|
RoomCap Antenna - last results
In September 2007 I conducted a short test between the Roomcap antenna
and a large horizontal Loop antenna. The result was unexpectedly good for the Roomcap. To have certainty in this respect we planned a long test in which the following criterias applied: - Installation of the test site, antennas, and cabling by communication specialists of the Army - Both antennas connected through A/B switch to the same transceiver - Several operator who log their communication results - Always two operators: One operating the rig, the other logging the reports The test was conducted on 40m in SSB under the callsign HB4FF. This test took place on the 20th May 2008 in the military camp of the communication troops in Emmental. They installed as comparison antenna a horizontal loop (86m wire (2 wavelength long), 12m above ground on a free field, with smartuner SG-230 in the feedpoint). The station was in a barrack next to the antenna. Two coaxes (RG214) were layed and led to the coax-switch connected the the transceiver. The SWR of both antennas was 1:1. The comparing antenna was a good one, as analysed by L.B.Cebik (W4RNL) he http://www.cebik.com/content/a10/wire/horloop.html http://www.cebik.com/content/fdim/atl1.html To access these links you need a passwort (free), which you may obtain he www.cebik.com/helpme.htm . The installation and conduction of the test was supervised by a militay communication instructor. I only had to drive with the Roomcap Antenna (1.5 m long radiator) to the parking place and connect my antenna to the coax that was ready there. Connection was through two large current baluns who prevented that RF was fed to the outside of the coax cable. Furthermore, the coax cable was laying on the ground. Then, the test could begin. Operators were the two that came with me: Dave HB9KT and Benoit HB3YRX, and two operators from HB4FF: Jürg HB9BFC and Rolf HB9CVB. The test was conducted according to "HF antenna tests and comparisons", where in each contact the remote operator was asked to observe the signal strength during several changeovers between the two antennas. The antennas were just called "antenna 1" and "antenna 2", to prevent subjective influence. Important was the signal strength difference und not the absolute value. In this kind of comparison no calibration of the receiver is required, as we only needed to see the difference of the signals, or the finding that both signals are equal. The polarisation of the antennas does not play any role, as only sky wave contacts were accounted for. In these waves the polarisation is changing permanently and unpredictable. After 6 hours duration the test was ended, and evaluation of the logs could begin. The result looks like this: (here is the log) - In 57% of the contacts the Roomcap antenna received the better report. - In 29% of the contacts both antennas produced equal signal strength. - In 14% of the contacts the Loop antenna received the better report. The largest difference in favor of the Roomcap was reported with 13 dB (abt 2 S points). The largest difference in favor of the Loop was 6 dB (= 1 S point). By calculating the arithmetic mean of the signal differences, one obtains a calculated advantage of 1.5 dB in favor of the Roomcap antenna. This includes the fact, that the coax cable RG214 to the Loop had 2.7 dB more attenuation (on 7 MHz) caused by the length difference, and that the connecting cable RG58 and the current baluns had an attenuation of 0.7 dB. Accordingly, the Roomcap reports were reduced by 2 dB (= 1/3 S point). Here follows the list of the stations who provided comparitive reports: IK6ZNH, 2E1DHN, DJ6AL, DJ1JW, DL1HWT, DH7VK/p, 9A/DG2XO, DB9WJ, G3GBS, DL7FF, PA3FRD, DL1BPK, DK0SC, DG1BM, HB9BWV/m, DL5XDL, G0GHK, F/PA0JWV, DJ9OI, OE2008SMC, DL1DXF. HB9BWV/m reported a 30 dB stronger signal for the Roomcap. This report was excluded in the calculation, as the station was in the ground wave at a distance of 25 Km, where the polarisation effect was responsible for this high difference. By switching between the two antennas during receiption, the same signal difference was noted as received from the remote station. This shows that the antenna works in reciprocal way. Conclusion: This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna equals that of large wire antennas, and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests during the last 3 years. Each operator confirms the logged reports. The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves is done by the dynamic E field, as explained in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only in the near field region of the antenna, as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists. The far field does not allow determination how the wave has been generated originally. Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free contribution in this antenna test. Felix, HB9ABX |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
Felix,
Interesting. Now, what is a 'Roomcap antenna'? - 'Doc |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 21, 5:26 pm, hb9abx wrote:
Conclusion: This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna equals that of large wire antennas, and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests during the last 3 years. Each operator confirms the logged reports. I have problems with your reference antenna though.. If they are trying to ensure efficiency from the reference antenna, why use a multi wavelength loop fed with a tuner? They would have been better off using a standard dipole, or if a loop, a direct fed 1 wavelength loop for the band to be used. Also, this test does not prove that the efficiency of the "roomcap" antenna equals that of large wire antennas. All it proves it that at the time of the test and the path used, that the roomcap antenna had a higher level of radiation at that particular angle. This has nothing to do with efficiency. If you really believe a 1.5 meter tall antenna is as efficient as a 1/2 wave dipole fed with coax, I have some ocean front property in AZ I'd like to show you. I've had my mobile antenna outplay my 1/2 wave dipole at certain times of the day and using certain "usually low" angles. But I would never be so foolish as to suggest that my mobile whip is just as efficient as my 1/2 wave dipole at home. Anyway, the testing is good to do, but this test has warts, and I wouldn't place too much trust in it. I sure wouldn't go so far as to claim any certain efficiency from the roomcap antenna. I'm not too keen on the reference antenna you used. It has warts too.. You are losing system efficiency in the feed system using coax to a tuner. And also the pattern of the multi wavelength loop would need to be looked into. I'd almost bet money a 1/2 wave coax fed dipole would have beat that loop in most all directions. It would almost certainly have a higher system efficiency by doing away with the tuner. Anyway, I'm not too convinced.. :( See Art, I don't just pick on you... Anyone with dubious test results gets a comment from me... I'm an equal opportunity heckler... :/ |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna equals that of large wire antennas, and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests during the last 3 years. Each operator confirms the logged reports. The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves is done by the dynamic E field, as explained in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only in the near field region of the antenna, as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists. The far field does not allow determination how the wave has been generated originally. Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free contribution in this antenna test. Felix, HB9ABX ========================================= Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
"Highland Ham" wrote in message ... Conclusion: This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna equals that of large wire antennas, and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests during the last 3 years. Each operator confirms the logged reports. The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves is done by the dynamic E field, as explained in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only in the near field region of the antenna, as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists. The far field does not allow determination how the wave has been generated originally. Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free contribution in this antenna test. Felix, HB9ABX ========================================= Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if you published the plans: http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
Dave wrote:
"Highland Ham" wrote in message ... Conclusion: This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna equals that of large wire antennas, and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests during the last 3 years. Each operator confirms the logged reports. The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves is done by the dynamic E field, as explained in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only in the near field region of the antenna, as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists. The far field does not allow determination how the wave has been generated originally. Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free contribution in this antenna test. Felix, HB9ABX ========================================= Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if you published the plans: http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm ======================================== Indeed ,he has tried that for the past 2-3 years via the Packet Radio System . Not very much in the spirit of amateur radio , whereas for most of his tests Felix uses radio amateurs trying to prove the effectiveness of his 'invention'. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:55:50 GMT, "Dave" wrote:
"Highland Ham" wrote in message ... Conclusion: This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna equals that of large wire antennas, and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests during the last 3 years. Each operator confirms the logged reports. The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves is done by the dynamic E field, as explained in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only in the near field region of the antenna, as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists. The far field does not allow determination how the wave has been generated originally. Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free contribution in this antenna test. Felix, HB9ABX ========================================= Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if you published the plans: http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm worse than that, he doesn't tell you what you agree to until you sign it and receive the antenna. -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
Buck wrote: On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:55:50 GMT, "Dave" wrote: "Highland Ham" wrote in message ... Conclusion: This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna equals that of large wire antennas, and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests during the last 3 years. Each operator confirms the logged reports. The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves is done by the dynamic E field, as explained in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only in the near field region of the antenna, as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists. The far field does not allow determination how the wave has been generated originally. Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free contribution in this antenna test. Felix, HB9ABX ========================================= Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if you published the plans: http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm worse than that, he doesn't tell you what you agree to until you sign it and receive the antenna. -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." The fact that its constuction secrets are not all over the internet speaks volumes. If this were truly a decent antenna there is no way the genie could be kept in the bottle. Jimmie |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
JIMMIE wrote:
... The fact that its constuction secrets are not all over the internet speaks volumes. If this were truly a decent antenna there is no way the genie could be kept in the bottle. Jimmie I would have to go with you on this one. If this design/performance was good many large companies and commercial interests would have already picked up on it. Indeed, if this were half of what it claimed, there would be no need to market it to individual amateurs or use marketing tactics which smack of such secrecy, mystery and magic--the money from larger users would just make these ideas laughable. It seems obvious, if it is marketed like snake-oil, if it comes in a snake-oil-bottle, if it has the color of snake-oil and ultimately ends tasting of snake-oil ... it is most likely snake oil--i.e., a lame duck. (Not even to mention that a partner and I have built a couple! LOL) However, Barnum and Bailey would be proud! Regards, JS |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 28, 9:22 am, John Smith wrote:
JIMMIE wrote: ... The fact that its constuction secrets are not all over the internet speaks volumes. If this were truly a decent antenna there is no way the genie could be kept in the bottle. Jimmie I would have to go with you on this one. If this design/performance was good many large companies and commercial interests would have already picked up on it. Indeed, if this were half of what it claimed, there would be no need to market it to individual amateurs or use marketing tactics which smack of such secrecy, mystery and magic--the money from larger users would just make these ideas laughable. It seems obvious, if it is marketed like snake-oil, if it comes in a snake-oil-bottle, if it has the color of snake-oil and ultimately ends tasting of snake-oil ... it is most likely snake oil--i.e., a lame duck. (Not even to mention that a partner and I have built a couple! LOL) However, Barnum and Bailey would be proud! Regards, JS JS I have read thru the thread and find nothing that would suggest that the original poster cannot do what he states he has done. By comparing Gaussian law with Maxwell the requirement of his antenna calls for a system in equilibrium which can be any size ,shape or elevation. Such a design goes back more than ten years on this newsgroup when I stated that radiation came in pulses. have described such as an antenna as one having only distributed loads and where external lumped loads are imposed during manufacture they must be cancelled to maintain equilibrium. All of the masters work and mathematics are based around the requirement of equilibrium law of Newton i.e addition of all vectors equal zero which is the basis for no moving charge within a conductor in equilibrium.(this is descibed in many books or can be googled by inserting current carrying radiator equilibrium or similar words Root LC in Maxwells equation is strictly for distributed loads in equilibrium unless the mathematics have changed in the last 150 yearsand does not include lumped loads as part of the laws of other masters from whom he got the mathematics from. If you obtained a helix antenna and lengthened the open end of the helix by continuing the rotation to the starting point ie cancelling the lumped loads you have such an antenna that is not straight and is in a state of equilibrium which provides gain. Experts, get on Eznec and prove it for yourself, don't just be a talking head ! There are plenty of programs that can simulate such a arrangement without difficulty to simulate a small antenna with full wave dimensions that can provide gains described in his experiments. I have not seen his antenna and suspect that the addition of chokes are supplied because he has not fully cancelled lumped load and thus is trying to prevent feed line radiation which in a lot of cases is not considered a hindrence. If the wire used is a wavelength long then you can't stop it radiating with respect to its unit length if it is in equilibrium. Period. It is easy to debunk an antenna without reason. It is a lot harder to find error in the mathematics involved which supports such antennas especially when it can easily be proved in practice and checked by anybody. Make it worth my while and I will be happy to prove it $1000dollar bvet was suggested in the past but with no takers. I only ask for conpensation for my costs. |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 28, 2:38 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 28, 9:22 am, John Smith wrote: JIMMIE wrote: ... The fact that its constuction secrets are not all over the internet speaks volumes. If this were truly a decent antenna there is no way the genie could be kept in the bottle. Jimmie I would have to go with you on this one. If this design/performance was good many large companies and commercial interests would have already picked up on it. Indeed, if this were half of what it claimed, there would be no need to market it to individual amateurs or use marketing tactics which smack of such secrecy, mystery and magic--the money from larger users would just make these ideas laughable. It seems obvious, if it is marketed like snake-oil, if it comes in a snake-oil-bottle, if it has the color of snake-oil and ultimately ends tasting of snake-oil ... it is most likely snake oil--i.e., a lame duck. (Not even to mention that a partner and I have built a couple! LOL) However, Barnum and Bailey would be proud! Regards, JS JS I have read thru the thread and find nothing that would suggest that the original poster cannot do what he states he has done. By comparing Gaussian law with Maxwell the requirement of his antenna calls for a system in equilibrium which can be any size ,shape or elevation. Such a design goes back more than ten years on this newsgroup when I stated that radiation came in pulses. have described such as an antenna as one having only distributed loads and where external lumped loads are imposed during manufacture they must be cancelled to maintain equilibrium. All of the masters work and mathematics are based around the requirement of equilibrium law of Newton i.e addition of all vectors equal zero which is the basis for no moving charge within a conductor in equilibrium.(this is descibed in many books or can be googled by inserting current carrying radiator equilibrium or similar words Root LC in Maxwells equation is strictly for distributed loads in equilibrium unless the mathematics have changed in the last 150 yearsand does not include lumped loads as part of the laws of other masters from whom he got the mathematics from. If you obtained a helix antenna and lengthened the open end of the helix by continuing the rotation to the starting point ie cancelling the lumped loads you have such an antenna that is not straight and is in a state of equilibrium which provides gain. Experts, get on Eznec and prove it for yourself, don't just be a talking head ! There are plenty of programs that can simulate such a arrangement without difficulty to simulate a small antenna with full wave dimensions that can provide gains described in his experiments. I have not seen his antenna and suspect that the addition of chokes are supplied because he has not fully cancelled lumped load and thus is trying to prevent feed line radiation which in a lot of cases is not considered a hindrence. If the wire used is a wavelength long then you can't stop it radiating with respect to its unit length if it is in equilibrium. Period. It is easy to debunk an antenna without reason. It is a lot harder to find error in the mathematics involved which supports such antennas especially when it can easily be proved in practice and checked by anybody. Make it worth my while and I will be happy to prove it $1000dollar bvet was suggested in the past but with no takers. I only ask for conpensation for my costs. By the way, on my page unwinantennas.com/ I describe how to make an antenna even smaller than that made by the threads initial poster I also supplied SWR measurements for frequencies between 2 and 100 Mhz. The wire I used was a random length and the results should be duplicated with a couple of wavelengths for the lowest frequency. Isolated spot frequencies can be attained by the use of a jumper. Such antennas can also be made in small sheet form and other configurations Wire used for such antennas do not have to be made of wire with mechanical thickness since no external mechanical stresses are involved. Nuff said. I'm gone ! |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
Art Unwin wrote:
... By the way, on my page unwinantennas.com/ I describe how to make an antenna even smaller than that made by the threads initial poster I also supplied SWR measurements for frequencies between 2 and 100 Mhz. The wire I used was a random length and the results should be duplicated with a couple of wavelengths for the lowest frequency. Isolated spot frequencies can be attained by the use of a jumper. Such antennas can also be made in small sheet form and other configurations Wire used for such antennas do not have to be made of wire with mechanical thickness since no external mechanical stresses are involved. Nuff said. I'm gone ! My point can be summed up quickly; where is this antenna being used in the commercial sector--it has certainly been around to have gained interest there, if deserved. That is all folks ... Regards, JS |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 28, 4:01 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: ... By the way, on my page unwinantennas.com/ I describe how to make an antenna even smaller than that made by the threads initial poster I also supplied SWR measurements for frequencies between 2 and 100 Mhz. The wire I used was a random length and the results should be duplicated with a couple of wavelengths for the lowest frequency. Isolated spot frequencies can be attained by the use of a jumper. Such antennas can also be made in small sheet form and other configurations Wire used for such antennas do not have to be made of wire with mechanical thickness since no external mechanical stresses are involved. Nuff said. I'm gone ! My point can be summed up quickly; where is this antenna being used in the commercial sector--it has certainly been around to have gained interest there, if deserved. That is all folks ... Regards, JS Because they don't know about it nor does the ARRL Ham radio is not what it used to be. As the older ones die off the cb talking heads have gained the majority. That is why you get the same answers on antennas on this group as you would get from any woman doing her shopping at the mall. CB hams are only interested in gain or how loud their heckling voices can be heard over the voices of others but antennas are a lot more than that for those really interesred in a hobby rather than bar room talk. Gates left before he graduated in college to make a lot of money WRT did the same thing by not graduating from high school yet the group here give his heckling space because they have nothing better to offer. Not one person has given good reason why the quoted antenna cannot work as stated, not one. By mathematics or actually making one since heckling is regarded as a suitable replacement for true knowledge now in the present hobby of ham radio. Ham radio is no longer on the cusp of invention and the world has moved on without them.Would you allow your children to listen to ham radio at will or look at porn on the computer? The words and conduct now are the same and civility has flown out of the window! |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
Art Unwin wrote:
Because they don't know about it nor does the ARRL Ham radio is not what it used to be. As the older ones die off the cb talking heads have gained the majority. That is why you get the same answers on antennas on this group as you would get from any woman doing her shopping at the mall. CB hams are only interested in gain or how loud their heckling voices can be heard over the voices of others but antennas are a lot more than that for those really interesred in a hobby rather than bar room talk. The "protectionism/good-ole-boys-club/religious-devotion-to-arrl/etc. of the old hams have lead us here to this stale/dysfunctional/non-progressive/etc. end(s.) The "cb hams" you refer to are, in all actuality, "appliance user hams." We now reap what has been sown for decades. We always needed good minds, what we got were brass pounders! :-( Gates left before he graduated in college to make a lot of money WRT did the same thing by not graduating from high school yet the group here give his heckling space because they have nothing better to offer. College or an "education" has never given anyone what the vast majority think it does. You are either born with the gray matter (IQ) to think for yourself and be notable amongst the unwashed, or you are not. Education simply gives a great mind something to do with itself. Not one person has given good reason why the quoted antenna cannot work as stated, not one. By mathematics or actually making one since heckling is regarded as a suitable replacement for true knowledge now in the present hobby of ham radio. The proof is in the pudding, a buddy and I have built a couple of them (he bought the stupid plans, I DIDN'T!), there are much better designs. And, these designs have been found by industry. See what designs are incorporated into cell phones and towers, in rfid devices, remote tire pressure gauges on cars, wifi devices, remote controls, etc. Ham radio is no longer on the cusp of invention and the world has moved on without them.Would you allow your children to listen to ham radio at will or look at porn on the computer? The words and conduct now are the same and civility has flown out of the window! This is a sign of the times--gays marrying, breakup of the family, foster homes, inferior schools, corrupt politicians, etc. The true cause(s) of the problem(s) you state are too numerous to mention. Non-civil hams are only a symptom, not the disease ... and the diseases too numerous to mention themselves ... Regards, JS |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 28, 6:49 pm, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Because they don't know about it nor does the ARRL Ham radio is not what it used to be. As the older ones die off the cb talking heads have gained the majority. That is why you get the same answers on antennas on this group as you would get from any woman doing her shopping at the mall. CB hams are only interested in gain or how loud their heckling voices can be heard over the voices of others but antennas are a lot more than that for those really interesred in a hobby rather than bar room talk. The "protectionism/good-ole-boys-club/religious-devotion-to-arrl/etc. of the old hams have lead us here to this stale/dysfunctional/non-progressive/etc. end(s.) The "cb hams" you refer to are, in all actuality, "appliance user hams." We now reap what has been sown for decades. We always needed good minds, what we got were brass pounders! :-( Gates left before he graduated in college to make a lot of money WRT did the same thing by not graduating from high school yet the group here give his heckling space because they have nothing better to offer. College or an "education" has never given anyone what the vast majority think it does. You are either born with the gray matter (IQ) to think for yourself and be notable amongst the unwashed, or you are not. Education simply gives a great mind something to do with itself. Not one person has given good reason why the quoted antenna cannot work as stated, not one. By mathematics or actually making one since heckling is regarded as a suitable replacement for true knowledge now in the present hobby of ham radio. The proof is in the pudding, a buddy and I have built a couple of them (he bought the stupid plans, I DIDN'T!), there are much better designs. And, these designs have been found by industry. See what designs are incorporated into cell phones and towers, in rfid devices, remote tire pressure gauges on cars, wifi devices, remote controls, etc. Ham radio is no longer on the cusp of invention and the world has moved on without them.Would you allow your children to listen to ham radio at will or look at porn on the computer? The words and conduct now are the same and civility has flown out of the window! This is a sign of the times--gays marrying, breakup of the family, foster homes, inferior schools, corrupt politicians, etc. The true cause(s) of the problem(s) you state are too numerous to mention. Non-civil hams are only a symptom, not the disease ... and the diseases too numerous to mention themselves ... Regards, JS John you have it down pat! The bands will be taken over by industry or the military. There is no way hams will be allowed to keep the bands after it is seen what they have done to the hobby. If you have to prevent your children from listening eventually it will be taken away just like smoking in the presence of others Hams will still be able to use their radio but they wont be allowed to transmit where it affects others. Just like singing in the shower It just stays in the hamshack Art unwinantennas.com/ where they can practice their free speech rights without offending others. |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
Art Unwin wrote:
John you have it down pat! The bands will be taken over by industry or the military. There is no way hams will be allowed to keep the bands after it is seen what they have done to the hobby. If you have to prevent your children from listening eventually it will be taken away just like smoking in the presence of others Hams will still be able to use their radio but they wont be allowed to transmit where it affects others. Just like singing in the shower It just stays in the hamshack Art unwinantennas.com/ where they can practice their free speech rights without offending others. Actually, I still hold hope that something can be done or will happen to halt these trends ... but the future scares me--just call me paranoid ... Regards, JS |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: Not one person has given good reason why the quoted antenna cannot work as stated, not one. By mathematics or actually making one since heckling is regarded as a suitable replacement for true knowledge now in the present hobby of ham radio. First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret' status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until after it is agreed to. When I told Felix I might buy his plans (IIRC they were only $35.00 at the time) but, I would need to first see the agreement, he cut off communications with me. I'll ask Felix again, what are the terms of agreement, or why are they secret until we paid for the plans? Because of his secrecy of his agreement, I can only speculate that he is looking for marks, suckers, or fools to buy his antenna plans. Only a fool would sign a check and turn it over to a stranger to fill in as he desires. Personally, I would love for Felix's antenna design to perform according to his claims. I would be proud to have his ugly pole on top of my car as I drive down the road working DX if it works as claimed. ("ugly pole" is not meant to be derogatory, see my car to understand.) And Art, the fact is that only Felix has the obligation of proof. As I see it, this is the issue: Felix has made certain claims to a product which he is selling. The evidence he is using to back up his claims doesn't hold up to the standards set to establish such claims. He may have tried, as in he tested his antenna against a loop, but there were discrepancies in his test that would skew the results. I think everyone knows that at one time, according to the laws of aerodynamics, a bumble bee could not fly. The laws have been changed so the Bumble-bee can now fly. Currently, I believe the general rules of antenna theory say that a properly made 1/4 wave ground plane will outperform a ground plane less than 1/10th wavelength in size. (I am sure some of the EEs here can prove this mathematically or offer some specific scientific law, but I am not trying to go there.) Felix claims to have an antenna that can defy this rule, therefore, the burden of proof lies on him, not the EEs in the group. I will not say that there is not a design that can break the general rule I stated above, but the evidence Felix is offering is sketchy at best. -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:49:18 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: By the way, on my page unwinantennas.com/ I describe how to make an antenna even smaller than that made by the threads initial poster No such description is to be found on your page, just utter nonsense. I also supplied SWR measurements for frequencies between 2 and 100 No, you did not provide measurements, you just depict a few graphs which you faked. Mhz. The wire I used was a random length and the results should be duplicated with a couple of wavelengths for the lowest frequency. Isolated spot frequencies can be attained by the use of a jumper. Such antennas can also be made in small sheet form and other configurations Show one (1) single working prototype. Wire used for such antennas do not have to be made of wire Interesting statement. aahahahaaaa.... with mechanical thickness since no external mechanical stresses are involved. Yes, sure. Nuff said. I'm gone ! If you only were. Go to hell. w. |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret'
status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until after it is agreed to. I think it's very questionable whether any such "secret contract" would be enforceable, at least here in the U.S. One of the crucial elements in a contract is the "meeting of the minds". That is, the parties who are taking part in the contract must be in agreement as to what it is that is being agreed to. Terms which are kept secret from one party to the contract until after the contract was signed would almost certainly be held to be invalid and unenforceable. Felix *could* have a legal and binding contract with buyers of his antenna which has strict terms that require nondisclosure, forbid reverse engineering, or insist that buyers do The Dance in public on alternate Thursdays. However, in order to be enforceable, all of the terms have to be presented to the buyer *before* the contract is agreed to. -- 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! |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 29, 11:47 am, (Dave Platt) wrote:
First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret' status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until after it is agreed to. I think it's very questionable whether any such "secret contract" would be enforceable, at least here in the U.S. One of the crucial elements in a contract is the "meeting of the minds". That is, the parties who are taking part in the contract must be in agreement as to what it is that is being agreed to. Terms which are kept secret from one party to the contract until after the contract was signed would almost certainly be held to be invalid and unenforceable. Felix *could* have a legal and binding contract with buyers of his antenna which has strict terms that require nondisclosure, forbid reverse engineering, or insist that buyers do The Dance in public on alternate Thursdays. However, in order to be enforceable, all of the terms have to be presented to the buyer *before* the contract is agreed to. -- 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! I totally agree.He really should supply a graph of frequency versus SWR then buyers would know what they are getting. Hams are not interested in how it works on ly the extent of frequencies and the external size of the antenna Isn't this what Rhode Island did. Now if the wire is one wavelength such that radiation cannot occur from the feed line that would be a welcome addition.Albiet a balanced to unbanced windings would be handy for when coax is used. Either way the antenna seems awefull long compared to what it could be. Art |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Jun 29, 11:47 am, (Dave Platt) wrote: First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret' status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until after it is agreed to. I think it's very questionable whether any such "secret contract" would be enforceable, at least here in the U.S. One of the crucial elements in a contract is the "meeting of the minds". That is, the parties who are taking part in the contract must be in agreement as to what it is that is being agreed to. Terms which are kept secret from one party to the contract until after the contract was signed would almost certainly be held to be invalid and unenforceable. Felix *could* have a legal and binding contract with buyers of his antenna which has strict terms that require nondisclosure, forbid reverse engineering, or insist that buyers do The Dance in public on alternate Thursdays. However, in order to be enforceable, all of the terms have to be presented to the buyer *before* the contract is agreed to. -- 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! I totally agree.He really should supply a graph of frequency versus SWR then buyers would know what they are getting. Art the only time a graph of swr vs frequency is important is for a dummy load. it is not a measure of antenna performance. |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 29, 2:14 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:47 am, (Dave Platt) wrote: First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret' status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until after it is agreed to. I think it's very questionable whether any such "secret contract" would be enforceable, at least here in the U.S. One of the crucial elements in a contract is the "meeting of the minds". That is, the parties who are taking part in the contract must be in agreement as to what it is that is being agreed to. Terms which are kept secret from one party to the contract until after the contract was signed would almost certainly be held to be invalid and unenforceable. Felix *could* have a legal and binding contract with buyers of his antenna which has strict terms that require nondisclosure, forbid reverse engineering, or insist that buyers do The Dance in public on alternate Thursdays. However, in order to be enforceable, all of the terms have to be presented to the buyer *before* the contract is agreed to. -- 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! I totally agree.He really should supply a graph of frequency versus SWR then buyers would know what they are getting. Boy, that would really tell a buyer all he needs to know about the antenna/dummy load in question.. :/ Hams are not interested in how it works on ly the extent of frequencies and the external size of the antenna Hummm.. This is an interesting comment from a person who tries to build the smallest antennas he can, and constantly harps on the perceived wide bandwidth of said devices.. :/ Isn't this what Rhode Island did. How did Rhode Island get involved? Yes, Rhode Island is a small state. You could even call it puny compared to the one I live in, but I think they do have enough room for a full size dipole or loop.. :/ Maybe even a beverage or two.. Now if the wire is one wavelength such that radiation cannot occur from the feed line that would be a welcome addition. Prey tell.. How will the use of a 1 wavelength element eliminate feed line radiation? Albiet a balanced to unbanced windings would be handy for when coax is used. Prey tell why? Would the omission of balanced to unbalanced windings lead to a disturbance in the force? How would you explain the obvious success of decoupled verticals using no "windings" at all? Either way the antenna seems awefull long compared to what it could be. He may be trying to avoid dummy load performance from a device intended to radiate. I'm sure he'll be happy to let you corner the market in that respect to avoid any future patent infringements. |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jun 28, 10:53 pm, Buck wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT), Art wrote: Not one person has given good reason why the quoted antenna cannot work as stated, not one. By mathematics or actually making one since heckling is regarded as a suitable replacement for true knowledge now in the present hobby of ham radio. First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret' status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until after it is agreed to. When I told Felix I might buy his plans (IIRC they were only $35.00 at the time) but, I would need to first see the agreement, he cut off communications with me. I'll ask Felix again, what are the terms of agreement, or why are they secret until we paid for the plans? Because of his secrecy of his agreement, I can only speculate that he is looking for marks, suckers, or fools to buy his antenna plans. Only a fool would sign a check and turn it over to a stranger to fill in as he desires. Personally, I would love for Felix's antenna design to perform according to his claims. I would be proud to have his ugly pole on top of my car as I drive down the road working DX if it works as claimed. ("ugly pole" is not meant to be derogatory, see my car to understand.) And Art, the fact is that only Felix has the obligation of proof. As I see it, this is the issue: Felix has made certain claims to a product which he is selling. The evidence he is using to back up his claims doesn't hold up to the standards set to establish such claims. He may have tried, as in he tested his antenna against a loop, but there were discrepancies in his test that would skew the results. I think everyone knows that at one time, according to the laws of aerodynamics, a bumble bee could not fly. The laws have been changed so the Bumble-bee can now fly. Currently, I believe the general rules of antenna theory say that a properly made 1/4 wave ground plane will outperform a ground plane less than 1/10th wavelength in size. (I am sure some of the EEs here can prove this mathematically or offer some specific scientific law, but I am not trying to go there.) Felix claims to have an antenna that can defy this rule, therefore, the burden of proof lies on him, not the EEs in the group. I will not say that there is not a design that can break the general rule I stated above, but the evidence Felix is offering is sketchy at best. Buck You are misunderstanding the situation with his antenna. What he is doing is putting as much wire into the air which old timers still talk about and then taking on the problem of feeding it. Since an antenna can be any shape or size when in equilibrium he is following the first part and getting around the need for equilibrium to get a smaller antenna. This is somewhat like the Rhode Island antenna where winding or distortion of a antenna was accepted first and the effort to place it in equilibrium was taken on later .This was done by including the transmission line in the antenna system which made a "smaller" antenna Regards Art -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On 4 Jul., 19:56, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 28, 10:53 pm, Buck wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT), Art wrote: Not one person has given good reason why the quoted antenna cannot work as stated, not one. By mathematics or actually making one since heckling is regarded as a suitable replacement for true knowledge now in the present hobby of ham radio. First of all Felix has placed his project into such a 'top secret' status that even the contract to which one agrees is secret until after it is agreed to. When I told Felix I might buy his plans (IIRC they were only $35.00 at the time) but, I would need to first see the agreement, he cut off communications with me. I'll ask Felix again, what are the terms of agreement, or why are they secret until we paid for the plans? Because of his secrecy of his agreement, I can only speculate that he is looking for marks, suckers, or fools to buy his antenna plans. Only a fool would sign a check and turn it over to a stranger to fill in as he desires. Personally, I would love for Felix's antenna design to perform according to his claims. I would be proud to have his ugly pole on top of my car as I drive down the road working DX if it works as claimed. ("ugly pole" is not meant to be derogatory, see my car to understand.) And Art, the fact is that only Felix has the obligation of proof. As I see it, this is the issue: Felix has made certain claims to a product which he is selling. The evidence he is using to back up his claims doesn't hold up to the standards set to establish such claims. He may have tried, as in he tested his antenna against a loop, but there were discrepancies in his test that would skew the results. I think everyone knows that at one time, according to the laws of aerodynamics, a bumble bee could not fly. The laws have been changed so the Bumble-bee can now fly. Currently, I believe the general rules of antenna theory say that a properly made 1/4 wave ground plane will outperform a ground plane less than 1/10th wavelength in size. (I am sure some of the EEs here can prove this mathematically or offer some specific scientific law, but I am not trying to go there.) Felix claims to have an antenna that can defy this rule, therefore, the burden of proof lies on him, not the EEs in the group. I will not say that there is not a design that can break the general rule I stated above, but the evidence Felix is offering is sketchy at best. Buck You are misunderstanding the situation with his antenna. What he is doing is putting as much wire into the air which old timers still talk about and then taking on the problem of feeding it. Since an antenna can be any shape or size when in equilibrium he is following the first part and getting around the need for equilibrium to get a smaller antenna. This is somewhat like the Rhode Island antenna where winding or distortion of a antenna was accepted first and the effort to place it in equilibrium was taken on later .This was done by including the transmission line in the antenna system which made a "smaller" antenna Regards Art -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." It is incredible , how silly and wrong the comments here are. - All facts are disregarded and so many wrong things are told, that I think, you all better remain with your wire antennas as has been since 100 years ... and you better believe that the world is flat and that an airplane never can fly, as scientists teached some time ago ... Maybe you will understand when the time is ready for that ... - I just tell you, that you can read the real facts he http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm and if someone wants to know the contract, he has to sign before obtaining the plans: Send me an email and you will get all conditions - nothing is kept secret as Buck wrote. Probably his mail was lost in the Internet, and that is not my responsibility. Sorry. With kind regards: Felix - HB9ABX --... ...-- = 73 |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
hb9abx wrote:
... With kind regards: Felix - HB9ABX --... ...-- = 73 As alway, I remain open to embrace any new designs/techniques/construction-methods/plans/breakthroughs/etc. After building/using "it" (your antenna in question) I went back to the DLM. Granted, I have not figured out how to make a true multi-band version of the DLM, yet, no problem; I have never been fond of the "one-size-fits-all" antenna, anyway. I would encourage other to give it a go--I am not infallible and may have sloppy or inadequate means to realize the full potential ... I have made plenty such errors in the past ... :-( Choice is nice! Regards, JS |
RoomCap Antenna - last results
On Jul 12, 1:48*pm, hb9abx wrote:
It is incredible , how silly and wrong the comments here are. - All facts are disregarded and so many wrong things are told, that I think, you all better remain with your wire antennas What "facts" have been disregarded? Don't **** down my back and tell me it's raining.. I have needed test apparatus to be able to tell the difference. And yes, I'm sure I would be better off sticking with "my" wire antennas, but that has nothing to do with the issues at hand. I use only manly full sized antennas designed to kick butt. It would only be natural that they would be superior to lesser loaded designs. Now, don't be confused. I have no real issues with your antenna. Just the antenna you used as a reference. I'm sure your antenna is far superior to the Unwin design which is presently being offered by the wizard of IL. But don't be confusing yourself that it is equal to a full size specimen. It's not, and never will be. Ever. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com