On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:





On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. *How's it working out for you? *Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? *Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. *I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. *There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. *The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. *Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not in violation in my opinion. My theory may not be "exactly"
correct
as I have no way of looking at particles. But if you Google every
little bit, line by line it has enough agreed tangibles that it can
be taken as serious. You yourself know that I have been sharing the
details for a very, very long time. I also have shared everything
and described everything, nothing has been hidden and all explained
several times
Nobody has faulted anything one little bit! Pretty much all has been
the
slandering of me. I really do not understand that if this is a
newsgroup on antennas
why those knoweledgable in the state of the art instead of getting
angry with me doesn't debate it point by point where an error provides
a stop to the debate.
Ofcourse 'error' means so many different things with this group I
don't see a long thread.
I certainly do not have the patience to post thousands of times as
Cecil is able so I should easily be forces to go away as others have
done. Well, if you try very hard that I cannot take anymore. When you
have received an education one must always take advantage of it by
pursuit of the truth regardless of the regimen. I cannot see why I
should be expelled from intruding into physics by those you insist
that all is known about antennas otherwise you are a heritic.
Art