John Smith wrote:
Well... Yes, that argument is made with most everything...
It has already been done... everything has been tried... all the answers are
known... there is nothing new to be found out...

Absolutely - someone wanted to close the US patent office
over 100 years ago because everything possible had already
been invented.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Laboratories world wide measure antennas daily which have been
designed with "standard theory", and in those past hundred years plus,
no one has found any credible evidence that "standard theory" is in
error.

Do you really think an antenna using entangled electrons
can be predicted by "standard theory"? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

N0GW wrote:
. . .
I wonder if Roy has a simple way to include the coil Q or losses in the
EZNEC model. I'm sure there is a logical way to work it out but I
haven't had time to think it through yet.

Sure. If modeling it as a helix, simply specify wire loss for the type
of wire or plating on the wire used for the coil. (The loss in the coil
will be much greater than the loss in the straight wire, so it's no big
deal if the straight wire is made from some other material.) If modeling
it as lumped loads (not as accurate), include the appropriate value of R
in the loads. You can quickly and easily see how much loss the coil is
causing by comparing gain with the loss present and absent.

A few experiments showed a pretty close agreement between EZNEC's helix
model with wire loss and Reg's inductor program with regard to L,
resonant frequency, and Q. I didn't, however, run tests with a wide
range of coil geometries and wire sizes.

The EZNEC helix model will underreport loss if wire spacing is less than
one or two wire diameters, since it doesn't account for proximity effect
(uneven current density around the wire).

Although you can manually (and tediously) build a helix model with EZNEC
v. 3.0 or EZNEC-ARRL which is v. 3.0, or create one with an external
program and import it, EZNEC v. 4.0 has a built-in helix creation
feature that generates a helical coil with a few keystrokes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"John Smith" wrote, " Rather, I was looking for antennas which
preformed better than the poor preformance which standard theory would
suggest--..."

Perhaps you're thinking of different antennas than I have in mind right
now. But using simple resonant half-wave dipoles or quarter waves over
ground planes, it seems to me the performance is pretty amazing.
Consider that under the right HF skip conditions, you can communicate
half way around the world with such antennas, fairly simple receivers,
and just a few watts of RF. Put the same amount of RF into a
transmission line made of copper wires and consider how far it gets
before the power is too low to be useful for communications. Even if
your transmission line were extremely low loss (say 2.5cm diameter
wires forming a 600 ohm line, giving about 0.15dB/mile at 4MHz), in
under 2000 miles, you wouldn't have enough power left on the line to
give reliable communications. And the antenna-radiated RF would be
detectable over a wide area, not just at the output of a transmission
line. Even fairly small antennas, half or a quarter the size required
for unloaded resonance, can be efficient enough to allow pretty
remarkable transmission of RF energy. In fact, the inefficiencies of
small antennas generally come about in the matching systems much more
than in the radiating structure itself. So I'm left wondering just why
you think antennas that perform as "standard theory" suggests are
performing poorly.

Or perhaps you're considering the difficulty of concentrating the
radiation in a certain direction using small antennas...though I would
not have thought that from your base posting.

Cheers,
Tom

Absolutely...
Even though it is only necessary to deliver mere nano watts to the receiver
on the other end, the atmospheric sphere, combined with the magnetosphere,
around this planet is/are an amazing means of conducting rf for
communications.
And the ducting of vhf and uhf can appear to be even "magically" efficient
at times.
There was some guy from germany, old ex-postal worker as I remember, never
did well in school, and never spoke a word till the age of four, quite a
while back now--who claimed it all relative... he might have been right...

Regards

"K7ITM" wrote in message
ups.com...
"John Smith" wrote, " Rather, I was looking for antennas which
preformed better than the poor preformance which standard theory would
suggest--..."

Perhaps you're thinking of different antennas than I have in mind right
now. But using simple resonant half-wave dipoles or quarter waves over
ground planes, it seems to me the performance is pretty amazing.
Consider that under the right HF skip conditions, you can communicate
half way around the world with such antennas, fairly simple receivers,
and just a few watts of RF. Put the same amount of RF into a
transmission line made of copper wires and consider how far it gets
before the power is too low to be useful for communications. Even if
your transmission line were extremely low loss (say 2.5cm diameter
wires forming a 600 ohm line, giving about 0.15dB/mile at 4MHz), in
under 2000 miles, you wouldn't have enough power left on the line to
give reliable communications. And the antenna-radiated RF would be
detectable over a wide area, not just at the output of a transmission
line. Even fairly small antennas, half or a quarter the size required
for unloaded resonance, can be efficient enough to allow pretty
remarkable transmission of RF energy. In fact, the inefficiencies of
small antennas generally come about in the matching systems much more
than in the radiating structure itself. So I'm left wondering just why
you think antennas that perform as "standard theory" suggests are
performing poorly.

Or perhaps you're considering the difficulty of concentrating the
radiation in a certain direction using small antennas...though I would
not have thought that from your base posting.

Cheers,
Tom

Well....
I could have stated a less controversial design I guess.
Such as an antiresonate antenna cap--folded from aluminum foil, and intended
to cancel out the moon bounced mind control rays from the aliens.
Since totally shielding the walls of my home with silver foil has failed to
block the penetration of these "antenna rays" into my home, the cap might be
just the ticket!
The burning question here would be what wavelength of foil the cap should it
be folded from, and heck, I don't even think the frequency of their mind
control rays registers on earth meters!
It is a conspiracy, I TELL YA!!! grin

Regards
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
My question(s):

For an example, on the 10 meter band:
If I take a 28" whip and mount it at the end of helical wound coil (wound
on
1" diameter form), where the "wire length" of the coil, PLUS, the length
of
the whip (28" + coil wire length) is equal to 1/2 wavelength (electrical
length)--BUT, the overall physical length of the antenna (top, tip of whip
to base of helical wound coil) is 1/4 wavelength, what would the radiation
pattern of such an antenna be?

Would it favor the pattern of a 1/4 or 1/2 wave antenna--or, would the
pattern be a compromise between the two--or, would the pattern be totally
unrelated to either?

What could I expect the impedance of such an antenna be? Would the
reactance be capacitive or inductive? What would be the best way to
provide
a match to 50 ohm coax from such an antenna?

What software is available to model such an antenna?

Thanks in advance,
warmest regards

Actually, and back to reality:
I am in the San Joaquin Valley in California, while this used to be one of
the richest agricultural areas in the world, decades of double and triple
farming has depleated the soil of many of the plentiful nutrients (salts,
trace minerals, metals, etc.)
Also, this area was like a tule swap before levies were built to hold back
the water, i.e., a peat bog!
Those who mentioned a poor and lossy ground condition might have something
there...
This area may naturally favor the 1/2 properties.

But then too, maybe it is only those damn aliens with their mind control
which are placing these ideas in my head! grin Yanno, agriculture uses a
lot of those darn illegal aliens' labor!!!

Regards

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Well....
I could have stated a less controversial design I guess.
Such as an antiresonate antenna cap--folded from aluminum foil, and
intended
to cancel out the moon bounced mind control rays from the aliens.
Since totally shielding the walls of my home with silver foil has failed
to
block the penetration of these "antenna rays" into my home, the cap might
be
just the ticket!
The burning question here would be what wavelength of foil the cap should
it
be folded from, and heck, I don't even think the frequency of their mind
control rays registers on earth meters!
It is a conspiracy, I TELL YA!!! grin

Regards
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
My question(s):

For an example, on the 10 meter band:
If I take a 28" whip and mount it at the end of helical wound coil (wound
on
1" diameter form), where the "wire length" of the coil, PLUS, the length
of
the whip (28" + coil wire length) is equal to 1/2 wavelength (electrical
length)--BUT, the overall physical length of the antenna (top, tip of
whip
to base of helical wound coil) is 1/4 wavelength, what would the
radiation
pattern of such an antenna be?

Would it favor the pattern of a 1/4 or 1/2 wave antenna--or, would the
pattern be a compromise between the two--or, would the pattern be totally
unrelated to either?

What could I expect the impedance of such an antenna be? Would the
reactance be capacitive or inductive? What would be the best way to
provide
a match to 50 ohm coax from such an antenna?

What software is available to model such an antenna?

Thanks in advance,
warmest regards

Without line amplifiers across the USA, if all the energy output from
the sun was sent into one end of the phone line, only one electron in
a thousand years would trickle out of the other end.

Richard Fry wrote:
"This post started with a question about a 28" loaded whip operating on
10 meters presumably to be used in a mobile application."

As Richard Fry noted, the vehicle and its position affect the antenna`s
pattern. Also at 10 meters, a 1/4-wave whip would be little more than 8
feet long. A 28" whip is less than 1/3 a resonant length. Capacitive
loading to make up the missing length is probably impractical. A loading
coil is lossy but practical. Best choice is likely the 8-ft whip. A CB
whip can be trimmed to resonance on 10-meters.

If one wanted an antenna to fit between poles about 1/4-wave apart, one
could use a 1/4-wave folded dipole, which is resonant due to its
1/2-wave circumference. Gain is only 0.5 dB less than a full 1/2-wave
dipole. Like a small loop, the small folded dipole can be resonated with
a high-Q series capacitor. Arnold B. Bailey in "TV and Other Receiving
Antennas" gives the resistance of the 1/4-wave folded dipole as 6000
ohms at center frequency. This would require transformation to a lower
impedance. Another resonant antenna that fits a 1/4-wave space is
square and 1/4-wave on each side. It`s about 35 feet of wire for 10
meters and has a feedpoint resistance of 100 to 200 ohms depending on
its height over the earth. Over good earth, feed one of its vertical
sides in the center. Over poor earth, feed a horizontal side in the
center. See ON4UN`s "Low-Band DXing" Chapter 10 for details on large
loops.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Well, the "1/4 physical, 1/2 electrical" (double quarter as my friend refers
to it) will just have remain as it is.
Its' advantage of being lighter and easier to handle, while presenting less
of a wind load and "leverage" again the mast and mounting hardware allows me
to raise it to a greater height than the full 1/2--NOT to mention the
advantage of NO ground radials. With this advantage, its performance rivals
the full 1/2. Weather I am daft or not--I will be using this antenna for an
omnidirectional source.
Those seeking a backpacking antenna, an emergency portable antenna, or an
antenna for operation in difficult and remote areas, or those seeking
stealth (just hide it in a larger diameter PVC pipe and call it a flag
pole!) would, most likely, find this design can be used to their advantage.

This posting sequence has been an enlightening experience though, and well
worth the trouble. I have learned that most will wage a "religious war" if
they think anyone is going to challenge the generally accepted ideas and
methods.
If you insist on going on, you will run the gauntlet of nay sayers and be
attacked. Guffaws and slurs against your mental stability will assualt you.
If one is looking to try something new--this is NOT the place to discuss it.
Perhaps another news group, where those who seek to intimidate and "out
shout" true expermenters would be banned and refused posting would be a
workable alternative and more conductive to attempts to break the mold.

Regards

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Actually, and back to reality:
I am in the San Joaquin Valley in California, while this used to be one of
the richest agricultural areas in the world, decades of double and triple
farming has depleated the soil of many of the plentiful nutrients (salts,
trace minerals, metals, etc.)
Also, this area was like a tule swap before levies were built to hold back
the water, i.e., a peat bog!
Those who mentioned a poor and lossy ground condition might have something
there...
This area may naturally favor the 1/2 properties.

But then too, maybe it is only those damn aliens with their mind control
which are placing these ideas in my head! grin Yanno, agriculture uses
a
lot of those darn illegal aliens' labor!!!

Regards

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Well....
I could have stated a less controversial design I guess.
Such as an antiresonate antenna cap--folded from aluminum foil, and
intended
to cancel out the moon bounced mind control rays from the aliens.
Since totally shielding the walls of my home with silver foil has failed
to
block the penetration of these "antenna rays" into my home, the cap might
be
just the ticket!
The burning question here would be what wavelength of foil the cap should
it
be folded from, and heck, I don't even think the frequency of their mind
control rays registers on earth meters!
It is a conspiracy, I TELL YA!!! grin

Regards
"John Smith" wrote in message
...
My question(s):

For an example, on the 10 meter band:
If I take a 28" whip and mount it at the end of helical wound coil
(wound
on
1" diameter form), where the "wire length" of the coil, PLUS, the length
of
the whip (28" + coil wire length) is equal to 1/2 wavelength (electrical
length)--BUT, the overall physical length of the antenna (top, tip of
whip
to base of helical wound coil) is 1/4 wavelength, what would the
radiation
pattern of such an antenna be?

Would it favor the pattern of a 1/4 or 1/2 wave antenna--or, would the
pattern be a compromise between the two--or, would the pattern be
totally
unrelated to either?

What could I expect the impedance of such an antenna be? Would the
reactance be capacitive or inductive? What would be the best way to
provide
a match to 50 ohm coax from such an antenna?

What software is available to model such an antenna?

Thanks in advance,
warmest regards