Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH"
wrote:

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

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote:

Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used
then change direction and come back
without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of
the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed.
Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this
is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter
than
the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field
noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without
the helix.
Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off
the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the
outside coil is exposed


Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as
distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used
going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip
cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by
physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are
wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by
the author.

There is no pre twisting for the same reason (which might nullifie
near field noise to his thinking - an asset to almost anyone else, but
go figure), as specified above by the authur. It is exactly in
equilibrium because both coils are the same diameter, as distinctly
specified above by the authur.

There is no need for coating as there is no inside coil, this is
guaranteed by the physical construction of zip cord. Zip cord also
guarantees equal lengths of going/returning lengths of conductor.

Short one end of the zip cord paired conductors to make the gussian
loop, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

Feed the other end of the zip cord paired conductors to emit the
neutrons' weak force, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

Performance will follow the principal physics of this weak force and
provide an intensely weak signal. If your listeners experience
received signal levels greater than -40dB compared to a standard
(non-gussian) dipole, then you have not followed instructions
distinctly quoted above from the authur.

Careful attention to detail can achieve increased performances of up
to -60dB below traditional designs (indistinctly specified by the
authur).

Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it
violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced
wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely
available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith
based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith
based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be
confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of
results of double-blind testing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

All other faults about Arts antenna ignored it is obvious he has not
considered the losses of the cable he is using to fabricate his
antenna. Zipcord is far from being a very good transmission line. I
have melted it while tuning a 75 watt transmitter into a light bulb.
The graphs on his website show pretty much what one would expect
feeding power into a very lossy cable. Yep it looks like he built
himself a very poor dummy load.

As a matter of fact I believe his discription of his wonder antenna
very closly describes a method of jury rigging an emergency dummy
load. The only thing else needed is a bucket of water.

Jimmie

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Not that I have any confidence in Art's antenna design. But you wind a
cylinder with zip cord from left to right, with the left end pair being
the feed and the right pair shorted (as if a single 2W wire) then the
'return winding' will essentially be wrapped in the opposite direction.
Correct. And if zip wire is used then you are adding a lumped load
which is a violation with respect to equilibriu,

The zip cord is in true equilibrium for any winding. What you
describe is twisting and this violates equilibrium. That won't work,
and Guss has demonstrated this three centuries ago.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Now wait just a minute, Richard. I think it may depend on the zip cord
you use. Some of the zip cord, when close wound, will have more
dielectric between the interturn wires than between the 2 wires of the
zip cord itself. Of course it _can_ be rebalanced if the air gap
impressed into the plastic during manufacturing is the correct depth.

tom
K0TAR

On Jul 10, 5:51 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH"
wrote:

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

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote:

Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used
then change direction and come back
without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of
the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed.
Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this
is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter
than
the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field
noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without
the helix.
Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off
the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the
outside coil is exposed

Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as
distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used
going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip
cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by
physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are
wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by
the author.

There is no pre twisting for the same reason (which might nullifie
near field noise to his thinking - an asset to almost anyone else, but
go figure), as specified above by the authur. It is exactly in
equilibrium because both coils are the same diameter, as distinctly
specified above by the authur.

There is no need for coating as there is no inside coil, this is
guaranteed by the physical construction of zip cord. Zip cord also
guarantees equal lengths of going/returning lengths of conductor.

Short one end of the zip cord paired conductors to make the gussian
loop, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

Feed the other end of the zip cord paired conductors to emit the
neutrons' weak force, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

Performance will follow the principal physics of this weak force and
provide an intensely weak signal. If your listeners experience
received signal levels greater than -40dB compared to a standard
(non-gussian) dipole, then you have not followed instructions
distinctly quoted above from the authur.

Careful attention to detail can achieve increased performances of up
to -60dB below traditional designs (indistinctly specified by the
authur).

Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it
violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced
wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely
available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith
based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith
based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be
confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of
results of double-blind testing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

All other faults about Arts antenna ignored it is obvious he has not
considered the losses of the cable he is using to fabricate his
antenna. Zipcord is far from being a very good transmission line. I
have melted it while tuning a 75 watt transmitter into a light bulb.
The graphs on his website show pretty much what one would expect
feeding power into a very lossy cable. Yep it looks like he built
himself a very poor dummy load.

As a matter of fact I believe his discription of his wonder antenna
very closly describes a method of jury rigging an emergency dummy
load. The only thing else needed is a bucket of water.

Jimmie

My transmission line is Andrews..7/8 'dia. I dont use zip cord
You say the graphs depict a very lossy cable, can you give me a
reference that points to that?
Always willing to learn
And another point, where does this notion come from that a closed
circuit of one WL will always creat feed line radiation?
I have been of the opinion that with a balance to unbalanced jobby at
the antenna there is no radiation at all from the feed line and if you
use
open wire the jobby is not required. Another point where can a dummy
load be found with several resonant points and anti resonant points
with poor SWR in between? Another point what is the real capacitance
of zip cord per foot? Seems like somebody is not seeing that as a
lumped load ....curious.
Another point I can model two helix antennas, one LCP and one RCP
connected at one end and so could Kraus and so can the space
engineers!
The idea you cannot model close spaced lines when unlimited segments
are available seems to be inaccurate to me.
The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody
is drinking.
Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to
me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields
cancelling each other
Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to
suggest that they are reasonable.

On Jul 10, 6:56*pm, Article Unwin wrote:

The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody
is drinking.

The idea that anyone would confuse your design with that of the
helix used in a conventional manner, would mean someone is
drunk. *hic*

Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to
me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields
cancelling each other

Who cares about all that irrelevant jibber jabber. It means nada
in the overall big picture of the universe in the land of Obama.
Your loading losses are what's going to ruin your day at the test
track.
Your antenna is pretty much nothing but a perverted, *very*
inefficient thin 22 gauge wire loading coil fed on the low frequency
of 1.8-2.0 mhz in your recent case.
Any delusions of performance grandeur would tend to imply that
the designer must be drunk. *hic*


Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to
suggest that they are reasonable.

Yep, that's your "Articles" alright... Weird speculation backed
by nothing to suggest the speculation is reasonable.
Onward through the fog. :/

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 10, 5:51 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:05:56 -0400, "W3CQH"
wrote:

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

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote:

Wind a close coil any diameter with it until half the wire is used
then change direction and come back
without changing wire winding direction and wind the wire on top of
the first coil where you finish with two wires to feed.
Put a variometer in series with it and then get on the air. Now this
is not exactly in equilibrium because one coil is a larger diameter
than
the other. Nor is the wire pre twisted pair which nullifies near field
noise to my thinking. Now you have a helix style antenna but without
the helix.
Coat the antenna with an alkyd type solution before you slide it off
the tube since the inside coil must be exposed the same way the
outside coil is exposed

Take one wavelength of zip cord. Wrap it around any diameter form, as
distinctly specified above by the authur. Half the wire is used
going, and half the wire is used returning by specification of the zip
cord, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

There is no change in winding direction as zip cord guarantees this by
physical attachment, as specified above by the authur. Both wires are
wrapped without changing direction, as distinctly specified above by
the author.

There is no pre twisting for the same reason (which might nullifie
near field noise to his thinking - an asset to almost anyone else, but
go figure), as specified above by the authur. It is exactly in
equilibrium because both coils are the same diameter, as distinctly
specified above by the authur.

There is no need for coating as there is no inside coil, this is
guaranteed by the physical construction of zip cord. Zip cord also
guarantees equal lengths of going/returning lengths of conductor.

Short one end of the zip cord paired conductors to make the gussian
loop, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

Feed the other end of the zip cord paired conductors to emit the
neutrons' weak force, as distinctly specified above by the authur.

Performance will follow the principal physics of this weak force and
provide an intensely weak signal. If your listeners experience
received signal levels greater than -40dB compared to a standard
(non-gussian) dipole, then you have not followed instructions
distinctly quoted above from the authur.

Careful attention to detail can achieve increased performances of up
to -60dB below traditional designs (indistinctly specified by the
authur).

Take care to note that this design is impossible to model as it
violates every software package's capacity to allow closely spaced
wires. There are absolutely no software products, nor freely
available packages that perform this analysis - you are now in faith
based alchemy. Any claims to the contrary (contradicting this faith
based illusion) are delusional. This level of delusion can be
confirmed by the whole absence of reference, citation, or offering of
results of double-blind testing.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

All other faults about Arts antenna ignored it is obvious he has not
considered the losses of the cable he is using to fabricate his
antenna. Zipcord is far from being a very good transmission line. I
have melted it while tuning a 75 watt transmitter into a light bulb.
The graphs on his website show pretty much what one would expect
feeding power into a very lossy cable. Yep it looks like he built
himself a very poor dummy load.

As a matter of fact I believe his discription of his wonder antenna
very closly describes a method of jury rigging an emergency dummy
load. The only thing else needed is a bucket of water.

Jimmie

My transmission line is Andrews..7/8 'dia. I dont use zip cord

No but the antenna is made of zip cord.
You say the graphs depict a very lossy cable, can you give me a
reference that points to that?

The fact that the VSWR keeps decreasing with an increase in frequency
is characteristic of a lossy transmission line, In this case a lossy
antenna.

Always willing to learn
And another point, where does this notion come from that a closed
circuit of one WL will always creat feed line radiation?

Where do you get the notion I had that notion

I have been of the opinion that with a balance to unbalanced jobby at
the antenna there is no radiation at all from the feed line and if you
use
open wire the jobby is not required

.. Another point where can a dummy
load be found with several resonant points and anti resonant points
with poor SWR in between?

Yes but the anti resonant points are not very pronounced. Like I said
its a poor dummy load. A poor dummy load because it still has
reactive components. Its still a better dummy load than an antenna.



The idea you cannot model close spaced lines when unlimited segments
are available seems to be inaccurate to me.
The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody
is drinking.

Who said you have two helix antennas, They certainly are not as
defined by Kraus or anyone else. A helix antenna is more than wire
wrapped on a stick.

Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to
me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields
cancelling each other.

The fields created by a moving charged particle can easily cancel that
of a like particle, they just have to be moving in opposite
directions. Wire wound reduced inductance resistors have been made
wind the wire and connecting it much as you have in your antenna.
Again you discribe a dummy load

Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to
suggest that they are reasonable.

Perhaps you forget I actually made your antenna. All it did was get
warm. It worked best when the input to the transmission line was
shorted and fed as a random length of wire.

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.

The fact that I could place it in a metal locker and operate it with
little change in VSWR indicates most of the power is being consumed by
a resistive load. The signal is being radiated but most of it is being
changed to infra-red radiation first.

If you dont believe me just build the thing and test it for yourself
comparing it to a simple dipole.

I also tested it on an Anritsu antenna analyzer. The results were very
similar to what you posted on your website so I am assuming you did
something similar to get your waveforms.

These waveforms are also very similar to the waveforms of the
improvised dummy load I mentioned so I could equally assume you are a
troll and practical joker.

Jimmie

On Jul 10, 7:15 pm, wrote:
On Jul 10, 6:56 pm, Article Unwin wrote:

The idea thatr two helix antennas provide negative gain means somebody
is drinking.

The idea that anyone would confuse your design with that of the
helix used in a conventional manner, would mean someone is
drunk. *hic*

Note the idea that radiation can some how be cancelled seems wrong to
me. I just can't see two particles with like magnetic fields
cancelling each other

Who cares about all that irrelevant jibber jabber. It means nada
in the overall big picture of the universe in the land of Obama.
Your loading losses are what's going to ruin your day at the test
track.
Your antenna is pretty much nothing but a perverted, *very*
inefficient thin 22 gauge wire loading coil fed on the low frequency
of 1.8-2.0 mhz in your recent case.
Any delusions of performance grandeur would tend to imply that
the designer must be drunk. *hic*

Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to
suggest that they are reasonable.

Yep, that's your "Articles" alright... Weird speculation backed
by nothing to suggest the speculation is reasonable.
Onward through the fog. :/

There has got to be a reason for Richard and you doing all this. I
know Richard wants me dead
but how does that satisfy you?

On Jul 10, 8:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


There has got to be a reason for Richard and you doing all this.

Doing all what?
I'm just commenting on your various jibber jabber.

I know Richard wants me dead
but how does that satisfy you?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Classified you know...

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:56:24 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to
suggest that they are reasonable.

Speculation is, what speculations "seems." Your appeal here for
validation suffers from its thin content and over elaborate
speculation. Ultimately, this speculation of yours collapses from
many faults, two of which are enough to describe:

1. This is due to the lack of equilibrium by your own admission of
twisting the line in flagrant contradiction to how you described its
construction.

2, You cannot defend against the poor performance of Weak Forces that
dominate your own design; by your own stated purpose and admission.
This is obvious on the face of it.

These demonstrate the superiority of conventional dipoles and the
experience of millions of users for three centuries confirms this.
This last observation is NOT speculative, but clear proof supported by
a reservoir of data.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:59:27 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

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

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