline radiation in this context, but my only posts about heating
problems was with that antenna produced by the U of Delaware in which the
initial press release touted that the original antenna was so efficient
that it burnt up when 100 watts was applied. Subsequently removed from
later text. I don't think that many people would believe that an antenna
that melts is radiating efficiently. Otherwise I only predict that your
feedline likely will radiate, not that it will heat.

My antenna does not require a ground system
Electrical WL is alwaysa WL or more in length. Measurements at the
antenna are devoid of reactance at the point of resonance
Measurements at the transmitter is the same. Movement away from
resonance supplies reactance. Conformance with Maxwells laws are adhered
to. Now all these facts have been stated many times before, yet you
repeat your views so the actions that create feedline radiation and
antenna melting problems are totally different to what I understand.

Sigh... would you like to point out the post(s) where I said all this?

Aside from that, I expect the feedline to radiate.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

Well I may have mixed people up. Sorry about that.
What will cause the feedline to radiate given the facts I have
provided?
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:22 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:42:54 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:
But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
On a more serious note,
you consistently refer to heating problems or
feed line radiation. Will you be good enough to explain what creates
these functions and why you can thus refer to them as my problems? To
put things in order.
You might have me mixed up with someone else, Art. I have commented on
feedline radiation in this context, but my only posts about heating
problems was with that antenna produced by the U of Delaware in which the
initial press release touted that the original antenna was so efficient
that it burnt up when 100 watts was applied. Subsequently removed from
later text. I don't think that many people would believe that an antenna
that melts is radiating efficiently. Otherwise I only predict that your
feedline likely will radiate, not that it will heat.

My antenna does not require a ground system
Electrical WL is alwaysa WL or more in length. Measurements at the
antenna are devoid of reactance at the point of resonance
Measurements at the transmitter is the same. Movement away from
resonance supplies reactance. Conformance with Maxwells laws are adhered
to. Now all these facts have been stated many times before, yet you
repeat your views so the actions that create feedline radiation and
antenna melting problems are totally different to what I understand.
Sigh... would you like to point out the post(s) where I said all this?

Aside from that, I expect the feedline to radiate.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

Well I may have mixed people up. Sorry about that.
What will cause the feedline to radiate given the facts I have
provided?

Remember that I do not have all the facts here. There are certainly
assertions. One of the "problems" with scientific inquiry is that it
helps to have an actual device to test. There appears to be one device
(two maybe? and it is in the hands of a snowbound ham in the great
north. I really want to see the test results.

So I just don't know. I trust that you would expect no less from me. I
have to go on the limited description, and that description sounds like
the tuned circuit on the end of coax, giving rise to an unbalanced
condition, from there, we can expect feedline radiation.

I understand your frustration Art. I have some of my own. I've asked
twice now for a test protocol, and gotten nothing.

I'm hoping that a test protocol is not asking too much...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Mar 13, 12:46 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:22 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:42:54 -0700, Art Unwin wrote:
But unless there is something new going on - and I don't buy claims of
newfangled physics without proofs - especially physics that need to
include apparent ability of comprehension on my part, it is another
radiating feed line antenna, and not much more.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
On a more serious note,
you consistently refer to heating problems or
feed line radiation. Will you be good enough to explain what creates
these functions and why you can thus refer to them as my problems? To
put things in order.
You might have me mixed up with someone else, Art. I have commented on
feedline radiation in this context, but my only posts about heating
problems was with that antenna produced by the U of Delaware in which the
initial press release touted that the original antenna was so efficient
that it burnt up when 100 watts was applied. Subsequently removed from
later text. I don't think that many people would believe that an antenna
that melts is radiating efficiently. Otherwise I only predict that your
feedline likely will radiate, not that it will heat.

My antenna does not require a ground system
Electrical WL is alwaysa WL or more in length. Measurements at the
antenna are devoid of reactance at the point of resonance
Measurements at the transmitter is the same. Movement away from
resonance supplies reactance. Conformance with Maxwells laws are adhered
to. Now all these facts have been stated many times before, yet you
repeat your views so the actions that create feedline radiation and
antenna melting problems are totally different to what I understand.
Sigh... would you like to point out the post(s) where I said all this?

Aside from that, I expect the feedline to radiate.

--
-73 de Mike N3LI -

Well I may have mixed people up. Sorry about that.
What will cause the feedline to radiate given the facts I have
provided?

Remember that I do not have all the facts here. There are certainly
assertions. One of the "problems" with scientific inquiry is that it
helps to have an actual device to test. There appears to be one device
(two maybe? and it is in the hands of a snowbound ham in the great
north. I really want to see the test results.

So I just don't know. I trust that you would expect no less from me. I
have to go on the limited description, and that description sounds like
the tuned circuit on the end of coax, giving rise to an unbalanced
condition, from there, we can expect feedline radiation.

I understand your frustration Art. I have some of my own. I've asked
twice now for a test protocol, and gotten nothing.

I'm hoping that a test protocol is not asking too much...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I don't think we have the right to ask him anything.
He volunteered to do it and I accepted
If he answered everything on this net it would start a lot of insults
again.
He has offered to do it for me not the group.
He can make any furthur descisions after that
So we must all be patient and let him do things how he wants after
which you can ask him anything
where he may chose to answer or not.
He has been an observer for a long while and has tried to curtail the
insults
that have gone around these past few years and contrary to others is
willing to pursue
anything that may profit ham radio and not retard it because of
dislike of change.
We are fortunate that there are people around that do not have to add
insults
to their expertise to get the ears and attention of fellow hams
He deserves our respect.
Art
Regard
Art

Art Unwin wrote:

I understand your frustration Art. I have some of my own. I've asked
twice now for a test protocol, and gotten nothing.

I'm hoping that a test protocol is not asking too much...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

I don't think we have the right to ask him anything.

Of course we have a "right". And I've gotten my answer. Asking for a
test protocol for your antenna tests is too much to ask. Okay. So I'll
sit back and patiently watch for any results proffered.

But you might want to think about it. What if some parameter in the test
process is such that will make the antenna test out as performing poorly
when in fact it does not.


He volunteered to do it and I accepted If he answered everything
on this net it would start a lot of insults
again.

With all due respect, what is this with the insults? I've worked with
engineers of all stripes, and the conversations can get pretty animated
at times. I've been told my ideas are stupid on occasion, and have told
others the same. Then we have a cup of coffee, and get back to work.
Engineering of any sort should not the province of people with easily
bruised egos.

He has offered to do it for me not the group.

Perhaps it would have been better to tell us about it after the tests
were finished, then no one would be insulting anyone. The you could
present the test results and the rest of us could eat crow.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Mike, N3LI wrote:
"There appears to be one device (two maybe?) and it is in the hands of a
snowbound ham in the great north."

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

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:09:42 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Mike, N3LI wrote:
"There appears to be one device (two maybe?) and it is in the hands of a
snowbound ham in the great north."

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

Hi Richard,

A scaled model of an antenna the size of two shoe boxes? Gives new
meaning to the toys kids used to collect called "matchboxes."

If going from 160M to half a meter was achievable, then going to a
couple of centimeters should be a walk in the park. If scaling down
300 times was achievable and saw great boon, then scaling down another
tenth must bring even more efficiency gains.

Why was this option left on the table when it results in a vastly
simpler construction and a superior product?

Something tells me NO ONE knows why.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

For an antenna like this, would the wire diameter
also have to be scaled?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com