On Jul 11, 11:13 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
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

Ok Walter I have now read RCs post, I don't normally read his posts
But I don't find his comment hillarious. I never mentioned Neutrons
or zip cord
and his use of zip cord does not show any evidence of the wires
crossing each other from one coil to another
so he is imposing a lumped load which is opposite to the intent of the
design! Then he stated he had achieved equilibriumwhat ever that word
means to him
All in all it just doesn't make sense to me as always. I rarely can
figure out what RC is trying to say
since he mixes truth with lies as with a Shakesperien play, which is
why I do not read him and thus hillarity has escaped me.
I certainly have no idea what Franks response to RCs post signifies
either
What a mess occurs when one solely tries to deceive!
I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of
Gauss

Art wrote:
"Of course 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."

No one is saving face or conspiring against a new idea. You can`t break
the laws of physics no matter how hard you try.

Antenna performance is based on lengths of wire in the air and the
currents in them. Take a broadside array for example. It is usual to
drive current through all the elements of a plane in the same phase so
that the fields at a distant point perpendicular to the plane of the
array are additive to make a large signal. It is a matter of radiator
lengths and currents.

Now consider a small diameter coil as a radiator. It is called an radial
mode helix because radiation is radial (perpendicular to the axis of the
coil). It has two extremes. If collapsed, the coil becomes a single
loop. If stretched to its maximum, the coil becomes a straight wire. If
controlled so that the same magnitude and direction of current flows in
all configurations, the straight-wire version of this coil should
produce the greatest radiated field strength perpendicular to the coil
axis in the far field.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Art

Yanno, I just don't get it ...

In looking back, over decades, I see that I, most likely, learned more
from antennas I have built which didn't work, than the ones I built
which worked extremely well ... sounds stupid on the surface, I
know--but, none the less, true.

There is a thread running now on the lazy h antenna--never one of my
favorites. But hey, look what the guy is learning that started that
thread! And, he seems determined, if it is a great antenna--he'll know
by the time he is done!

Many of my mistakes were in my own construction(s.) A wire crossed to
the wrong point--miscalculation of lengths/inductances/capacitances/etc.
Sometimes I had built and written off an antenna, only to look, at
some later date, at one someone else had built (and which functioned
well) to see my mistake(s.) Sometimes the antennas just didn't work as
expected, and they never were going to; and, even if I came across
someone claiming they had one "working", and I examined it closely,
while under use--I might see they only wished it to work well. Were
they "wrong?", well, yes and no ... obviously they were chatting someone up!

Remove all the fun from amateur radio and you are just left with a bunch
of angry "Brass Bangers!" Or, forever boy scouts at a contest ... :-)

Regards,
JS

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:40:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I never mentioned Neutrons

You can't spell is why (neutrino).

It still amounts to the same thing: an antenna designed to suppress
the signal to optimize sub-atomic particles with their weak force.

Further modeling has borne out how weak: varying between the -30s dB
and -40s dB.

No other data has been submitted to contradict what has been witnessed
for three centuries by millions of operators. As I have offered
throughout this thread: proof positive that an antenna optimized for
the equilibrium of the Weak Force must suppress signal to qualify.

By the authur's intent, design, construction details, expressed logic,
and demonstration through models and in dependant testing, that
suppression has left only a Weak Force. Further improvement in
modeling and construction may yet achieve -60dB levels of signal
degradation to achieve a superior Weak Force antenna example.

This is truly deserving of a patent - except that the PTO mandates it
must have some commercial gain. Can one express it as -60dB$ ?

Would you be able to find a coin that small struck at the Denver Mint?
The tax mil would only be -30dB$. Would one need a 1000 bay
unwinantenna to equal on mil of monetary gain? What would its carbon
footprint be when a Henry fed it?

Ah, the infinite intrigue of Weak Force Antennas (hope the authur
realizes this may lead to a trademark infringement).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art Unwin wrote:

I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of
Gauss

Simply priceless.

Dave K8MN

On Jul 11, 11:57 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Of course 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."

No one is saving face or conspiring against a new idea. You can`t break
the laws of physics no matter how hard you try.

Antenna performance is based on lengths of wire in the air and the
currents in them. Take a broadside array for example. It is usual to
drive current through all the elements of a plane in the same phase so
that the fields at a distant point perpendicular to the plane of the
array are additive to make a large signal. It is a matter of radiator
lengths and currents.

Now consider a small diameter coil as a radiator. It is called an radial
mode helix because radiation is radial (perpendicular to the axis of the
coil). It has two extremes. If collapsed, the coil becomes a single
loop. If stretched to its maximum, the coil becomes a straight wire. If
controlled so that the same magnitude and direction of current flows in
all configurations, the straight-wire version of this coil should
produce the greatest radiated field strength perpendicular to the coil
axis in the far field.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

I don't know where you get this straight busines from. the wire will
radiate
no matter what shape as long as it is in equilibrium which means
straight or otherwise.
No law says it must be straight or else unless you can show it to me.
The helix is not straight! Making a helix a full wave circuit gets rid
of the counterpoise,
it does not stop radiation. Kraus suggests that a helix can supply a
16 db gain which is very high
but tnever the less gain can be achieved. So I do not see the point
that you are silently dwelling aponto justufy that it can,t work as
well as
radiators MUSt be at right angles to the earths surface for maximum
vertical gain. You have never explained the u nderpinnings of your
statements in academic form without which there is nothing I can
debate with you

I certainly have no idea what Franks response to RCs post signifies
either
What a mess occurs when one solely tries to deceive!
I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of
Gauss

The idea was to model your antenna. The code is there for anyone to
verify in case I have made an error. The model results, including
input impedance, and gain, are shown below the code listing.
The GH card is in NEC 4 format. All other cards conform to
NEC 2.

73,

Frank

On Jul 12, 12:15 pm, "Frank" wrote:
I certainly have no idea what Franks response to RCs post signifies
either
What a mess occurs when one solely tries to deceive!
I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of
Gauss

The idea was to model your antenna. The code is there for anyone to
verify in case I have made an error. The model results, including
input impedance, and gain, are shown below the code listing.
The GH card is in NEC 4 format. All other cards conform to
NEC 2.

73,

Frank

My program is not Nec based so I am not familiar with that routine.,
I cant model my antenna because of the pre twisted wires. I can
however
model a combination of two helix antennas without interweaving into
one circuit.
where one helix antenna is slightly larger diameter than the other
My program shows instances of gain! So the question becomes is your
model
based on zip cord which is suggested by one and secondly what was the
reason for the combimation of two antennas
to shrivle away into dust or the equivalent of a dummy load. It is
also suggested that antennas such as this
are breaking the laws of nature so does your program show the arrival
of doom ?.
I am making this antenna very frequently and all these things
predicted are just not happening. But then I would never use
zip cord or violate the rules of nature if I was advised which one I
was violating but apparently that is a secret.
So Frank what is the antenna configuration etc that your program
represents so that I can understand the particulars that you have so
genouresly probided so all may share

On Jul 11, 11:57 pm, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Of course 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."

No one is saving face or conspiring against a new idea. You can`t break
the laws of physics no matter how hard you try.
Correct Please point to the particular law that I am breaking, that
would really help out a lot

Antenna performance is based on lengths of wire in the air and the
currents in them.
By performance you meam energy in vesus radiation out
as with a closed arbitary border.



Take a broadside array for example. It is usual to
drive current through all the elements of a plane in the same phase so
that the fields at a distant point perpendicular to the plane of the
array are additive to make a large signal. It is a matter of radiator
lengths and currents.
That is for a radiator based around intercoupling of radiators not one
based on radiation per unit length of radiator
The "large" signal is a resuly of how the radiation is arranged. It
does not create extra radiation it just removes radiation fro one
arear
to supplement radiation in other areas. It does not create more
radiation per radiator unit length

Now consider a small diameter coil as a radiator.
A loop radiator or did you mean a coil?

It is called an radial
mode helix because radiation is radial (perpendicular to the axis of the
coil).
No. That is definitely not true!



It has two extremes. If collapsed, the coil becomes a single
loop.
Wire stays the same length ala apples with apples


If stretched to its maximum, the coil becomes a straight wire.

Ok. still the same amount of wire


If
controlled so that the same magnitude and direction of current flows in
all configurations, the straight-wire version of this coil should
produce the greatest radiated field strength perpendicular to the coil
axis in the far field.

This doesn't radiate more per unit energy supplied. Ther is no total
increase of radiation per energy put in.

Hmm so now you are moving away from total radiation to a robbing Peter
to pay Paul situation
So your radiator is very lossy as much as it has gain, which adds up
to total radiation
per unit length

You forgot to make your point. My antenna with the same wire length
has the same radiation as yours does per unit length of radiator
so in your casev some how the ratio root LC became smaller while the
wire stayed the same lengthj!
How did that happen?

You are saying that a straight radiator produces more radiation per
unit length than any other antenna that does not have a straight
position such that the radiation per unit length reduces the
efficiency of the radiator the ability of producing radiation.

So this is where we part

since for a given length in equilibrium root LC is always the same
thus so is the radiation. Is this a law that I am violating?

What does the law state?

RH this is my last shot of trying to analyse what you are saying that
leads to the demise of my antenna.
Now be specific for once and respond to each which I have high ligted.
And as a final comment describe how one helix antenna radiates more
than two helix anteena made of opposite polarisation because you
continue to suggest this despite the fact we have doubled the wire!.
Let us come to finality with respect to what you have been pushing for
the last decade,

P.S I am in St Louis for a get away and it is to hot and humid to go
out. Makes sense?


Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

John Smith wrote:
"There is a thread runnung now on the lazy H antenna--never one of my
favorites.:

Yes. I believe it started with the question: "Has anyone ever actually
built a Lazy H for 10 or 11 meters?"

Although I`ve built many antennas for 33 MHz, a frequency assigned to a
company I worked for over a long period of time, none of those were Lazy
H`s. I have built many Lazy H`s for several other frequency bands used
for shortwave broadcasting but 10 and 11 meters are not assigned to
broadcasting. The Lazy H, with a plane of phased resonant reflectors
directly behind to make the array unidtrectional, is one of the most
popular for shortwave broadcasting. The highest frequency band I`ve used
is the 17 MHz band. Nothing significant will happen if the same 17 MHz
antenna is scaled for 29 MHz. In fact our shortwave antennas were
physically modeled at 450 MHz, before the first full-sized shortwave
antenna was ever built, just to prove the design. Measurements on big
and little antennas proved both to give the same results.

I`m inclined to believe the questioner made some mistake and there is
nothing wrong with a properly designed and constructed Lazy-H antenna on
any frequency.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI