www.newswise.com/articles/view/532935

art wrote:
www.newswise.com/articles/view/532935


Yeah, ole' Robert Vincent is a sore spot in the NG, I'd imagine. Made
A$$'es out of all the "experts" and continues to do so ... sometimes
there is real justice.

Regards,
JS

On 9 Oct, 19:35, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
www.newswise.com/articles/view/532935

Yeah, ole' Robert Vincent is a sore spot in the NG, I'd imagine. Made
A$$'es out of all the "experts" and continues to do so ... sometimes
there is real justice.

Regards,
JS

Yup, the experts were not experts after all just phony's.
Ofcourse we now have to wait for comments like " I knew that all the
time",
"I have been using that method for years", "that was invented by
Mantovani
a hundred yeard ago but he just didn't get around to printing it"
Art

art wrote:

...
a hundred yeard ago but he just didn't get around to printing it"
Art


Art:

You forgot:

"Although the Navy meant well, it's test data was in error!" :-)

Regards,
JS

On 10 Oct, 09:04, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:

...

a hundred yeard ago but he just didn't get around to printing it"
Art

Art:

You forgot:

"Although the Navy meant well, it's test data was in error!" :-)

Regards,
JS

What was the error? The antenna feed line is part of the antenna
system is it not?
If it radiates then what is the problem?
Art
Art

art wrote:

...
What was the error? The antenna feed line is part of the antenna
system is it not?
If it radiates then what is the problem?
Art
Art

I have a 1/4 wave counterpoise available to the 1/2 DLM I am using.
However, I have a high value choke to ward off radiation from the coax ...

Regards,
JS

art wrote:
On 9 Oct, 19:35, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
www.newswise.com/articles/view/532935
Yeah, ole' Robert Vincent is a sore spot in the NG, I'd imagine. Made
A$$'es out of all the "experts" and continues to do so ... sometimes
there is real justice.

Regards,
JS

Yup, the experts were not experts after all just phony's.
Ofcourse we now have to wait for comments like " I knew that all the
time",
"I have been using that method for years", "that was invented by
Mantovani
a hundred yeard ago but he just didn't get around to printing it"
Art


The patent, US 7187335, is a real hoot. I especially like the part where
he describes doubling the bandwidth by adding a parasitic winding
intertwined with the base coil helix.

Do you suppose his antenna is in equilibrium? Could proper application
of Artsian-Gaussian theory improve it even more?



73,
Gene
W4SZ

On 10 Oct, 10:47, Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:
On 9 Oct, 19:35, John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
www.newswise.com/articles/view/532935
Yeah, ole' Robert Vincent is a sore spot in the NG, I'd imagine. Made
A$$'es out of all the "experts" and continues to do so ... sometimes
there is real justice.

Regards,
JS

Yup, the experts were not experts after all just phony's.
Ofcourse we now have to wait for comments like " I knew that all the
time",
"I have been using that method for years", "that was invented by
Mantovani
a hundred yeard ago but he just didn't get around to printing it"
Art

The patent, US 7187335, is a real hoot. I especially like the part where
snip
Do you suppose his antenna is in equilibrium? Could proper application
of Artsian-Gaussian theory improve it even more?



73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gene, you are just showing your ignorance of physics.
What is it about the word "equilibrium" that you can't understand?
How on earth can you say you are educated in physics?
How is it that you do not have an understanding of Gauss?
Or are you trying to be funny with the word "Artisian-Gaussian"
like the rest of your fellow school boys?
What manner of man are you trying to project of yourself to other
readers of this group, a comedian or an ignoramous or somebody with
senior moments in
continuos series? You never seem to have anything to say that is
informative so why the need to draw attention to yourself.
What is missing in your life such that you have to mimic a fool that
want's to be funny in the absence of a education of any sort?
Back to the Vincent antenna, he has designed an antenna that is
shorter
than that known before. You didn't come up with it he did. He has a
patent
based on his claims and not for the introductory writing.An engineer
in automobiles
has shown interest in it where you have never gained outside interests
in any thing
you have done in your life time. The input impedance is an advantage
over similar antennas
and at the same time not requiring a ground plain without being a
problem to the transmitter.
He is also radiating well in comparison to the height of antenna and
the
radiating system has the appearance of being efficient. Vincent has
come up with something new
and because of the 'not invented in my backyard' you want to diminish
his achievements.
But you can't diminish his achievments without providing an
engineering analysis
and for that you do not have the necessary education.
Maybe it is better that you continue to mimic a fool that wants to be
funny but
better to become a succes at that at home before showing off your
skills in public
even tho you are getting laughter, not with you but at you.
Art
Art

"art" wrote
Back to the Vincent antenna, he has designed an antenna that is
shorter than that known before. .... The input impedance is an
advantage over similar antennas and at the same time not
requiring a ground plain without being a problem to the transmitter.
He is also radiating well in comparison to the height of antenna and
the radiating system has the appearance of being efficient.
___________

Probably you'll agree that good, new antenna designs need more
than "the appearance of being efficient." Let's expand on this..

The link below leads to a calculation of the system radiation efficiency and
r-f bandwidth of a conventional, 30-degree, base-loaded monopole, using the
equations found in standard antenna engineering texts. This is the physical
height used for the "standard DLM" antennas tested by the Navy for the
University of Rhode Island. The coil and r-f ground loss was set to 2 ohms,
total, to approximate the conditions in the U-RI test.

This non-DLM configuration of a short monopole has a system radiation
efficiency of about 59%, and for 1 kW of applied power generates an inverse
distance groundwave field of 241 mV/m at 1 km.

A standard, 1/4-wave vertical monopole with a matching network and r-f
ground loss of 2 ohms, total, is about 95% efficient, and for 1 kW of
applied power generates an inverse distance groundwave field of about 306
mV/m at 1 km.

So the field of the 30-degree radiator is about 2.07 dB below that of the
90-degree radiator -- and that is due mostly to the much lower radiation
resistance of the 30-degree radiator (about 2.9 ohms vs about 36 ohms)
against the 2 ohms of other losses in each system.

The March 31, 2005 U-RI test report states that the 3.5 MHz standard DLM had
a measured groundwave field at 1 mile that was 2.33 dB less than the Navy's
reference monopole (whose electrical height is not stated, but presumably is
90 degrees). So the measured h-plane gain of that DLM was about 0.26 dB
_less_ than a conventional, base-loaded, 30-degree monopole -- although that
difference could be within the range of measurement and/or modeling error.

Also note, Art, that the DLM needs a good r-f ground, just as do all
monopoles, and especially short ones. The Navy went to great effort to
provide a very good r-f ground and propagation path for the range where the
DLM was tested.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h8...rtMonopole.gif

RF

Gene Fuller wrote:

...
The patent, US 7187335, is a real hoot. I especially like the part where
he describes doubling the bandwidth by adding a parasitic winding
intertwined with the base coil helix.

Do you suppose his antenna is in equilibrium? Could proper application
of Artsian-Gaussian theory improve it even more?



73,
Gene
W4SZ

What? You don't see cutting the capacitance between winding turns as
causing some measurable effect which in turn affects a property of the
antenna proper?

Thicker conductor(s) usually means a measurable gain in bandwith, with a
parasitic element in such close proximity to the major element, a gain
in bandwidth is not that difficult to propose and attempt to prove/disprove.

Regards,
JS