snip
wrote:
"According to current
theory, you have to give up one of the three-size, efficiency, or
bandwidth-to achieve any one of the other two."

snip
Is the above statement correct ?

Hi Art,

In a crude and shorthand way, yes. This is why your small 160M
vertical dipole is up to 15 to 17dB below performance in comparison to
a full size one. All common legacy for CFAs, EHs, fractals, and the
rest of this ilk that come down the pike.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hmm I don't know where you are coming from but I ouldn't put my
antenna
in the CFA group that you state above. I know in the past that your
antenna is better than mine which is O.K. but the fact is that many
amateurs like to experiment and also pursue the "holy grail" Each
attempt provide knowledge
which is why antennas are pursued so much .I wager that the patent
pending
aproach discussed will provide welcome reading for everybody on this
newsgroup.
As for my particular antenna pursuit I am still not ready to throw it
into the dustbin as every change provides new insights on antennas (
the sinosoidal current wave for one)
I use my present antenna in the rotatable form on the top of the tower
for convenience but I modelled it after reading your comments and they
are as follows

Top band....vertical orientation
Impedance 349 +j41 ohms ( 186-j13 ohms when horizontally oriented
on the tower)
Load losses 2.88 db
Efficiency 51.5%
Radiation peak 23 degrees elevation -1.53dbi

The above has bandwidth of around 5 Khz which is O.K. for audio,
and frequency of use is selectable across the band.
Since the feed point is at the center I don't have to tear up the lawn
for those rotten radial wires.
Efficiency jumps to over 90% on 80 meters and other bands with the
typical figure eight form pattern, but my primary pursuit is on top
band.
Yes, the antenna can be beaten when following conventional design but
the hunt
using unconventional designs is part of the excitement, where slight
change of inductance value moves you along the band /bands with out
restriction with respect to power , the requirement of high voltage
capacitors or large areas of grounding systems.
My antenna may be regarded as 'useless' by many but, unlike the CFA
and other antennas you placed me with, my antenna is in use and the
impedances provided seem to match those given by modelling using a PRO
antenna program and using maximum segments because of the
UNCONVENTIONAL close coupled cluster design.
Unconventional design provides insights to antennas like the
oscillations that I refered to earlier, which is not to be seen on
conventional designs and for which I seek further understanding and
explanation.
The new unconventional design from R.I. which is 'patent pending' no
less may well provide further insights that we are unaware of.
Unfortunately his efforts WILL be ridiculed by those who know that
'every thing about antennas is known' and by sharing he has shown his
personal foolishnes to his peers.
When will the amateur learn that it is a waste of time to experiment
where the failures are heralded and the minutia of new facts are
ignored ???
Please forgive me for writing this extra post which has strayed from
my original post.
Regards to all
Art

On 6 Jun 2004 17:11:50 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Top band....vertical orientation Impedance 349 +j41 ohms
( 186-j13 ohms when horizontally oriented on the tower)

This reveals the tower is a significant radiator and a necessary
adjunct for the operation of the antenna. This is an identical
characteristic of CFA's, EH's and fractals.

Unconventional design provides insights to antennas like the
oscillations that I refered to earlier, which is not to be seen on
conventional designs and for which I seek further understanding and
explanation.

I see nothing unconventional at all.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I duly note your judgement which appears to be based on the feed impedances
provided. For the record the vertical was modelled
with one end about two feet above the ground (over perfect ground) whereas
the horizontal form was modelled at 820 inches above ground , again over
"perfect ground". I look forward to when the initial 'new' technology
alluded to in this thread is available for full discusion.
Regards to all
Art


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On 6 Jun 2004 17:11:50 -0700, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Top band....vertical orientation Impedance 349 +j41 ohms
( 186-j13 ohms when horizontally oriented on the tower)

This reveals the tower is a significant radiator and a necessary
adjunct for the operation of the antenna. This is an identical
characteristic of CFA's, EH's and fractals.

Unconventional design provides insights to antennas like the
oscillations that I refered to earlier, which is not to be seen on
conventional designs and for which I seek further understanding and
explanation.

I see nothing unconventional at all.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

snip
wrote:
"According to current
theory, you have to give up one of the three-size, efficiency, or
bandwidth-to achieve any one of the other two."

snip
Is the above statement correct ?

Hi Art,

In a crude and shorthand way, yes. This is why your small 160M
vertical dipole is up to 15 to 17dB below performance in comparison to
a full size one. All common legacy for CFAs, EHs, fractals, and the
rest of this ilk that come down the pike.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hmm I don't know where you are coming from but I ouldn't put my
antenna
in the CFA group that you state above. I know in the past that your
antenna is better than mine which is O.K. but the fact is that many
amateurs like to experiment and also pursue the "holy grail" Each
attempt provide knowledge
which is why antennas are pursued so much .I wager that the patent
pending
aproach discussed will provide welcome reading for everybody on this
newsgroup.
As for my particular antenna pursuit I am still not ready to throw it
into the dustbin as every change provides new insights on antennas (
the sinosoidal current wave for one)
I use my present antenna in the rotatable form on the top of the tower
for convenience but I modelled it after reading your comments and they
are as follows

Top band....vertical orientation
Impedance 349 +j41 ohms ( 186-j13 ohms when horizontally oriented
on the tower)
Load losses 2.88 db
Efficiency 51.5%
Radiation peak 23 degrees elevation -1.53dbi

The above has bandwidth of around 5 Khz which is O.K. for audio,
and frequency of use is selectable across the band.
Since the feed point is at the center I don't have to tear up the lawn
for those rotten radial wires.
Efficiency jumps to over 90% on 80 meters and other bands with the
typical figure eight form pattern, but my primary pursuit is on top
band.
Yes, the antenna can be beaten when following conventional design but
the hunt
using unconventional designs is part of the excitement, where slight
change of inductance value moves you along the band /bands with out
restriction with respect to power , the requirement of high voltage
capacitors or large areas of grounding systems.
My antenna may be regarded as 'useless' by many but, unlike the CFA
and other antennas you placed me with, my antenna is in use and the
impedances provided seem to match those given by modelling using a PRO
antenna program and using maximum segments because of the
UNCONVENTIONAL close coupled cluster design.
Unconventional design provides insights to antennas like the
oscillations that I refered to earlier, which is not to be seen on
conventional designs and for which I seek further understanding and
explanation.
The new unconventional design from R.I. which is 'patent pending' no
less may well provide further insights that we are unaware of.
Unfortunately his efforts WILL be ridiculed by those who know that
'every thing about antennas is known' and by sharing he has shown his
personal foolishnes to his peers.
When will the amateur learn that it is a waste of time to experiment
where the failures are heralded and the minutia of new facts are
ignored ???
Please forgive me for writing this extra post which has strayed from
my original post.
Regards to all
Art

"Chuck...K1KW" wrote in message news:0wNvc.39192$3x.31853@attbi_s54...
Anyone know anything about the "technology" in the article below?

Ask him, he dunnit.

http://www.qrz.com/detail/K1DFT

w3rv


http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/?id=2659

Chuck...K1KW

Article text below

Chuck...K1KW wrote:

Anyone know anything about the "technology" in the article below?

http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/?id=2659


Melted the antenna with 100 W. Could it be just a tad lossy?
Efficiency claims are clearly bogus.

vy 73

Andy, M1EBV

"Chuck...K1KW" wrote in message news:0wNvc.39192$3x.31853@attbi_s54...
Anyone know anything about the "technology" in the article below?

http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/?id=2659

Chuck...K1KW

Another article

http://www.eet.com/at/news/showArtic...cleID=21401977

PORTLAND, Ore. — A four-year skunk works effort at the University of
Rhode Island in Kingston has cut the size of an antenna by as much as
one-third for any frequency from the KHz to the GHz range....

k4wge wrote:


PORTLAND, Ore. — A four-year skunk works effort

So that's what they're smoking. I guess that explains the claims. ;-)


vy 73

Andy, M1EBV

"Chuck...K1KW" wrote in message news:0wNvc.39192$3x.31853@attbi_s54...
Anyone know anything about the "technology" in the article below?

http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/?id=2659

Chuck...K1KW

Smaller antenna design said to boost efficiency
By R. Colin Johnson
EE Times
June 07, 2004 (4:00 PM EDT)



PORTLAND, Ore. — A four-year skunk works effort at the
University of Rhode Island in Kingston has cut the size
of an antenna by as much as one-third for any frequency
from the KHz to the GHz range.
Using conventional components the four-part antenna
design cancels out normal inductive loading, thereby
linearizing the energy radiation along its mast and
enabling the smaller size.
"The DLM [distributed load monopole] antenna is based on
a lot of things that currently exist," said the
researcher who invented the smaller antenna, Robert
Vincent of the university's physics department, "but
I've been able to put a combination of them together to
create a revolutionary way of building antennas. It uses
basically a helix plus a load coil."
The patent-pending design could transform every
antenna-from the GHz models for cell phones to the
giant, KHz AM antennas that stud the high ground of
metropolitan areas-Vincent said.
For cellphones, for example, Vincent said he has a
completely planar design that is less than a third the
size of today's cellphone antennas. And those 300-foot
tall antennas for the 900-KHz AM band that dominate
skylines would have to be only 80 feet high, with no
compromise in performance, using Vincent's design, he
said.
"With my technique, I reduce the inductive loading that
is normally required to resonate the antenna by as much
as 75 percent . . . by utilizing the distributed
capacitance around the antenna," he explained.
"I looked at all the different approaches used to make
antennas smaller, and there seemed to be good and bad
aspects" to each, Vincent said. "A helix antenna is
normally known to be a core radiator, because the
current profile drops off rapidly; they are just an
inductor, and inductance does not like to see changes in
current, so it's going to buck that.
"What I found was that for any smaller antenna, if you
place a load coil in the middle you can normalize and
make the current through the helix unity; that is, you
can maximize it and linearize it," he added.
Vincent has verified designs from 1.8 MHz to 200 MHz by
measuring and characterizing the behavior of his DLM
antenna compared with a normal quarter-wave antenna of
the same frequency. He found that many of the
disadvantages of traditional antennas were not problems
for the much lighter inductive loading in a DLM.
To check his theory, Vincent analyzed and compared the
current profiles, output power and a score of other
standard tests for measuring antenna performance. All
measurements were in reference to comparative
measurements made on a quarter-wave vertical antenna for
the same frequency, on the same ground system and same
power input.
"I was able to increase the current profile of the
antenna over a quarter-wave by as much as two to 2.5
times," said Vincent.
"The technology is completely scalable: Take the
component values and divide them by two, and you get
twice the frequency; take all the component values and
multiply them by two, and you are at half the
frequency," said Vincent.
Vincent said he is moving up into the GHz bands for use
with cellphones and radio-frequency ID equipment. A
problem in the past has been that as components are
downsized, they become too small to utilize standard
antenna materials. At 1 GHz, for example, the helix is
only eight-thousandths of an inch in diameter and
requires more than 100 turns of wire.
"So I came up with a new way of developing a helix for
high frequencies that is a fully planar design; it's a
two-dimensional helix," said Vincent.
With the new helix design, Vincent has built a prototype
7-GHz antenna that he claims is indistinguishable from a
quarter-wave antenna in all but its size. "Because the
new design is completely planar, we could crank these
out using thin-film technologies," Vincent said.

k4wge wrote:
It uses basically a helix plus a load coil."

I see those all the time on 18-wheelers. Aren't they
called firesticks or something like that?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----