On Apr 22, 8:46*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

The helix is four foot long and a foot diameter. The base *of the
reflector is 1.5 feet
snip
Art

A 1 foot diameter helix would be a design for the 1 meter band, not 160.
* You need to scale it up just a bit.

The diameter should be about 50 meters. *The reflector should be maybe
150 meters in diameter. *This is not going to fit in your back yard.

tom
K0TAR

Tom
What you say it should be is guided by conventional teachings and my
designs are not conventional. Per conventional teachings it would be
very large indeed which is why my design has to be different Actually
I want to see if I can lower the conventional take of angle with the
use of tipping mechanism plus the rotator addition.
With CP I may lose a bit of S meter readings but if I can lower the
TOA with the antenna on the ground that will be a big step forward.
Any way the antenna doesn't know that it should not work and despite
your comments it works OK, but as yet I have not been able to
establish the radiation patterns. So I have a antenna at around 30
feet and the other on the ground with a tipping device so the up
coming tests should be interesting.
Both antennas will cover top band and of course will have gain, but at
the moment it is TOA that I am concentrating on, after that it is
patterns
It is the journey not the destination.
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:46 pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

The helix is four foot long and a foot diameter. The base of the
reflector is 1.5 feet
snip
Art
A 1 foot diameter helix would be a design for the 1 meter band, not 160.
You need to scale it up just a bit.

The diameter should be about 50 meters. The reflector should be maybe
150 meters in diameter. This is not going to fit in your back yard.

tom
K0TAR

Tom
What you say it should be is guided by conventional teachings and my
designs are not conventional. Per conventional teachings it would be
snip
Art

Ok. So what have you changed from a standard helical design that makes
it "not conventional" ?

Your original description sounded pretty much like a stock 1m band
helical, so if you've done something to pull it down 160:1 in frequency,
I'd love to hear what it is. It must be simple and obvious, because you
didn't mention it in your post.

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote:snip
Tom
What you say it should be is guided by conventional teachings and my
designs are not conventional. Per conventional teachings it would be
snip
Art

Ok. So what have you changed from a standard helical design that makes
it "not conventional" ?

Your original description sounded pretty much like a stock 1m band
helical, so if you've done something to pull it down 160:1 in frequency,
I'd love to hear what it is. It must be simple and obvious, because you
didn't mention it in your post.

tom
K0TAR

Oh, I forgot.

Art, you need to google for "axial mode".

tom
K0TAR

On Apr 22, 10:59*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:snip
Tom
*What you say it should be is guided by conventional teachings and my
designs are not conventional. Per conventional teachings it would be
snip
Art

Ok. *So what have you changed from a standard helical design that makes
it "not conventional" ?

Your original description sounded pretty much like a stock 1m band
helical, so if you've done something to pull it down 160:1 in frequency,
I'd love to hear what it is. *It must be simple and obvious, because you
didn't mention it in your post.

tom
K0TAR

Oh, I forgot.

Art, you need to google for "axial mode".

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I tried to tell Art this but he just told me Krauus was wrong.

Jimmie

On Apr 22, 9:59*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Tom Ring wrote:snip
Tom
*What you say it should be is guided by conventional teachings and my
designs are not conventional. Per conventional teachings it would be
snip
Art

Ok. *So what have you changed from a standard helical design that makes
it "not conventional" ?

Your original description sounded pretty much like a stock 1m band
helical, so if you've done something to pull it down 160:1 in frequency,
I'd love to hear what it is. *It must be simple and obvious, because you
didn't mention it in your post.

tom
K0TAR

Oh, I forgot.

Art, you need to google for "axial mode".

tom
K0TAR

Tom
I tried to share and I started with Gauss's law of statics. I never
really got into it hard because of the reaction to the first step.
Without an understanding of that first step it becomes impossible to
move further. Yes, I have made comments beyond that point but I also
left out certain factors because my work is not complete. The bottom
line is that the new antennas have been made and meet my expectations
up to this point but I have more to do. This group is not for antenna
debate it is for gottchas
by those who perceive themselves as experts and beyond the point of
debate.
Now I accept the group for what they are while enjoying my
achievements on the side.
As for you telling me what I need to do with respect to axial mode, I
know my own needs better than you.I think you will be better off
listening instead of posting starting with what Cecil has to say and
the difficulties that you are having in digesting.
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:46Â*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

The helix is four foot long and a foot diameter. The base Â*of the
reflector is 1.5 feet
snip
Art

A 1 foot diameter helix would be a design for the 1 meter band, not 160.
Â* You need to scale it up just a bit.

The diameter should be about 50 meters. Â*The reflector should be maybe
150 meters in diameter. Â*This is not going to fit in your back yard.

tom
K0TAR

Tom
What you say it should be is guided by conventional teachings and my
designs are not conventional.

To say the least...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.