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