Part of Too Many
 

On Jul 11, 11:33 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Another point I can model two helix antennas one LCP and one RCP
connected at one and and so could Kraus and so can space engineers."

Art should look at page 66 of the 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas". Fig.
3-8(c) is the axial-mode helix, an end-fire or traveling-wave antenna.
Here the diameter of the coil is a significant portion of a wavelength
and the distance between turns (6 are shown) ia 1/4 WL. Large loops
(turns) are required to make radiation broadside to the loop instead of
having a null there as in small loops. One would usually not
characterize the axial mode helix as small, though two of them wound in
opposite directions will indeed peoduce both both circular
polarizations. Such an HF structure wouldn`t fit in two ordinary shoe
boxes. Small-diameter coils produce linear polarizations in parallel
with the coil axis.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

That ius correct but I am interested in small antennas so I wound both
helixes on the same former and at the same time.
Since like magnetic particles cannot collide I must assume that no
radiation is being lost.
The largest diameter I have used so far ius about a foot. The smallest
diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest one that I
have made was
8'" by 12" by a wire thickness which can be wound up in a roll and put
in a sock no less.
I am not a lier!

Part of Too Many
 

Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Part of Too Many
 

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even
beats Leno. LOL.

Walt, W2DU

Part of Too Many
 

On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

... Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been hilarious--even
beats Leno. LOL.

Walt, W2DU

Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional
experience.
With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty
strong case
based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the
same about the
Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with
it.!
Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY
it "cannot possibly work:"
or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you
state it can't work, won't work
or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a
professional explanation on which you are basing your findings?
And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics
or something of similar kind. After all this time I have
been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome
a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters
and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna
which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet.
Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to
save your fellow friends from harm
or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you
book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I
measured with this antenna on
unwinantennas.com
so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for
other information that was not there.You could also state to the many
naysayers
why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load
and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you
respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question
your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate
your present passion for hate.
Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in
seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a
real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than
making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would
remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address
this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he
does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations
given with a sneer.

Part of Too Many
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

... Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been
hilarious--even
beats Leno. LOL.

Walt, W2DU

Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional
experience.
With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty
strong case
based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the
same about the
Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with
it.!
Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY
it "cannot possibly work:"
or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you
state it can't work, won't work
or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a
professional explanation on which you are basing your findings?
And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics
or something of similar kind. After all this time I have
been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome
a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters
and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna
which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet.
Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to
save your fellow friends from harm
or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you
book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I
measured with this antenna on
unwinantennas.com
so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for
other information that was not there.You could also state to the many
naysayers
why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load
and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you
respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question
your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate
your present passion for hate.
Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in
seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a
real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than
making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would
remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address
this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he
does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations
given with a sneer.

Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your
graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your
antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the
others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric. Furthermore,
I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused me
of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various
posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not find
any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him.

And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who began
the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted academically.
Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread?

Walt, W2DU

Part of Too Many
 

On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

... Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been
hilarious--even
beats Leno. LOL.

Walt, W2DU

Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional
experience.
With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty
strong case
based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the
same about the
Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with
it.!
Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY
it "cannot possibly work:"
or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you
state it can't work, won't work
or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a
professional explanation on which you are basing your findings?
And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics
or something of similar kind. After all this time I have
been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome
a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters
and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna
which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet.
Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to
save your fellow friends from harm
or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you
book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I
measured with this antenna on
unwinantennas.com
so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for
other information that was not there.You could also state to the many
naysayers
why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load
and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you
respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question
your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate
your present passion for hate.
Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in
seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a
real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than
making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would
remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address
this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he
does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations
given with a sneer.

Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your
graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your
antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the
others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric. Furthermore,
I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused me
of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various
posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not find
any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him.

And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who began
the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted academically.
Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread?

Walt, W2DU

Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the '
comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the
courage to say so.
Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you
hiding behind ambiguety.
At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse
with each other on my antenna which if
so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your
response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to
continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on
letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully
vented your anger.
I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow
as a new day

Part of Too Many
 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:20:07 -0400, "Walter Maxwell"
wrote:

Richard C is the one who began the comedy in this thread

Hmmm,

If all would peruse the original post for this thread, its contents
are solely derived from the original descriptions made by the authur.
The analysis of Weak Force conforms to the original descriptions of
the authur. The outcome of Weak Force is confirmed in ALL signal
strength reports of at least -40dB. All-in-all, nothing has been
denied, negated, nor diminished (except signal strength in comparison
to a standard dipole); and all accounts conform to every original
postulate offered by the authur. Any consequences of optimizing for
neutron emission and maximization for Weak Force are perhaps not
notably useful, but might interest those who demand QRP operation from
their investments in linears and exotic antennas in the examination of
sub-atomic particle physics.

If any comedy has been observed, inferred, suggested, or implied; then
its source lies wholly with the readers' misinterpretations with the
authur of this new antenna as this thread has been solely devoted to
affirming every proposition of this novel antenna degrading signal to
observe these nuclear forces.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Part of Too Many
 

Since you claimed it worked on VHF I actually attemted to make a
contact using it. I live less than 5 miles from a repeater and can
usually get into it with milli watts on a hand held. I couldnt get
into it with your antenna with 10 watts. I was afraid to use more
power as i may put my radio at risk.

This confirms at best -40dB of gain attributable to the authur's
design in comparison to a conventional design.

If Jimmie failed at anything approaching the perfection of the
authur's design, is that it does not exhibit an even greater figure of
-60dB - however, it is implied in Jimmie's hesitation to raise power
lest the authur's design burst into flames due to the Weak Forces
dominating the lack of conventional radiation.

Seeing that the authur has admittedly and expressly designed this
antenna to optimize the Weak Force, it would be surprising that any
other outcome would be expected. For these past few months he has
offered no other results of measurement, again admitting that he has
no "laboratory" (equal even to Jimmie's resources). Hence it follows,
that only speculation is available in the authur's defense.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The following code:

CM Close spaced helix
CE
GH 1 1100 22 13.2 6 6 0.03205 0.03205 0
GH 2 1100 22 13.2 6 6 0.03205 0.03205 0
GM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 2 1 2 1100
GW 3 1 6 0 13.5 6 0 13.2 0.03205
GW 4 1 6 0 0.3 6 0 0 0.03205
GS 0 0 0.025400
GE 0 -1 0
GN -1 !free space
FR 0 1 0 0 7 0.25
EX 0 4 1 0 1 0
LD 5 0 0 0 5.8001E7 !copper
RP 0 19 1 1000 0 90 5.00000 1.00000
EN

Produces:

Input Impedance and VSWR
Frequency Tag Seg. Real(Z) Imag(Z)
-----------------------------------------------
7.000000 4 2202 3.196 -1.896;

**** Power Gains: Theta Pattern ****
Phi=90, Freq=7, File= Helix.NOU
Theta Horizontal Vertical Total
Degrees dB dB dB
0.00 -76.32 -76.89 -73.59
5.00 -64.76 -57.41 -56.68
10.00 -60.01 -51.90 -51.28
15.00 -57.00 -48.60 -48.02
20.00 -54.82 -46.27 -45.70
25.00 -53.14 -44.48 -43.93
30.00 -51.78 -43.06 -42.51
35.00 -50.67 -41.89 -41.35
40.00 -49.74 -40.92 -40.39
45.00 -48.97 -40.11 -39.58
50.00 -48.31 -39.43 -38.90
55.00 -47.77 -38.86 -38.34
60.00 -47.32 -38.39 -37.87
65.00 -46.95 -38.00 -37.48
70.00 -46.67 -37.70 -37.18
75.00 -46.45 -37.47 -36.95
80.00 -46.31 -37.31 -36.79
85.00 -46.23 -37.22 -36.70
90.00 -46.22 -37.19 -36.68

73, Frank

Part of Too Many
 

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

... Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the
flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in
a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of
a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been
hilarious--even
beats Leno. LOL.

Walt, W2DU

Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional
experience.
With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty
strong case
based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the
same about the
Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with
it.!
Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY
it "cannot possibly work:"
or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you
state it can't work, won't work
or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a
professional explanation on which you are basing your findings?
And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics
or something of similar kind. After all this time I have
been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome
a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters
and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna
which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet.
Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to
save your fellow friends from harm
or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you
book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I
measured with this antenna on
unwinantennas.com
so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for
other information that was not there.You could also state to the many
naysayers
why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load
and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you
respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question
your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate
your present passion for hate.
Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in
seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a
real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than
making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would
remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address
this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he
does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations
given with a sneer.

Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your
graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your
antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the
others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric.
Furthermore,
I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused
me
of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various
posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not
find
any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him.

And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who
began
the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted
academically.
Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread?

Walt, W2DU

Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the '
comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the
courage to say so.
Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you
hiding behind ambiguety.
At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse
with each other on my antenna which if
so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your
response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to
continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on
letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully
vented your anger.
I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow
as a new day

Art, I'm not angry with anyone. What gave you that notion? I have not indicated
an anger, nor have I had any intent of letting anyone know of any contempt
(because I have none) or that I haven't fully vented my anger. What anger? Where
is this coming from? Certainly not from me. If you're addressing me with such
outrageous concerns you are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you
must have too many Gaussians between your ears that have addalpated your brain
cells.

Concerning the two Richards, check the recent posts on this thread.

Walt, W2DU

Part of Too Many
 

On Jul 11, 9:44 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

... Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the
flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in
a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of
a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been
hilarious--even
beats Leno. LOL.

Walt, W2DU

Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional
experience.
With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty
strong case
based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the
same about the
Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with
it.!
Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY
it "cannot possibly work:"
or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you
state it can't work, won't work
or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a
professional explanation on which you are basing your findings?
And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics
or something of similar kind. After all this time I have
been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome
a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters
and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna
which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet.
Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to
save your fellow friends from harm
or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you
book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I
measured with this antenna on
unwinantennas.com
so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for
other information that was not there.You could also state to the many
naysayers
why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load
and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you
respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question
your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate
your present passion for hate.
Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in
seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a
real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than
making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would
remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address
this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he
does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations
given with a sneer.

Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your
graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your
antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the
others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric.
Furthermore,
I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused
me
of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various
posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not
find
any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him.

And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who
began
the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted
academically.
Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread?

Walt, W2DU

Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the '
comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the
courage to say so.
Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you
hiding behind ambiguety.
At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse
with each other on my antenna which if
so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your
response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to
continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on
letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully
vented your anger.
I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow
as a new day

Art, I'm not angry with anyone. What gave you that notion? I have not indicated
an anger, nor have I had any intent of letting anyone know of any contempt
(because I have none) or that I haven't fully vented my anger. What anger? Where
is this coming from? Certainly not from me. If you're addressing me with such
outrageous concerns you are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you
must have too many Gaussians between your ears that have addalpated your brain
cells.

Concerning the two Richards, check the recent posts on this thread.

Walt, W2DU

As I said I assumed that your hillarity was over my antenna. You
certainly did not make it clear
it was the other Richard. Maybe I am getting to sensitive to attacks
and thus showing I still have possesion of some testerone.
Apparently this time I can relax as I am not the one in the barrel tho
that is not a good thing to say.
Have a good week end
Art