In message , Reg
Edwards writes
Trev,
Performance is no better and no worse than what can be expected from
any other sort of antenna of about the same physical size and the same
length of feedline. Try it and see.

I once worked 3 miles on SSB, on 160m, in broad daylight, with about
10 milliwatts, on 8 feet of wire lying on the ground, thrown out of a
downstairs window. The ground connection was via 10 feet of wire from
a domestic gas pipe. But I don't brag about it. The credit all goes
to Clerk Maxwell.

As Clerk implied, any bloody thing works.
----
Reg.

Thanks Reg,

I expect you are quite right, but I am still puzzled about the bandwidth
aspect. Roy states that this is due to losses in the matching system,
in which case would it be possible to 'detune' a similar small antenna
and get similar results in that regard. If I can actually do that and
see the result, then I will be happy :-)

Trev
--
Trevor Day
UKSMG #217
www.uksmg.org

Trev,

As Cecil says, a wider than expected bandwidth in an antenna of given
size, is an absolutely sure sign of greater loss somewhere in the
wideband antenna system.

Unless one knows how the thing is supposed to work, which with EH and
CFA is not very likely, there's no indication of where the loss may be
except from a visual examination. If there are any coils of
relatively thin wire, either in the antenna or tuner/phaser, then
that's a good pointer.

But experimenting to improve the bandwidth*efficiency product, one way
or the other, will not get you very far. As one goes up the other is
sure to go down. It's not difficult to guess which you would prefer.

A magloop. with a single turn coil of copper pipe at the lower
frequencies, is far and away the most narrow banded and therefore the
most efficient of all the small antennas. Furthermore it has a
built-in, equally very low loss tuner.
----
Reg.

======================================

"Trevor Day" wrote in message
...
In message , Reg
Edwards writes
Trev,
Performance is no better and no worse than what can be expected
from
any other sort of antenna of about the same physical size and the
same
length of feedline. Try it and see.

I once worked 3 miles on SSB, on 160m, in broad daylight, with
about
10 milliwatts, on 8 feet of wire lying on the ground, thrown out of
a
downstairs window. The ground connection was via 10 feet of wire
from
a domestic gas pipe. But I don't brag about it. The credit all
goes
to Clerk Maxwell.

As Clerk implied, any bloody thing works.
----
Reg.

Thanks Reg,

I expect you are quite right, but I am still puzzled about the
bandwidth
aspect. Roy states that this is due to losses in the matching
system,
in which case would it be possible to 'detune' a similar small
antenna
and get similar results in that regard. If I can actually do that
and
see the result, then I will be happy :-)

Trev
--
Trevor Day
UKSMG #217
www.uksmg.org

"Reg Edwards"
As Cecil says, a wider than expected bandwidth in an antenna of given
size, is an absolutely sure sign of greater loss somewhere in the
wideband antenna system.
________________

I don't know your definition of an "expected bandwidth," but for a reality
check--many forms of panel antennas used in FM and TV broadcast transmission
have 20% or better SWR bandwidth, and radiate nearly every watt that can be
delivered by the feedline with almost NO "matching" losses. They have been
in routine use for decades at master antenna transmit sites all over the
world.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM transmission system papers.

Richard Fry wrote:

"Reg Edwards"
As Cecil says, a wider than expected bandwidth in an antenna of given
size, is an absolutely sure sign of greater loss somewhere in the
wideband antenna system.

I don't know your definition of an "expected bandwidth," but for a
reality check--many forms of panel antennas used in FM and TV broadcast
transmission have 20% or better SWR bandwidth, and radiate nearly every
watt that can be delivered by the feedline with almost NO "matching"
losses. They have been in routine use for decades at master antenna
transmit sites all over the world.

And, for the record, it wasn't me who said that.
--
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 =---

"Cecil Moore" said,

And, for the record, it wasn't me who said that.
===================================

As it was quite true you just as well could have said it. So I didn't
take the trouble to correct the minor error.

Sorry Roy.
===
Reg.

Reg Edwards wrote:

"Cecil Moore" said,
And, for the record, it wasn't me who said that.

As it was quite true you just as well could have said it. So I didn't
take the trouble to correct the minor error.

Reg, IMO, only a naive person would ever use the words,
"absolutely sure". :-)
--
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 =----

"Absolutely unique"

"Utterly obliterated"

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Reg, IMO, only a naive person would ever use the words,
"absolutely sure". :-)

So ?

Richard Fry wrote:

I don't know your definition of an "expected bandwidth," but for a
reality check--many forms of panel antennas used in FM and TV broadcast
transmission have 20% or better SWR bandwidth, and radiate nearly every
watt that can be delivered by the feedline with almost NO "matching"
losses. They have been in routine use for decades at master antenna
transmit sites all over the world.

Now shrink down those antennas by a factor of, say, 10 in size. Think
they'd still do it? If so, you're the natural prey for the charlatans.

In product development, we say fast-cheap-good, pick any two. With
antennas it's small-efficient-broadband, pick any two. "Small" is, of
course, always in terms of wavelength when it comes to antennas.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Roy Lewallen" wrote -
Now shrink down those antennas by a factor of, say, 10 in size.
Think
they'd still do it? If so, you're the natural prey for the
charlatans.

===============================

Roy, I'm thinking of occasionally changing 'old wives' to
'charlatans'. It may sometimes better fit the circumstances.
----
Reg.