In September 2007 I conducted a short test between the Roomcap antenna
and a large horizontal
Loop antenna. The result was unexpectedly good for the Roomcap.

To have certainty in this respect we planned a long test in which the
following criterias applied:
- Installation of the test site, antennas, and cabling by
communication specialists of the Army
- Both antennas connected through A/B switch to the same transceiver
- Several operator who log their communication results
- Always two operators: One operating the rig, the other logging the
reports

The test was conducted on 40m in SSB under the callsign HB4FF.

This test took place on the 20th May 2008 in the military camp of the
communication troops in Emmental.
They installed as comparison antenna a horizontal loop (86m wire (2
wavelength long), 12m above ground
on a free field, with smartuner SG-230 in the feedpoint).
The station was in a barrack next to the antenna. Two coaxes (RG214)
were layed and led to the coax-switch
connected the the transceiver. The SWR of both antennas was 1:1.
The comparing antenna was a good one, as analysed by L.B.Cebik (W4RNL)
he
http://www.cebik.com/content/a10/wire/horloop.html
http://www.cebik.com/content/fdim/atl1.html
To access these links you need a passwort (free), which you may obtain
he
www.cebik.com/helpme.htm .

The installation and conduction of the test was supervised by a
militay communication instructor.
I only had to drive with the Roomcap Antenna (1.5 m long radiator) to
the parking place and connect my antenna
to the coax that was ready there. Connection was through two large
current baluns who prevented that RF was
fed to the outside of the coax cable. Furthermore, the coax cable was
laying on the ground.

Then, the test could begin. Operators were the two that came with me:
Dave HB9KT and Benoit HB3YRX,
and two operators from HB4FF: Jürg HB9BFC and Rolf HB9CVB.

The test was conducted according to "HF antenna tests and
comparisons", where in each contact the remote
operator was asked to observe the signal strength during several
changeovers between the two antennas.
The antennas were just called "antenna 1" and "antenna 2", to prevent
subjective influence. Important was
the signal strength difference und not the absolute value.
In this kind of comparison no calibration of the receiver is required,
as we only needed to see the difference of
the signals, or the finding that both signals are equal.
The polarisation of the antennas does not play any role, as only sky
wave contacts were accounted for. In these
waves the polarisation is changing permanently and unpredictable.

After 6 hours duration the test was ended, and evaluation of the logs
could begin.
The result looks like this: (here is the log)

- In 57% of the contacts the Roomcap antenna received the better
report.
- In 29% of the contacts both antennas produced equal signal strength.
- In 14% of the contacts the Loop antenna received the better report.

The largest difference in favor of the Roomcap was reported with 13 dB
(abt 2 S points).
The largest difference in favor of the Loop was 6 dB (= 1 S point).

By calculating the arithmetic mean of the signal differences, one
obtains a calculated advantage of 1.5 dB
in favor of the Roomcap antenna. This includes the fact, that the
coax cable RG214 to the Loop had 2.7 dB more
attenuation (on 7 MHz) caused by the length difference, and that the
connecting cable RG58 and the current baluns
had an attenuation of 0.7 dB. Accordingly, the Roomcap reports were
reduced by 2 dB (= 1/3 S point).

Here follows the list of the stations who provided comparitive
reports:

IK6ZNH, 2E1DHN, DJ6AL, DJ1JW, DL1HWT, DH7VK/p, 9A/DG2XO, DB9WJ, G3GBS,
DL7FF, PA3FRD,
DL1BPK, DK0SC, DG1BM, HB9BWV/m, DL5XDL, G0GHK, F/PA0JWV, DJ9OI,
OE2008SMC, DL1DXF.

HB9BWV/m reported a 30 dB stronger signal for the Roomcap. This report
was excluded in the calculation, as
the station was in the ground wave at a distance of 25 Km, where the
polarisation effect was responsible for
this high difference.

By switching between the two antennas during receiption, the same
signal difference was noted as received
from the remote station. This shows that the antenna works in
reciprocal way.

Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna
equals that of large wire antennas,
and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests
during the last 3 years.
Each operator confirms the logged reports.

The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves
is done by the dynamic E field, as explained
in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only
in the near field region of the antenna,
as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists.
The far field does not allow determination how the
wave has been generated originally.

Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free
contribution in this antenna test.

Felix, HB9ABX

Felix,
Interesting. Now, what is a 'Roomcap antenna'?
- 'Doc

On Jun 21, 5:26 pm, hb9abx wrote:


Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna
equals that of large wire antennas,
and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests
during the last 3 years.
Each operator confirms the logged reports.

I have problems with your reference antenna though..
If they are trying to ensure efficiency from the reference
antenna, why use a multi wavelength loop fed with a tuner?
They would have been better off using a standard dipole, or
if a loop, a direct fed 1 wavelength loop for the band to be
used.
Also, this test does not prove that the efficiency of the "roomcap"
antenna equals that of large wire antennas.
All it proves it that at the time of the test and the path used,
that the roomcap antenna had a higher level of radiation at
that particular angle. This has nothing to do with efficiency.
If you really believe a 1.5 meter tall antenna is as efficient
as a 1/2 wave dipole fed with coax, I have some ocean front
property in AZ I'd like to show you.
I've had my mobile antenna outplay my 1/2 wave dipole at
certain times of the day and using certain "usually low"
angles. But I would never be so foolish as to suggest that
my mobile whip is just as efficient as my 1/2 wave dipole
at home.
Anyway, the testing is good to do, but this test has warts,
and I wouldn't place too much trust in it. I sure wouldn't go
so far as to claim any certain efficiency from the roomcap
antenna. I'm not too keen on the reference antenna you
used. It has warts too.. You are losing system efficiency
in the feed system using coax to a tuner.
And also the pattern of the multi wavelength loop would need
to be looked into. I'd almost bet money a 1/2 wave coax
fed dipole would have beat that loop in most all directions.
It would almost certainly have a higher system efficiency
by doing away with the tuner.
Anyway, I'm not too convinced..

See Art, I don't just pick on you... Anyone with dubious
test results gets a comment from me...
I'm an equal opportunity heckler... :/

Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna
equals that of large wire antennas,
and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests
during the last 3 years.
Each operator confirms the logged reports.

The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves
is done by the dynamic E field, as explained
in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only
in the near field region of the antenna,
as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists.
The far field does not allow determination how the
wave has been generated originally.

Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free
contribution in this antenna test.

Felix, HB9ABX
=========================================
Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you
please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this
miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

"Highland Ham" wrote in message
...
Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna
equals that of large wire antennas,
and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests
during the last 3 years.
Each operator confirms the logged reports.

The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves
is done by the dynamic E field, as explained
in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only
in the near field region of the antenna,
as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists.
The far field does not allow determination how the
wave has been generated originally.

Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free
contribution in this antenna test.

Felix, HB9ABX
=========================================
Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you
please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this
miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH



http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm
As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction
guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if
you published the plans:
http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm

Dave wrote:
"Highland Ham" wrote in message
...
Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna
equals that of large wire antennas,
and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests
during the last 3 years.
Each operator confirms the logged reports.

The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves
is done by the dynamic E field, as explained
in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only
in the near field region of the antenna,
as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists.
The far field does not allow determination how the
wave has been generated originally.

Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free
contribution in this antenna test.

Felix, HB9ABX
=========================================
Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you
please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this
miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH



http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm
As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction
guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if
you published the plans:
http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm
========================================
Indeed ,he has tried that for the past 2-3 years via the Packet Radio
System . Not very much in the spirit of amateur radio , whereas for
most of his tests Felix uses radio amateurs trying to prove the
effectiveness of his 'invention'.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:55:50 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


"Highland Ham" wrote in message
...
Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna
equals that of large wire antennas,
and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests
during the last 3 years.
Each operator confirms the logged reports.

The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves
is done by the dynamic E field, as explained
in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only
in the near field region of the antenna,
as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists.
The far field does not allow determination how the
wave has been generated originally.

Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free
contribution in this antenna test.

Felix, HB9ABX
=========================================
Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you
please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this
miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH



http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm
As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction
guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if
you published the plans:
http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm


worse than that, he doesn't tell you what you agree to until you sign
it and receive the antenna.
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Buck wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:55:50 GMT, "Dave" wrote:


"Highland Ham" wrote in message
...
Conclusion:
This test proves clearly, that the efficiency of the Roomcap Antenna
equals that of large wire antennas,
and hereby confirms the results that I obtained during my own tests
during the last 3 years.
Each operator confirms the logged reports.

The physical explanation of this is, that generation of the EM waves
is done by the dynamic E field, as explained
in "Antennas and Physics". The dominating E field can be measured only
in the near field region of the antenna,
as in the far field a fixed relation between H and E field exists.
The far field does not allow determination how the
wave has been generated originally.

Many thanks to the above mentioned OMs for there voluntary, free
contribution in this antenna test.

Felix, HB9ABX
=========================================
Felix , Since you are posting all this in a radio homebrew NG ,could you
please give us all a free reference where to find the details of this
miracle antenna , such that we can build one ourselves.

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH



http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/ant--abx-e.htm
As noted here you have to sign something and pay to get the construction
guide, you probably sign a non-disclosure agreement so you could be sued if
you published the plans:
http://home.datacomm.ch/hb9abx/kondition-e.htm


worse than that, he doesn't tell you what you agree to until you sign
it and receive the antenna.
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

The fact that its constuction secrets are not all over the internet
speaks volumes. If this were truly a decent antenna there is no way
the genie could be kept in the bottle.


Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:

...
The fact that its constuction secrets are not all over the internet
speaks volumes. If this were truly a decent antenna there is no way
the genie could be kept in the bottle.


Jimmie

I would have to go with you on this one.

If this design/performance was good many large companies and commercial
interests would have already picked up on it. Indeed, if this were half
of what it claimed, there would be no need to market it to individual
amateurs or use marketing tactics which smack of such secrecy, mystery
and magic--the money from larger users would just make these ideas
laughable.

It seems obvious, if it is marketed like snake-oil, if it comes in a
snake-oil-bottle, if it has the color of snake-oil and ultimately ends
tasting of snake-oil ... it is most likely snake oil--i.e., a lame duck.
(Not even to mention that a partner and I have built a couple! LOL)

However, Barnum and Bailey would be proud!

Regards,
JS

On Jun 28, 9:22 am, John Smith wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:
...
The fact that its constuction secrets are not all over the internet
speaks volumes. If this were truly a decent antenna there is no way
the genie could be kept in the bottle.

Jimmie

I would have to go with you on this one.

If this design/performance was good many large companies and commercial
interests would have already picked up on it. Indeed, if this were half
of what it claimed, there would be no need to market it to individual
amateurs or use marketing tactics which smack of such secrecy, mystery
and magic--the money from larger users would just make these ideas
laughable.

It seems obvious, if it is marketed like snake-oil, if it comes in a
snake-oil-bottle, if it has the color of snake-oil and ultimately ends
tasting of snake-oil ... it is most likely snake oil--i.e., a lame duck.
(Not even to mention that a partner and I have built a couple! LOL)

However, Barnum and Bailey would be proud!

Regards,
JS

JS
I have read thru the thread and find nothing that would suggest that
the original poster
cannot do what he states he has done.
By comparing Gaussian law with Maxwell the requirement of his antenna
calls for a system in equilibrium which can be any size ,shape or
elevation. Such a design goes back more than ten years on this
newsgroup when I stated that radiation came in pulses. have described
such as an antenna as one having only distributed loads and where
external lumped loads are imposed during manufacture they must be
cancelled to maintain equilibrium. All of the masters work and
mathematics are based around the requirement of equilibrium law of
Newton i.e addition of all vectors equal zero which is the basis for
no moving charge within a conductor in equilibrium.(this is descibed
in many books or can be googled by inserting current carrying radiator
equilibrium or similar words Root LC in Maxwells equation is
strictly for distributed loads in equilibrium unless the mathematics
have changed in the last 150 yearsand does not include lumped loads as
part of the laws of other masters from whom he got the mathematics
from. If you obtained a helix antenna and lengthened the open end of
the helix by continuing the rotation to the starting point ie
cancelling the lumped loads you have such an antenna that is not
straight and is in a state of equilibrium which provides gain.
Experts, get on Eznec and prove it for yourself, don't just be a
talking head !
There are plenty of programs that can simulate such a arrangement
without difficulty to simulate a small antenna with full wave
dimensions that can provide gains described in his experiments. I have
not seen his antenna and suspect that the addition of chokes are
supplied because he has not fully cancelled lumped load and thus is
trying to prevent feed line radiation which in a lot of cases is not
considered a hindrence.
If the wire used is a wavelength long then you can't stop it radiating
with respect to its unit length if it is in equilibrium. Period. It
is easy to debunk an antenna without reason. It is a lot harder to
find error in the mathematics involved which supports such antennas
especially when it can easily be proved in practice and checked by
anybody. Make it worth my while and I will be happy to prove it
$1000dollar bvet was suggested in the past but with no takers. I only
ask for conpensation for my costs.