Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...
Did they mention where an actual drawing can be found
or if an indepth descriptive article can be found?
Thanks
Art

What I described, says it all. The variation from the helically wound coil
at
the bottom half of the radiator is the trombone like "coil" or loading
stubs.
Looks like one or two turn trombone loading stubs along the radiator. This
should model in EZnec and show how the current decreases. Not much
different
from the loading coil at the base, which any mobile aficionado knows is
the
worst place to put the loading coil at.
Again. It is vertical, working against radials, or screen, loaded at the
base
with helical coil or trombone, then piece of tubing, then loading coil,
than
piece of tubing (stinger) or top hat. You can play with any sizes you
like, it
will not beat "classic" whip with loading coil about 2/3 up the radiator.

When the patent is issued and published, you will be able to see where the
"secret" is. He promised to have something on the web site, but I did not
bother to take a note of it.

73 Yuri, K3BU.us
www.computeradio.us home of Dream Radio One

Institution or magazine is only as good as people in it. Obviously UofRI does
not have RF department, otherwise the technician would not be the star
"inventor", if they had even dummy like me, that would not fly out into the
press release and patent office. (Well, you can patent anything now a days, but
why waste money, unless you expect to fool some clueless buyers.)

ARRL and QST is slipping in quality and reviewing what goes out. See the wrong
"wisdom" of distribution of current in the loading coils that was started by
Belrose in the 50ies and propagated through Compendia and ARRL Antenna book and
defended by W8JI till this modern times. There are more half baked articles
showing up with time. Internet helps to discuss and correct some stuff, but
seems that with time, we are getting more "experts" discovering perpetuum
mobile and getting away with it.

Good thing it is only a hobby and some bright minds are still around at this NG
:-)

73 Yuri



Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

You make some good points
Regards
Art
"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

Institution or magazine is only as good as people in it. Obviously UofRI
does
not have RF department, otherwise the technician would not be the star
"inventor", if they had even dummy like me, that would not fly out into
the
press release and patent office. (Well, you can patent anything now a
days, but
why waste money, unless you expect to fool some clueless buyers.)

ARRL and QST is slipping in quality and reviewing what goes out. See the
wrong
"wisdom" of distribution of current in the loading coils that was started
by
Belrose in the 50ies and propagated through Compendia and ARRL Antenna
book and
defended by W8JI till this modern times. There are more half baked
articles
showing up with time. Internet helps to discuss and correct some stuff,
but
seems that with time, we are getting more "experts" discovering perpetuum
mobile and getting away with it.

Good thing it is only a hobby and some bright minds are still around at
this NG
:-)

73 Yuri



Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly
with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was
missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to
make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

Yuri

Does this antenna have an upper limit on the frequency it'll operate at?
I'd think some real life data on efficiency could be derived from enclosing
anantenna in a 'big enough' styrofoam cooler type enclosure. If the parts
that *I* suspect to be lossy might cause a significant temperature rise with
several hundred watts fed to the antenna.

Jerry


"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

Institution or magazine is only as good as people in it. Obviously UofRI
does
not have RF department, otherwise the technician would not be the star
"inventor", if they had even dummy like me, that would not fly out into
the
press release and patent office. (Well, you can patent anything now a
days, but
why waste money, unless you expect to fool some clueless buyers.)

ARRL and QST is slipping in quality and reviewing what goes out. See the
wrong
"wisdom" of distribution of current in the loading coils that was started
by
Belrose in the 50ies and propagated through Compendia and ARRL Antenna
book and
defended by W8JI till this modern times. There are more half baked
articles
showing up with time. Internet helps to discuss and correct some stuff,
but
seems that with time, we are getting more "experts" discovering perpetuum
mobile and getting away with it.

Good thing it is only a hobby and some bright minds are still around at
this NG
:-)

73 Yuri



Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly
with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was
missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to
make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

Does this antenna have an upper limit on the frequency it'll operate at?
I'd think some real life data on efficiency could be derived from enclosing
anantenna in a 'big enough' styrofoam cooler type enclosure. If the parts
that *I* suspect to be lossy might cause a significant temperature rise with
several hundred watts fed to the antenna.

Jerry


There is no limit on the operating frequency of any antenna. If you can feed RF
into it, it will radiate. Question is where, pattern is determined by the
electrical length of the radiator.
The real efficiency of shortened antenna should be indicated by the comparison
with full size equivalent (or any other known type) and measured field
strength, like it is done in mobile antenna shootouts.
Any RF energy lost in heat is not radiated and will show up in lower signal
levels. It is important to compare antennas with the same radiation pattern and
ground system.

Yuri, K3BU.us

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

Does this antenna have an upper limit on the frequency it'll operate
at?
I'd think some real life data on efficiency could be derived from
enclosing
anantenna in a 'big enough' styrofoam cooler type enclosure. If the
parts
that *I* suspect to be lossy might cause a significant temperature rise
with
several hundred watts fed to the antenna.

Jerry


There is no limit on the operating frequency of any antenna. If you can
feed RF
into it, it will radiate. Question is where, pattern is determined by the
electrical length of the radiator.
The real efficiency of shortened antenna should be indicated by the
comparison
with full size equivalent (or any other known type) and measured field
strength, like it is done in mobile antenna shootouts.
Any RF energy lost in heat is not radiated and will show up in lower
signal
levels. It is important to compare antennas with the same radiation
pattern and
ground system.

Yuri, K3BU.us

Yuri

Youve gotten too refined. I mostly know about basic antenna theory and
modeling. But building a VHF model of a 40 meter antenna with #12 copper
wire wound around a 4 inch mandril might be impractical.
But, if the "wonder antenna" is small enough to be enclosed (mostly) in
something transparent to the RF but not to the thermal thats generated by
any I^2* R losses, wouldnt the temperture rise inside the enclosure give a
decent indication of efficiency?

If this "wonder antenna" designer claims to be able to shape the radiation
pattern with an antenna significantly shorter that a 1/4 wave stub, He
really has something. I suspect that the something he has is mental
illness.

I've been following this info on the RI antenna and have considered it to
be so 'snake oilish' that it would never see the light of an auditorium.

Your post about attending the lecture made me wonder if anyone asked about
*any* simple (approximations) measurements like the styrofoam radome to get
some idea of the I^2*R power lost in the antenna. If he has an antenna, and
a transmitter and enough room to build a foam igloo it seems that alot of
data on efficiency could be obtained.
If I had any interest in describing an antenna I'd built, I'd at least use
an infared thermometer on the section of the antenna suspected as being the
most lossy.

Jerry

There's a fundamental problem in making a scale model of an antenna to
determine loss -- the wire conductivity has to be scaled with frequency.
Of course, the wire diameter can be changed from the normally scaled
size in order to create the same loss, but then the antenna might behave
differently.

It's not clear to me how you could get quantitative data from
measurements in a styrofoam container. Let's say you put 100 watts into
the antenna for five minutes and the temperature rise (of the coil?
helical winding? air?) was 10 degrees C. How would you calculate the
loss or efficiency from that information?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jerry Martes wrote:

Youve gotten too refined. I mostly know about basic antenna theory and
modeling. But building a VHF model of a 40 meter antenna with #12 copper
wire wound around a 4 inch mandril might be impractical.
But, if the "wonder antenna" is small enough to be enclosed (mostly) in
something transparent to the RF but not to the thermal thats generated by
any I^2* R losses, wouldnt the temperture rise inside the enclosure give a
decent indication of efficiency?

If this "wonder antenna" designer claims to be able to shape the radiation
pattern with an antenna significantly shorter that a 1/4 wave stub, He
really has something. I suspect that the something he has is mental
illness.

I've been following this info on the RI antenna and have considered it to
be so 'snake oilish' that it would never see the light of an auditorium.

Your post about attending the lecture made me wonder if anyone asked about
*any* simple (approximations) measurements like the styrofoam radome to get
some idea of the I^2*R power lost in the antenna. If he has an antenna, and
a transmitter and enough room to build a foam igloo it seems that alot of
data on efficiency could be obtained.
If I had any interest in describing an antenna I'd built, I'd at least use
an infared thermometer on the section of the antenna suspected as being the
most lossy.

Jerry

Roy

I'm a real slopy builder. So, I do alot of half-assed things. I might
begin with a 100 watt light bulb inside the "icebox" to establish a
referance temperature. maybe even a 50 watt and even a 25 watt. And, if
the antenna could be modeled at some frequency where I could build an ice
box thats sufficiently transparent to RF, like 6 Meters, I'd build a full
size antenna for use as a referance.

I've never done something like this. It just sems very practical, since a
100% efficient antenna wouldnt introduce any heat. But , a 50% efficient
one might produce about the same heat as a 50 watt light bulb.

I'd not declare this "ice box" to be a Lab Standard. But, if there was
need, I'd sure try to evaluate the concept.

When people like you cast doubt on anything I tink up, I begin to doubt
myself.

Jerry



"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
There's a fundamental problem in making a scale model of an antenna to
determine loss -- the wire conductivity has to be scaled with frequency.
Of course, the wire diameter can be changed from the normally scaled
size in order to create the same loss, but then the antenna might behave
differently.

It's not clear to me how you could get quantitative data from
measurements in a styrofoam container. Let's say you put 100 watts into
the antenna for five minutes and the temperature rise (of the coil?
helical winding? air?) was 10 degrees C. How would you calculate the
loss or efficiency from that information?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jerry Martes wrote:

Youve gotten too refined. I mostly know about basic antenna theory
and
modeling. But building a VHF model of a 40 meter antenna with #12
copper
wire wound around a 4 inch mandril might be impractical.
But, if the "wonder antenna" is small enough to be enclosed (mostly)
in
something transparent to the RF but not to the thermal thats generated
by
any I^2* R losses, wouldnt the temperture rise inside the enclosure give
a
decent indication of efficiency?

If this "wonder antenna" designer claims to be able to shape the
radiation
pattern with an antenna significantly shorter that a 1/4 wave stub, He
really has something. I suspect that the something he has is mental
illness.

I've been following this info on the RI antenna and have considered it
to
be so 'snake oilish' that it would never see the light of an auditorium.

Your post about attending the lecture made me wonder if anyone asked
about
*any* simple (approximations) measurements like the styrofoam radome to
get
some idea of the I^2*R power lost in the antenna. If he has an antenna,
and
a transmitter and enough room to build a foam igloo it seems that alot
of
data on efficiency could be obtained.
If I had any interest in describing an antenna I'd built, I'd at least
use
an infared thermometer on the section of the antenna suspected as being
the
most lossy.

Jerry

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:42:19 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

It's not clear to me how you could get quantitative data from
measurements in a styrofoam container. Let's say you put 100 watts into
the antenna for five minutes and the temperature rise (of the coil?
helical winding? air?) was 10 degrees C. How would you calculate the
loss or efficiency from that information?


First of all, the test should not be run for 5 minutes, but until a
thermal equilibrium inside the container has been established,
possibly mixing the air inside the container with a fan. This solves
the thermal mass problems when equilibrium has been established.
Measure the power fed to the antenna.

The temperature outside of the container should remain stable during
the test. Then the temperature difference across the container wall is
known, as well as the wall surface area and thickness and hopefully
also the thermal conductivity for styrofoam (from the manufacturer).
Now the thermal resistance of the container as well as the temperature
difference is known and the power dissipation can be calculated. This
is very similar to calculating the heatsink requirements for
transistors.

If the thermal conductivity for the styrofoam is not known, run a
predefined amount of power to the antenna until equilibrium has been
reached and measure the temperature. Inside the container, disconnect
the antenna, attach the feedline to a dummy load (possibly attaching
it to some large metallic part of the antenna to act as a heatsink).
Close the container and feed RF-power into the dummy load at an
adjustable power level, until the same stable temperature is reached
as with the actual antenna. Measure the power fed into the dummy load.
This will eliminate the feedline conductivity problem as well as
offset errors in the power meter (but not linearity errors).

This way the power dissipated by the dummy load is the same as the
power dissipated in the antenna losses in the first place and thus,
the efficiency can be calculated.

To avoid any power meter linearity problems, reconnect the antenna
again, feed in the original full power and verify that there is a
thermal equilibrium at the original temperature and outside
temperature. Insert a calibrated step attenuator ahead of the power
meter and adjust it until it reads the same value as in the dummy load
test.

You can then read directly from the step attenuator, how many dBs the
total full transmitter power was compared to the dummy load power
which is also the antenna thermal dissipation value. A 10 dB setting
would indicate that the thermal losses are only 10 % of the total
power or 90 % antenna efficiency, a 3 dB reading would indicate that
half of the power is radiated and the other half is dissipated in the
antenna, thus 50 % efficiency. However, you would need a step
attenuator with 0.1 steps to measure the worst antennas :-).

Paul OH3LWR

But, if the "wonder antenna" is small enough to be enclosed (mostly) in
something transparent to the RF but not to the thermal thats generated by
any I^2* R losses, wouldnt the temperture rise inside the enclosure give a
decent indication of efficiency?



No need for that really, too cumbersome. If you measure R you can calculate
losses due to dissipation in heat.

Again, real comparison of efficiency of shortened antenna is to compare against
the same pattern producing full (electrical) length antenna, everything is
included in what you would measure. Much simpler too. I can build quarter wave
vertical faster than styrofoam igloo. :-)

Basic rules are, best inductive loading is about 2/3 up the radiator, coil is
better than loading stub, top hat is the best. Anything else is jocker's
attempt at perpetuum mobile.

Yuri