On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:26:42 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:
what would the radiation pattern of such an antenna be?

Hi John,

This appears to be a difficult question to answer, if for only all of
the extraneous details. Patterns are determined by the physical size
in relation to wavelength. It is all about geometry and distances
between what are called current nodes - what you describe has no s in
the node(s), so the geometry (pattern) is still quite simple.

Obtain a free copy of EZNEC to confirm.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Absolutely Richard! It does seem difficult with available tools--at least
without building it and even then putting much labor into expermenting,
testing, pruning and adjusting...

Yet, it seems like such a design would suggest itself to many minds and be a
good solution to many restricted spaces and, one does ponder why the math,
methods, formulas, software, etc. has not been created to make such a matter
of childs play--and well documented and explained.

Many mobile whips seem centered around designs somewhat similiar to the one
proposed. And, indeed, I have seen a few expermentally inclined hams
goofing around with similiar designs for shack antennas on the long
wavelengths, just wish I had paid more attention at the time....

I am a capable C/C++ software engineer (professional hacker) and am
constantly searching for ideas to put to code to feed my personal
interests...

Warmest regards

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:26:42 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:
what would the radiation pattern of such an antenna be?

Hi John,

This appears to be a difficult question to answer, if for only all of
the extraneous details. Patterns are determined by the physical size
in relation to wavelength. It is all about geometry and distances
between what are called current nodes - what you describe has no s in
the node(s), so the geometry (pattern) is still quite simple.

Obtain a free copy of EZNEC to confirm.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:14:25 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Yet, it seems like such a design would suggest itself to many minds and be a
good solution to many restricted spaces and, one does ponder why the math,
methods, formulas, software, etc. has not been created to make such a matter
of childs play--and well documented and explained.

Hi John,

In fact, nearly every "new" idea that hits this board can be found
described with utter simplicity - years ago (10, 20, 40, 80 years).
Very little math is demanded and the record is full of documentation.

The continuous length of coil you describe has been anticipated by one
in using a "slinky." The benefit there is that the springy form
allows one to collapse or extend the coil to find resonance. Use two
of them and you have a dipole.

It performs, and has performed for years. You can buy one too. Why
doesn't everyone use one? The reason goes back years ago to rather
simple terms: size v. wavelength and the number and separation of
nodes. It performs, but not as well as a larger antenna it attempts
to replace. Hence: size v. wavelength is a restriction, there is only
one node, and it has nothing (another separate node) to combine with.
Once you can get your arms around these simple concepts, then you
throw in loss - the numbers get ugly and the pain is real.

We get tons of small antennas touted here.

Many mobile whips seem centered around designs somewhat similiar to the one
proposed.

However, among the population of those many, when they are all
compared the longstanding traditional designs win hands down. They
win for very simple reasons. The list of rules, so to speak, is very
short.

Unfortunately there are too many simple reasons floating around as new
and improved theory. The test of the newcomer is to separate those
improved theories (noted for their baroque language, elaborate math
and lack of field work) from ages-old results nailed down in rather
ordinary terms.

The new-and-improved theories call upon
- separating the E and M fields;
- unique properties of fractal math;
- improved length efficiency;
- proofs of polygonal analysis;
- super gain;
- over/tight/critical coupling;
- faster than light transmission....

As you can see, the field of simple reasons abound. Some reasons have
their attractive features, but once you try to pull the conversation
into the realm of implementation, barriers to discussion bloom like
weeds.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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...
(But, just on the outside chance that thinking is wrong: What about LDE
(long delay echo)? You got the answer to that?)
The fact is, most, if not all, of the formulas we deal with are crafted from
things we have first built--THEN we look for a mathmatical explanation to
explain the object we built. While this is better than nothing, it is
slow--exploration by first developing the theory and math--then the physical
object--is much more suited for really finding "something new" and the rapid
development of such objects. (i.e., computers design computers, however,
since antennas can't design antennas--we need computers to design the
antennas.)
Unfortuantly, if all we use are past "rules" and "laws" we can only find the
past!!! Anything REALLY NEW will break all the laws we are currently
slaving under (or, at the least, re-define these laws) with total disregard
to the high esteem we had held these faulty laws.... indeed, being too tied
to the past and "conventional thinking" may hold us to the past...
However, whenever there seems a danger of this happening, then someone comes
in from left field with a new idea, such as quantum physics, and all bets
are off, and the physists and mathematicians are sent off to develop new,
undenighable and final laws to explain it...

If it were all done, if there is nothing new to be found out, if all the
existing data and formulas are totally all there is... WHY THE HELL ARE WE
HERE? Let's go buy one, go home and have a beer...

Fact is, we hate to admit when we are wrong, so, when we are wrong we
quickly move on and say these NEW ideas are what we have really believed all
along!
I am not opposed to the possibility that all that can be known, is known...
however, some guy that doesn't know any better usually suddenly pops up and
you end up embarassed for your beliefs--one more time.

The fact is, I have built those "silly antennas", by hand, with real
materials--then modeled them on mathmatical models, evaluating what is
actual against what was predicted... few ever provide anything but
disappointment. But, I am convinced that while what the developers are
claiming may be "false reasoning" and improper models, there is something
here which has been overlooked and current conventional thinking and models
miss...

However, the antenna design I presented is simply a helical loaded 1/2 wave
which just happens to correspond to 1/4 wave physical length...
It really doesn't challenge any current antenna theory or present anything
new, other than perhaps an unconventional arrangement of wire...

Frankly, I take it as a "leap of faith", but as long as there are
discussions such as these... something new is comming our way right now, we
just won't be able to see it till it gets closer, then we will realize we
really "knew it all along!"
But then the harsh "reality" hits us, we realize and with some
disappointment--that once again it has happened, all the final answers and
laws are known--nothing to do but go home and grab a beer and wait for next
time... grin

Warmest regards

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:14:25 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Yet, it seems like such a design would suggest itself to many minds and be
a
good solution to many restricted spaces and, one does ponder why the math,
methods, formulas, software, etc. has not been created to make such a
matter
of childs play--and well documented and explained.

Hi John,

In fact, nearly every "new" idea that hits this board can be found
described with utter simplicity - years ago (10, 20, 40, 80 years).
Very little math is demanded and the record is full of documentation.

The continuous length of coil you describe has been anticipated by one
in using a "slinky." The benefit there is that the springy form
allows one to collapse or extend the coil to find resonance. Use two
of them and you have a dipole.

It performs, and has performed for years. You can buy one too. Why
doesn't everyone use one? The reason goes back years ago to rather
simple terms: size v. wavelength and the number and separation of
nodes. It performs, but not as well as a larger antenna it attempts
to replace. Hence: size v. wavelength is a restriction, there is only
one node, and it has nothing (another separate node) to combine with.
Once you can get your arms around these simple concepts, then you
throw in loss - the numbers get ugly and the pain is real.

We get tons of small antennas touted here.

Many mobile whips seem centered around designs somewhat similiar to the
one
proposed.

However, among the population of those many, when they are all
compared the longstanding traditional designs win hands down. They
win for very simple reasons. The list of rules, so to speak, is very
short.

Unfortunately there are too many simple reasons floating around as new
and improved theory. The test of the newcomer is to separate those
improved theories (noted for their baroque language, elaborate math
and lack of field work) from ages-old results nailed down in rather
ordinary terms.

The new-and-improved theories call upon
- separating the E and M fields;
- unique properties of fractal math;
- improved length efficiency;
- proofs of polygonal analysis;
- super gain;
- over/tight/critical coupling;
- faster than light transmission....

As you can see, the field of simple reasons abound. Some reasons have
their attractive features, but once you try to pull the conversation
into the realm of implementation, barriers to discussion bloom like
weeds.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:58:51 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Fact is, we hate to admit when we are wrong

Hi John,

That never fazed me as long as I was challenged by facts instead of
superstition. I have failed to many times to worry about it. As the
saying goes, if you haven't failed, you aren't trying hard enough.

... there is something
here which has been overlooked and current conventional thinking and models
miss...

I try those angles, and go the extra mile. Evidence some 300+ pages
of examining fractal antennas:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fractal/index.htm

This work eventually boiled down to a simple conclusion (not that the
leading proponent would allow his mystical explanation to be nudged
into the corner of drab insight).

These days I usually put a filter into the process by asking the
"inventor" a simple question:
Does it bring more than 1dB gain with it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Does it bring more than 1dB gain with it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

===============================
Richard, asking such awkward questions you get more insensitive to
people's feelings every day.

Are you not aware that a decrease in gain of even less than 1 dB can
lose a contest?
----
Reg, G4FGQ

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:15:41 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote:

Does it bring more than 1dB gain with it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

===============================
Richard, asking such awkward questions you get more insensitive to
people's feelings every day.

Are you not aware that a decrease in gain of even less than 1 dB can
lose a contest?

Reg,

Having failed, I have also lost. Frail egos might feel the pain of
contest - me, I got a backache sitting in a Bar too long drinking Rum
and listening to Rockabilly.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Reg Edwards" wrote
Does it bring more than 1dB gain with it?
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
===============================
Richard, asking such awkward questions you get more insensitive to
people's feelings every day.
Are you not aware that a decrease in gain of even less than 1 dB can
lose a contest?
Reg, G4FGQ
__________________

This post started with a question about a 28" loaded whip operating on 10
meters, presumably to be used in a mobile application. The concern of the
post was how to model the antenna to determine whether it would have the
pattern of a 1/4 wave or a 1/2 wave vertical radiator.

But for a mobile application the affect of the auto body, the local
environment, and even the direction the car is pointing can alter the
free-space pattern of the antenna more than the difference in the relative
radiation patterns of 1/4-wave and 1/2-wave verticals -- and particularly so
for VHF/UHF antennas.

If 1dB of antenna gain is so critical to amateurs, suggest that more
attention needs to be paid in its system design to the operating environment
of the antenna. Some NEC programs make it fairly straightforward to model
the net patterns of antennas as mounted on vehicles, and should lead to a
better understanding of antenna performance in the real world.

RF

Well... yes... and no....
In investigating small antennas, my quest was not to find antennas which
preformed within 1 db as well, as well, or God forbid, better than their
full sized counter parts.
Rather, I was looking for antennas which preformed better than the poor
preformance which standard theory would suggest--a simple suggestion that
the theory was in error and, hopefully ones which could be utilized with
acceptable results in restricted spaces. Both of those condidtions I did
find!
While a pocket antenna which would preform as well as a half wave antenna on
low freqs (or any freq for that matter) would be fantastic, I lack the faith
to believe it possible--except at multiple Ghz, where both become the same!
However, it is very possible you might use the pocket antenna in places
where you could never never use the halfwave.
And of course, under such conditions--I would want the best possible pocket
antenna which could be constructed!

Warmest regards

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:58:51 -0800, "John Smith"
wrote:

Fact is, we hate to admit when we are wrong

Hi John,

That never fazed me as long as I was challenged by facts instead of
superstition. I have failed to many times to worry about it. As the
saying goes, if you haven't failed, you aren't trying hard enough.

... there is something
here which has been overlooked and current conventional thinking and
models
miss...

I try those angles, and go the extra mile. Evidence some 300+ pages
of examining fractal antennas:
http://www.qsl.net/kb7qhc/antenna/fractal/index.htm

This work eventually boiled down to a simple conclusion (not that the
leading proponent would allow his mystical explanation to be nudged
into the corner of drab insight).

These days I usually put a filter into the process by asking the
"inventor" a simple question:
Does it bring more than 1dB gain with it?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Standard theory" has been around for over a hundred years now, and is
the basis for the design of some millions of antennas used for
everything from your cell phone to communications beyond the solar
system. 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. Of course, charlatans claim it almost daily, just as they claim
the discovery of perpetual motion but inevitably their claims are shown
to fail in objective tests.

Backyard tinkerers love to fantasize that they'll be the next Galileo
and in a few hours, days, or years, make the breakthrough discovery that
shows all them eggheads a thing or two. It's pretty easy for such a
person to convince himself that he's done just that, because accurate
antenna measurements are much more difficult than amateurs generally
appreciate, and the sources of error are often subtle and require
knowledge of basic theory to understand. Another common basis for a
shouted "Eureka!" is a lack of knowledge of "standard theory", and the
gee-whiz revelation that what the discoverer mistakenly thought was true
turned out, after all, to be false. Clever ways of applying "standard
theory" to make an antenna that's more useful in some way for some
application are found frequently. Genuine evidence that "standard
theory" is wrong has happened virtually never in the past many decades.
The odds are heavily against the new Galileo springing up from the
suburbs. My money's sure not on them.

People truly wanting to make a better antenna would better spend their
time learning "standard theory" and less time tinkering in ignorance of it.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

John Smith wrote:
Well... yes... and no....
In investigating small antennas, my quest was not to find antennas which
preformed within 1 db as well, as well, or God forbid, better than their
full sized counter parts.
Rather, I was looking for antennas which preformed better than the poor
preformance which standard theory would suggest--a simple suggestion that
the theory was in error and, hopefully ones which could be utilized with
acceptable results in restricted spaces. Both of those condidtions I did
find!
While a pocket antenna which would preform as well as a half wave antenna on
low freqs (or any freq for that matter) would be fantastic, I lack the faith
to believe it possible--except at multiple Ghz, where both become the same!
However, it is very possible you might use the pocket antenna in places
where you could never never use the halfwave.
And of course, under such conditions--I would want the best possible pocket
antenna which could be constructed!

Warmest regards