On Apr 11, 11:59 pm, Richard Clark wrote:


Your forecasting ability would be better served if you actually did
something.


Hi Richard

I put your suggestion back to you, give me a convincing argument as
to why Art's antenna would not be viable, apart from the knee jerk
reaction it was designed by Art therefore it cannot be viable.

Derek

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:04:17 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Apr 11, 11:59 pm, Richard Clark wrote:


Your forecasting ability would be better served if you actually did
something.


Hi Richard

I put your suggestion back to you, give me a convincing argument as
to why Art's antenna would not be viable, apart from the knee jerk
reaction it was designed by Art therefore it cannot be viable.

Hi Derek,

Put it back to me? Talk about passivity. As I said, I see nothing in
your reply that actually GOES to any active supporting participation
by you, simply maudlin cheerleading. This is fey effort at appearing
to be gracious.

I have modeled ALL of Art's contraptions. Art has modeled them all
too. I have offered the results of that work. Art rarely offers the
results of his work. I have built enough models into wire and
aluminum (and foils and coils) to find that they all conform to models
within suitable accuracy. Art has built enough models into.... and
has to date never expressed how they directly compare. The archives
are complete to this record - available to anyone with an actual
interest in the topic. The results? Pitifully dull where the
imagination is reserved for the rhetoric of claims cloaked in a fog of
ersatz academia.

You aren't really interested are you? You can't even answer the
simple questions about his designs, nor name one advantage pressed
against actual performance shown. What are you here for? Slumming
for amusement and Art fills the bill? Just another Troll.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Apr 12, 12:56 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
Art has modeled them all
too.

I think modeling is how he gets started with these things.
That freaking optimizer program that shows him how to
build a skewed 6 element antenna with the performance
of the usual 3 element. What a breakthrough... :/
I called that particular antenna the "cluster%$#@"....
Then then he abandoned that one and decided to go with the
coil antenna he's pushing now.
Viable? Sure it's viable if you don't mind a puny signal.
Note the Isotron.. To me, not a whole heck of a lot
different than what Art proposes. Arts version may
be slightly inferior though..
And some people do buy and use them.. Mostly
ones with yards the size of clothes closets and have
no other choice but to try small antennas of that ilk.
I doubt any of those users really feel like they are
setting the woods on fire.
I knew a guy here locally that ran one for a while
on 75m. He was able to radiate, but a vast majority
of the people on frequency could not hear him.
I think he retired that antenna after a while.
I suspect he ran out of hair to pull out...
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...
Is a light bulb viable as an antenna?
I suppose.. But don't try to claim it is an efficient
radiator.
To sum.. Art suffers delusions of grandeur induced
by various modeling program optimizers.
This can happen to anyone. But... most people
will verify if the data is true by comparing to known
reference antennas. Art does not do this.
He places unflinching blind trust into these programs.
And they have led him astray from reality.
Woe is Art.

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

wrote:
Note the Isotron..

I suspect that the Isotron performs best when the
feedline is radiating like crazy. 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?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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!

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

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!

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

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