Hi, all concerned:

Here's some anecdata (sic) ... :

OUAT, after reading something some where about the Lattin Labs antenna, I
put an 8-ft stub on the side of a 33-ft verticaloverlotsaradials.

I got a "new" indication of low-Z near 10M which wasn't there B4, to go
along with the 40M low-Z reading.

Received noise on 10M went up, from a well-defined nearby source, suggesting
that the el pattern might have come down some.

I moved the stub nearer the top, and found what I remember as a 3/4-wave
low-Z indication on 10M.

I think the KT-XX series of "diametrically opposed designs" use this method
of multibanding, as well.

Might even try this anecdata in Roy's Toy3, to see if its gui-ed
algorithm-ized academic mumblings prove this scandalous anecdata.

Shucks, if it can't be modeled, it can't be made to happen ;o)

Right?

73, Dave, N3HE




"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On 22 Apr 2004 07:19:37 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

Like I said, I've done some measures and added a dozen more since.
The results are interesting. I can come up with a four band antenna
without too much trouble; however, getting those bands into Ham
regions (all of them) is another matter. I can do this with a simple
run of twin lead, and one strategically placed short between them.

Which is not what Lattin did at all. Your design sounds far superior.
Is it on the web anywhere?

Hi Jim,

You should take care with my perverse generalizations, especially when
you follow it with:

BIGSNIP


Frankly, the Lattin has yet to prove to me that the notion of a
longitudinal stub as "trap" really holds any water. I've seen the
same "theory" applied to diametrically opposed designs. It is
pleasing to the arm-chair designer to mutter these ideas, but these
so-called streamers needed to make it work just yell foul on every
street corner. It is an ad-hoc design draped with academic mumblings
to lend it the appearance of legitimacy.

To extend my quote above, I have added yet another dozen measurements
to have nailed down patterns that emerged with the basis of a
consistent building paradigm (yeah, I know, gobbldygook). I seek to
generalize such claims as the Lattin makes and reduce them to a
practical minimum that are robust and repeatable. This is not to say
entirely useful, nor optimal.

I did the same thing with the fractal with 300 or more measurements
and reduced that junk science to a simple observation: you can push
more resonances into a length of wire, the more you kink it. Useful?
The test of time has shown that no one has made any money from those
same published 300 pages - why would I expect the Lattin to emerge
from 5 decades of neglect to eclipse that record? Frankly, the Lattin
simply confirms this simple observation, but is more controlled. It
may mature to a more repeatable design, but I doubt its inventor would
recognize it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC