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