Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And as mentioned, quite a few QSO's have been
made using dummy load light bulbs.
Usually by accident when they forgot to flip the
switch to the real antenna...

Hi Mark,

My girlfriend some time back could work Alaska from here through her
dummy load (for the same reasons you described, not that she chose to
do it this way).

I can only imagine that Arthur will re-discover that poor isolation
problem and describe it as a "Faraday Paradox Enhancement" with
inverse shielding efficiency. It may lead to anti-gravity research
that finally disproves Einstein's theory of Brownian motion (Art's
final nail in the casket of that historical fraud).

Hi Arthur,

Still peaking at these postings, aren't you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote:

I suspect that the Isotron performs best when the
feedline is radiating like crazy.

That's consistent with the installation instructions that state that
it must be mounted on a metal mast.

So the question
is: Has anyone ever tried to maximize feedline
radiation? Seems that is what the Carolina Windom
has done by accident. Can it be done on purpose?

Use a simple wire or rod radiator tied to the center conductor of the
coax, no radiator tied to the shield, and a length of feedline which
is an even multiple of a halfwave (at the exterior shield's
velocity-of-propagation) back to ground or the transmitter, serving as
a counterpoise?

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:taSLj.2051$%V7.192
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

wrote:
The word "cinderella" means one who unexpectedly achieves
recognition or success after a period of obscurity and neglect.

A very appropriate name for my dog obtained from the
dog pound.

Kudos Cecil!

- 73 d eMike N3LI -

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Apr 13, 1:56 am, Richard Clark wrote:
..

I have modeled ALL of Art's contraptions.

I doubt that, if you had modeled the antenna described in Art's
posts of the 17 march onward you "may" have changed your opinion but
then that would go against the grain would it not.
Your problem is you have allowed your antagonism towards Art cloud
your judgment, one has only to look at your post's to see that no
matter what Art claim's are you will rubbish them as you have
consistently for the last year or so that I have followed this group.


Derek

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Apr 13, 10:21 am, Mike Coslo wrote:


Anxiously awaiting that test report.....

You should have built one, you would not have been disappointed.

I predict that Denny is feeling like the cat who got the cream right
at this moment.

Derek

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

Dave Platt wrote:
Use a simple wire or rod radiator tied to the center conductor of the
coax, no radiator tied to the shield, and a length of feedline which
is an even multiple of a halfwave (at the exterior shield's
velocity-of-propagation) back to ground or the transmitter, serving as
a counterpoise?

Seems to me, the "ground" would cause reflections, turn
that "even multiple of a halfwave" into a standing-wave
antenna, and maybe be more efficient than an Isotron?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

wrote in message
...
On Apr 13, 10:21 am, Mike Coslo wrote:


Anxiously awaiting that test report.....

You should have built one, you would not have been disappointed.


have YOU built one? and if so, have you compared it with a full size
antenna?? and what were your results???

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote:

Use a simple wire or rod radiator tied to the center conductor of the
coax, no radiator tied to the shield, and a length of feedline which
is an even multiple of a halfwave (at the exterior shield's
velocity-of-propagation) back to ground or the transmitter, serving as
a counterpoise?

Seems to me, the "ground" would cause reflections, turn
that "even multiple of a halfwave" into a standing-wave
antenna, and maybe be more efficient than an Isotron?

Better be careful about that dreaded word "efficient", especially in
the context of small antennas - Art might take umbrage.

On the basis of the usual "power radiated, divided by power input",
the type I suggested *might* be more efficient than an Isotron... but
only because its losses might be lower. Most of the Isotron designs
I've seen pictured, have a tuned circuit of some sort at the feedpoint
(e.g. a big air-wound coil and a metal-plate capacitor), and there
will no doubt be some losses in this tuned circuit.

I don't know which antenna would have more directional gain at its
primary lobe, or which one would have a stronger signal in whatever
specific angle its operator found most useful at any particular moment.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Constant impedance response to infinity with point radiation
 

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:43:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 13, 1:56 am, Richard Clark wrote:
.

I have modeled ALL of Art's contraptions.

I doubt that, if you had modeled the antenna described in Art's
posts of the 17 march onward you "may" have changed your opinion but
then that would go against the grain would it not.

It would be more honest of you to call me a liar, wouldn't it?

Your problem is you have allowed your antagonism towards Art cloud
your judgment, one has only to look at your post's to see that no
matter what Art claim's are you will rubbish them as you have
consistently for the last year or so that I have followed this group.

Hi Derek,

Then by your own admission of a very short tenure here, you are quite
ignorant of both the scope and depth of this discussion. You feel
fully capable of challenging my work that you haven't observed and
then saying what you have no experience in is a "clouding of my
judgement?" Derek, were you born in the fog?

You really should fade back into the wallpaper and observe for a few
years more so that at the end of that term you can make contributions
instead of simply continuing your trolling.

You are serving no useful purpose for Arthur, because, again, you
would rather dispute what has been accomplished than actually put your
hand to any task of work. Your "support" of Arthur is a cheap price
of entertainment for gleefully seeing him twist in the wind.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC