On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:33:06 PM UTC-6, rickman wrote:
On 11/5/2014 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:33:48 PM UTC-6, John S wrote:


Can you tell us how big would it be? And what about the coil dimensions,
losses? Can you do an EZNEC model so those of us who have the simulator
can look at all the parameters/arguments?

It can be any size one wants. The bigger the better of course..

What? Maybe you don't fully grasp the idea of a "short" antenna? ;-)

--

Rick

I grasp that the shorter the antenna, the worse it generally performs.
But if I use an 18 ft long dipole for 80 or 40 meters, I consider
that a short dipole. Others may disagree, but I don't care.
They can knock themselves out with shorter versions.
I try to avoid using short dipoles. My previously mentioned methods
can be used with any length dipole. The smaller, the smaller the
performance.
Of course, the reasons for the smaller performance are not
what he who is silly thinks are the reasons. :|

wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:33:06 PM UTC-6, rickman wrote:
On 11/5/2014 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:33:48 PM UTC-6, John S wrote:


Can you tell us how big would it be? And what about the coil dimensions,
losses? Can you do an EZNEC model so those of us who have the simulator
can look at all the parameters/arguments?

It can be any size one wants. The bigger the better of course..

What? Maybe you don't fully grasp the idea of a "short" antenna? ;-)

--

Rick

I grasp that the shorter the antenna, the worse it generally performs.
But if I use an 18 ft long dipole for 80 or 40 meters, I consider
that a short dipole. Others may disagree, but I don't care.
They can knock themselves out with shorter versions.
I try to avoid using short dipoles. My previously mentioned methods
can be used with any length dipole. The smaller, the smaller the
performance.
Of course, the reasons for the smaller performance are not
what he who is silly thinks are the reasons. :|

Well...

There is little practical reason for shortning 23 cm band antenna,
but antennas for 160M are a challenge for most people that live
in an urban area.

Where I live anything over about 30 feet tall is basically a no-go.

So in the interest of practicallity and maybe getting something usefull
out of it, how about a 160M antenna with a maximum height of 30 feet
as a goal?

That immediately eliminates dipoles as a 160M dipole at 30 feet will
radiate most of the power straight up.

--
Jim Pennino

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:16:04 PM UTC-6,
There is little practical reason for shortning 23 cm band antenna,
but antennas for 160M are a challenge for most people that live
in an urban area.

Where I live anything over about 30 feet tall is basically a no-go.

So in the interest of practicallity and maybe getting something usefull
out of it, how about a 160M antenna with a maximum height of 30 feet
as a goal?

That immediately eliminates dipoles as a 160M dipole at 30 feet will
radiate most of the power straight up.

In that case, I'd use a "T" vertical, with the loading coil at the base
if the top wires are too short to tune the antenna. The main reason
for having the coil at the base is ease of changing the inductance,
and the top hat wires improve current distribution vs a whip with
no top wires. If no room for the top wires, I'd use a capacity hat if
possible.

On 11/5/2014 1:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:33:06 PM UTC-6, rickman wrote:
On 11/5/2014 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:33:48 PM UTC-6, John S wrote:


Can you tell us how big would it be? And what about the coil dimensions,
losses? Can you do an EZNEC model so those of us who have the simulator
can look at all the parameters/arguments?

It can be any size one wants. The bigger the better of course..

What? Maybe you don't fully grasp the idea of a "short" antenna? ;-)

--

Rick

I grasp that the shorter the antenna, the worse it generally performs.
But if I use an 18 ft long dipole for 80 or 40 meters, I consider
that a short dipole. Others may disagree, but I don't care.
They can knock themselves out with shorter versions.
I try to avoid using short dipoles. My previously mentioned methods
can be used with any length dipole. The smaller, the smaller the
performance.
Of course, the reasons for the smaller performance are not
what he who is silly thinks are the reasons. :|

C'mon, Mark. You didn't need to add that. I think all of your technical
responses have been excellent info. Good man.

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, John S wrote:


C'mon, Mark. You didn't need to add that. I think all of your technical
responses have been excellent info. Good man.

Yea, I know, but he has a way of provoking me that is hard to resist..

wrote in message
...

Yea, I know, but he has a way of provoking me that is hard to resist..


How does speaking the truth provoke you?

On 11/5/2014 2:32 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, John S wrote:


C'mon, Mark. You didn't need to add that. I think all of your technical
responses have been excellent info. Good man.

Yea, I know, but he has a way of provoking me that is hard to resist..

Please, Mark. Try.

"John S" wrote in message
...

Please, Mark. Try.

I am pleased that my exhortations that you should improve your
previous behaviour have taken effect.

Well done!

Keep up the good work!

On 11/5/2014 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:33:06 PM UTC-6, rickman wrote:
On 11/5/2014 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:33:48 PM UTC-6, John S wrote:


Can you tell us how big would it be? And what about the coil dimensions,
losses? Can you do an EZNEC model so those of us who have the simulator
can look at all the parameters/arguments?

It can be any size one wants. The bigger the better of course..

What? Maybe you don't fully grasp the idea of a "short" antenna? ;-)

--

Rick

I grasp that the shorter the antenna, the worse it generally performs.

You are starting to sound like you-know-who now!


But if I use an 18 ft long dipole for 80 or 40 meters, I consider
that a short dipole. Others may disagree, but I don't care.
They can knock themselves out with shorter versions.
I try to avoid using short dipoles. My previously mentioned methods
can be used with any length dipole. The smaller, the smaller the
performance.
Of course, the reasons for the smaller performance are not
what he who is silly thinks are the reasons. :|

Hmmm... ok. So you are happy discussing short antenna as long as they
aren't *too* short.

--

Rick