wrote in message
...
A helix wound antenna with a double winding? Really?
- 'Doc

Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each
direction?

W3CQH wrote:
wrote in message
...
A helix wound antenna with a double winding? Really?
- 'Doc

Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each
direction?



This URL, of a patent of an antenna which is growing in commercial use,
describes just such a winding and how it is constructed for real world
use. I am almost positive this is the "double helix winding method"
which Art is making reference to:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7187335/fulltext.html

In particular, this reference in the patent:

"It has been found that interlacing a false winding into a current
enhancing unit (such as the top unit winding shown in FIG. 6) or a
radiation resistance unit (such as a helix as shown in FIG. 7) enhances
the bandwidth of the top unit as well as improves the current profile
along the antenna. The interlaced false winding has little effect on the
resonant frequency of the antenna system."

Regards,
JS

On Jul 10, 11:17 am, John Smith wrote:
W3CQH wrote:
wrote in message
...
A helix wound antenna with a double winding? Really?
- 'Doc

Double winding - in which direction and spaced how far apart in each
direction?

This URL, of a patent of an antenna which is growing in commercial use,
describes just such a winding and how it is constructed for real world
use. I am almost positive this is the "double helix winding method"
which Art is making reference to:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7187335/fulltext.html

In particular, this reference in the patent:

"It has been found that interlacing a false winding into a current
enhancing unit (such as the top unit winding shown in FIG. 6) or a
radiation resistance unit (such as a helix as shown in FIG. 7) enhances
the bandwidth of the top unit as well as improves the current profile
along the antenna. The interlaced false winding has little effect on the
resonant frequency of the antenna system."

Regards,
JS

What you are refering to i believe is the Rhode Island antenna that
has been attacked
by all of ham radio but again it could be another follow up new
antenna tho it seems a bit soon
since they had to resubmit the first patent to get it accepted.
John, imagine the following
1 a rcp and a lcp helix driven in parallel with counterpoise. What
would the ensueing gain consist of?
2 a rcp and a lcp helix driven antenna connected at the top and fed
with out a counterpoise ( assumption is that windings do not come in
contact with each other)
What would the ensuing gain, if any, consist of ?
Would either 1 or 2 produce a negative total gain?
I am really having a difficult time understanding why hams THINK so
bad of this type of antenna, with close windings or in pitched form
You just can't stop wire radiating so where are they coming from?
Regards
Art

Regards Art
Nobody has supplied any reasoning of what radiation a ham could expect
from such an arrangement. Yet anybody can check it out forthemselves
without unsubstantiated off the cuff comments meant to inflict pain

Art Unwin wrote:

...
What you are refering to i believe is the Rhode Island antenna that
has been attacked
....
Art

Regards Art
Nobody has supplied any reasoning of what radiation a ham could expect
from such an arrangement. Yet anybody can check it out forthemselves
without unsubstantiated off the cuff comments meant to inflict pain

It is the "Distributed Load Monopole" (DLM) antenna by Robert Vincent ...

I have a 50 ft. one in my front yard and disquised as a flagpole, for 80m.

At the back of the house, and hidden from view, is a 1/2 version for 10m.

For me, it is a perfect design ... I have not incorporated the
"interlaced winding(s)", yet ...

Regards,
JS