"art" wrote:
No.I do not carry telephone poles on my vehical.
________

But aren't you claiming the effects you noted for a mobile antenna near
other conductors for your 160-m, time-variant Gaussian, diamagnetic,
cosmic-particle-levitating, compact, full-wave, tank circuit, tilted antenna
in equilibrium that you have described as installed on top of a short tower
in your back yard?

BTW, do you have means to change the tilt of your antenna when you want to
get best coverage in various different directions?

RF

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:59:37 GMT, "Lee"
wrote:

I find my homebrew magloops r/x very well but don`t t/x too good!!! hence
the need for a larger directional ant on the rotator without encroaching on
neighbours space ....(too much) .... ;o)

Hi Lee,

I presume you mean by maploops, those that are only a meter or so in
diameter. You need a larger loop for 80M. A simple one turn with
plenty of surface area and low Ohmic contacts is preferred as anything
more complex invites massive loss.

The law with small antennas is their Radiation Resistance in relation
to their Ohmic Resistance. Most would grab some #12 wire and shrug it
off without a thought. That lack of thought generates calories in
heat. Some would add wire turns, the proximity of them merely
multiplies the heat, not the signal.

Either way the tune up seems great, but the results are miserable (no
doubt the source of your statement above). A good low band loop will
have a sharp tuning (narrow bandwidth). A poor low band loop will
appear to exhibit a great SWR for a broad bandwidth, You can test
this yourself with almost no effort at all.

Let's take that one meter diameter loop that is available from several
commercial outlets, and instead build it your self with house wire
(#12). The Radiation Resistance in the 80M band will be 528
millionths of an Ohm, Copper loss will be 16 thousandths of an Ohm
(not counting skin effect) - we still haven't computed connection
issues. Already, your copper loss is thirty times the radiation
resistance - I will let you delve into the issues of efficiency.

Doubling that loop diameter will double the copper loss to 32
thousandths of an Ohm, but what happens to Radiation Resistance? It
now runs more to 8 thousandths of an Ohm. The ratio has dropped from
30:1 to 4:1 in this doubling of size - even when the resistance of the
wire grew, the Radiation Resistance grew faster. Efficiency increases
dramatically.

Increase the loop size and use a larger conductor.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 18 Jan, 10:18, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote:
No.I do not carry telephone poles on my vehical.

________

But aren't you claiming the effects you noted for a mobile antenna near
other conductors for your 160-m, time-variant Gaussian, diamagnetic,
cosmic-particle-levitating, compact, full-wave, tank circuit, tilted antenna
in equilibrium that you have described as installed on top of a short tower
in your back yard?

BTW, do you have means to change the tilt of your antenna when you want to
get best coverage in various different directions?

RF

No. I have a radio in my Mercedes and I can tune to the local radio
stations for the music.
Yes I have a a motor like the ones used on dishes.I put in on just as
the snow started to fly
and in my haste altered the antenna some what. In the spring I will
correct that plus wire up
the rotator and tilt mechanism. Why all the questions? As one of the
adjudicators on this group
that determine all that is correct and all that is not you have
identified all that I do as a failure so why the pursuit?

"art" wrote
... Why all the questions? As one of the adjudicators on this group
that determine all that is correct and all that is not you have
identified all that I do as a failure so why the pursuit?
________

To give you, and others in your camp the chance to recognize how your
unsupported/unproven beliefs appear to those having specific education and
knowledge based on the proven results of many decades of antenna design, and
the many decades of proven, practical experience with such designs.

RF

On Jan 19, 8:39 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote ... Why all the questions? As one of the adjudicators on this group
that determine all that is correct and all that is not you have
identified all that I do as a failure so why the pursuit?

________

To give you, and others in your camp the chance to recognize how your
unsupported/unproven beliefs appear to those having specific education and
knowledge based on the proven results of many decades of antenna design, and
the many decades of proven, practical experience with such designs.

RF

Hi Richard

Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

Derek

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:59:37 GMT, "Lee"

Hi Lee,

I presume you mean by maploops, those that are only a meter or so in
diameter. You need a larger loop for 80M. A simple one turn with
plenty of surface area and low Ohmic contacts is preferred as anything
more complex invites massive loss.

The law with small antennas is their Radiation Resistance in relation
to their Ohmic Resistance. Most would grab some #12 wire and shrug it
off without a thought. That lack of thought generates calories in
heat. Some would add wire turns, the proximity of them merely
multiplies the heat, not the signal.

Either way the tune up seems great, but the results are miserable (no
doubt the source of your statement above). A good low band loop will
have a sharp tuning (narrow bandwidth). A poor low band loop will
appear to exhibit a great SWR for a broad bandwidth, You can test
this yourself with almost no effort at all.

Let's take that one meter diameter loop that is available from several
commercial outlets, and instead build it your self with house wire
(#12). The Radiation Resistance in the 80M band will be 528
millionths of an Ohm, Copper loss will be 16 thousandths of an Ohm
(not counting skin effect) - we still haven't computed connection
issues. Already, your copper loss is thirty times the radiation
resistance - I will let you delve into the issues of efficiency.

Doubling that loop diameter will double the copper loss to 32
thousandths of an Ohm, but what happens to Radiation Resistance? It
now runs more to 8 thousandths of an Ohm. The ratio has dropped from
30:1 to 4:1 in this doubling of size - even when the resistance of the
wire grew, the Radiation Resistance grew faster. Efficiency increases
dramatically.

Increase the loop size and use a larger conductor.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi! Richard.

Yes, I already have a 3ft dia magloop 3-30megs also a 5ft square
magloop for 14-80megs..... both cover the 14meg band....
they work extremely well. and as they are virtually noiseles i hear
stations that can`t be heard on a regular wideband antenna
due to a better sn ratio, albeit, at reduced signal strength.....also,
unfortunately, with reduced transmission levels.....
( very good listening antennas ).

That`s why i need a larger, lower `Q` antenna ....which will also
fit in my garden space to t/x on.....

I like 20 meters a lot running Slowscan, Hampal and Digital Voice.

Regards..

Len....G6ZSG......

On Jan 19, 8:39 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:


To give you, and others in your camp the chance to recognize how your
unsupported/unproven beliefs appear to those having specific education and
knowledge based on the proven results of many decades of antenna design, and
the many decades of proven, practical experience with such designs.

RF

All experience based on yesterdays knowledge which does not allow for
new discoveries, because you are an expert and there is nothing for
you to learn that you do not know already.
Some expert!

Derek

"Derek" wrote:

Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
methods.

All experience based on yesterdays knowledge which does
not allow for new discoveries, because you are an expert
and there is nothing for you to learn that you do not know already.

Not at all. Discoveries continue to be made in the sciences. And when they
are, they are supported by natural law, are thoroughly documented and
presented in such a context, and those discoveries and their results can be
replicated by others.

If Art could followed that course he would get a better response to his
concepts, if he still chose to present them.

RF

On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's weard.

Derek

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's weard.

Derek

i have a very small 160m antenna that 'works'. How well art's antenna
works, and in his case, the more important question is how he can prove or
demonstrate to someone that the cosmic equilibrium static particles that
levitate from it when he uses it are the real questions.