On May 1, 7:37*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

David, the antenna covers the distance covered by a mfj 259 b which is
1.7 to around
175 mega hz. Obviously it therefore has no limits above .Below I
cannot measure unless I modify my radio outside the amateur bands, ie
reflect swr outside the ham *bands. Beam widths I can't determine as I
do not have enough segments available on my optimizer program . But I
believe that can be accomplished.

but wait... you have built it.. you can measure the swr, so why can't you
measure the beamwidth? *pick an AM broadcast station and turn it and see how
wide the pattern is.

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

Jimmie

On Fri, 1 May 2009 17:35:36 -0700 (PDT), JIMMIE
wrote:

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW.

Hi Jimmie,

Try it again on Saturday and Sunday to see if its more attuned to the
Weekend force.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On May 1, 7:37*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

David, the antenna covers the distance covered by a mfj 259 b which is
1.7 to around
175 mega hz. Obviously it therefore has no limits above .Below I
cannot measure unless I modify my radio outside the amateur bands, ie
reflect swr outside the ham *bands. Beam widths I can't determine as I
do not have enough segments available on my optimizer program . But I
believe that can be accomplished.

but wait... you have built it.. you can measure the swr, so why can't you
measure the beamwidth? *pick an AM broadcast station and turn it and see how
wide the pattern is.

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine. I don't mind if you think it is
a dummy load since I do not know the merits of your education. You may
well be the same person who was argueing at the same time who admitted
to never graduating from high school.
David
I have ordered some remote relays so that I can operate the camera
scan and rotate
mechanism that I use to carry the antenna and every thing takes time.
I would also remind you that beam width can only be determined in
terms of point to point transmissions and grazing angles on ground
level antennas can create havoc.
Either way, you never did concur with the mathematics presented on
this antenna so
I thought you should drop the subject all together since you seem to
be my superior in these matters and feel you have proved my
mathematics in error. Suffice to say I have described the abilities of
my antenna and care not whether you can believe it or not until you
delve more into Maxwell's laws in light of what I have stated. Rest
assured that Richard still agrees with your assesment a judgement you
should feel confident about. Grin
Let us move on and let somebody else take over this thread for their
own use which is now coming to be the norm.
Art

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 22:37:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. Art has stated
it dozens of times. Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
snip again
Art

Art

You have claimed time and time again that you have told us all we need
to know to make this antenna and its brethren.

So what have you invented now? Something new and double secret I'd bet.

tom
K0TAR

On May 1, 9:01*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 22:37:24 GMT, "Dave" wrote:

I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

snip
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

At 160m. *You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. *Art has stated
it dozens of times. *Maybe hundreds.

He's nuts, and very thorough about it.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, you are a real misery. Are you suffering from depression?
In this group some are so dense you have to state things a hundred
times at least

On May 1, 9:09*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
snip again
Art

Art

You have claimed time and time again that you have told us all we need
to know to make this antenna and its brethren.

So what have you invented now? *Something new and double secret I'd bet..

tom
K0TAR

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you. You have not yet recanted your position on
Maxwell's laws and I told you everything. Without recanting your
position on Maxwell then all I state obviously goes in one ear and out
the other. From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you. From your stand point I am a
liar with respect to my antenna as you have deemed it impossible. From
a person who knows all that there is to know about antennas you
discussing it more seems quite sense
less. And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.
If one did so and me knowing that I have such an antenna I would have
to rethink my logic as to why it works the way it does. It is small
and light enough to hold out on one hand and works on 160 which you
say is impossible. And you are correct at least in your own mind since
you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

On Fri, 01 May 2009 21:01:26 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:
I'll make it easy, 10 degree beamwidth and 30MHz bandwidth.

At how many GHz?

At 160m.

Art is careful to never give every detail. Experience has taught him
that doing that leads to the quick thud of deflating claims. Like
Cecil, always arguing about a detail means never having to say you're
sorry.

You can't possibly have missed that, Richard. Art has stated
it dozens of times. Maybe hundreds.

Well, perhaps 11 times or 99, I pulled the plug on him and only hear
his postings as static behind other conversation. 10 years of his
dull needle stuck in the same worn groove has lost its -um- charm.
Same thing for Cecileo's preaching from the gallows hoping that the
last fall will give him enough swing to kick someone in the nuts.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On May 1, 8:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I don't mind if you think it is
a dummy load since I do not know the merits of your education. You may
well be the same person who was argueing at the same time who admitted
to never graduating from high school.

You know damn well who is who around here.
I could come back with my meager formal training and bitch slap
your theory into submission, but it gets really boring arguing a
subject with the crack spiders bitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On May 1, 7:37 pm, "Dave" wrote:
I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

no, i am waiting for the final tweaked design. if you have built one to
art's specs then you are probably measuring just the side/back lobes, which
is a very good sign. if it has a pencil beam on 160m, then by the time it
gets to 2m the beam will probably be so thin that it will be like a laser
beam, so you'll have to be pointing it VERY accurately on the repeater. so
go rotate it again, very slowly and carefully, and don't forget to aim it in
elevation also!