On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
joe
I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?

Hi All,

This is not going to resolve issues. I have seen enough of Art's
details contributed in quotations (folks should be more selective in
both quotes and focus on one point) to see he claims ALL of HF at less
than 2:1 and specifically the 160M band - when he uses a tuner
continuously (an odd requirement adorning the claim in the advance
over conventional designs there). He also reports not hearing
anything on it. The two statements easily support each other in
revealing the inordinate loss due to the proximity of ground. This is
nothing that hasn't been reported for years by others as they
encounter the silent blessings of distributed loss.

The language of Faraday shields has been corrupted to suit a fantasy,
however. And Art has abandoned the arguments demanding length
efficiency; and no requirement for tilting the radiator (this one is
specifically described as being strictly parallel); and skewed
elements (aka guss's radiators)are gone; and contra wound coils have
disappeared; and what happened to paramagnetics?; and....

Well, Art's claims are like a long burning fuse that sparks for a
moment leaving a trail of ash behind. The mesh burns with a
sputtering flicker before it too is abandoned for the next fad when it
will be discovered that the sun's particels would go through the mesh
openings instead of hitting this peculiar antenna.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC