I have just made a larger than usual antenna that radiates well below
the broadcast band so I may study generated radiation patterns. The
antenna
is on a structure that rotates as well as a tipping action, all about
4 feet above the ground. Initially I will just listen to signal
variences when aim and tilt is in the best position. I recognise that
I may have to put a digital meter across the S meter terminals
together with a holding capacitor but for the moment I will be guided
by the S meter. On the upper frequencies I will hook up to a TV for a
visual. SWR readings will be initially recorded
across all frequencies in the horizontal position to be used as a
datum
which certainly be required as shielding is added in the near future.
Comments?
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
snip more nonsense
Comments?

Not up to your usual standards, but it sounds like you made an antenna
that is much much too small and won't see any directionality unluss it's
operating (too put it simple for you) as a magnetic antenna.

You'll notice if it works 90 degrees from what you'd expect.

Regards
Art

No regard for you
tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:

that is much much too small and won't see any directionality unluss it's

Apologies for my poor spelling.

tom
K0TAR

On Jun 1, 9:32*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

snip more nonsense

*Comments?

Not up to your usual standards, but it sounds like you made an antenna
that is much much too small and won't see any directionality unluss it's
operating (too put it simple for you) as a magnetic antenna.

You'll notice if it works 90 degrees from what you'd expect.

Regards
Art

No regard for you
tom
K0TAR

Gee. Only somebody as wise as you can see right thru me.
How much will you pay for the movie rights?
Art

On Jun 1, 2:42*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I have just made a larger than usual antenna that radiates well below
the broadcast band so I may study generated radiation patterns. The
antenna
is on a structure that rotates as well as a tipping action, all *about
4 feet above the ground. Initially I will just listen to signal
variences when aim and tilt is in the best position. I recognise that
I may have to put a digital meter across the S meter terminals
together with a holding capacitor but for the moment I will be guided
by the S meter. On the upper frequencies I will hook up to a TV for a
visual. SWR readings will be initially recorded
across all frequencies in the horizontal position to be used as a
datum
which certainly be required as shielding is added in the near future.
*Comments?
Regards
Art

My cat has mittens. :/

On Jun 5, 11:26*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Just measured the SWR using mfj 259b where it measures 2:1@2 Mhz with
slight variences as the frequency increases. The meter only goes to
175 Mhz so I cannot measure further. How ever the varience is ever
decreasing so I would say in the Ghz range it should be linear at
something less than 2:1 So a normal transmitter will not require an
external tuner as frequencies are *scanned. Real neat. Weight is in
the order of 6.5 lbs and a weather balloon is capable of lifting 7 lbs
so that is something to contemplate this summer for top band. Have the
tilt set for approx 6 degrees which puts me above ground clutter and
will leave it there to get some experience on different bands and
conditions.
Art

So why haven't you already used it on 160, 80/75, 60, 40, 20, 17, 15,
12, 10, 6, or 2 and told use about your results?

I am quite anxious to hear how well this works, because if it works
well, I will be one of the first to make one.

Please include signal reports from the station you work as well as
signal reports concerning other stations they work.

A very good frequency to try this on would be 14.300, as they are quite
good net control operators. *If you work one of the 14.300 net controls,
please include their callsign and the time you worked them.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, he is never going to try the antenna or admit it doest work. Heck
I built the stupid thing knowing it was a dummy load and a CBer's
joke just to say I built it. (I was also very sick and bored at the
time). It doesnt work because the impedance of the antenna consist
primarily of ohmic resistance and dielectric losses. I doubt if he has
ever buit the damned thing .
Giving that the design of his antenna is a known CBers prank, I
suspect Art comes from the same place.

Unfortunately I also have known of someone else who behaves like Art.
He was truly a brillant person who repaired banks tabulating machines
back when they were all mechanical. He was brillant in more ways than
just mechanics, a true rennisance man if ever I met one. Then he had a
stroke. He latched on to this EXACT same "antenna" saying that he had
designed it even though I knew of its CB use years before he
discovered it. He used to be a good family friend until I showed him
his antenna did not work comparing it side by side to a simple dipole.
For Arts sake I hope he truly is just a prankster. I wouldnt wish the
changes I saw on the poor guy I knew on anyone.

I know I have seen the "antenna" before I knew it as a CB joke. I am
pretty sure it was in my grandfathers collection of radio books which
dated from the 20s to the 40s used as a dummy load.

Jimmie

On Jun 6, 11:35*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 5, 11:26*pm, tom wrote:



Art Unwin wrote:
Just measured the SWR using mfj 259b where it measures 2:1@2 Mhz with
slight variences as the frequency increases. The meter only goes to
175 Mhz so I cannot measure further. How ever the varience is ever
decreasing so I would say in the Ghz range it should be linear at
something less than 2:1 So a normal transmitter will not require an
external tuner as frequencies are *scanned. Real neat. Weight is in
the order of 6.5 lbs and a weather balloon is capable of lifting 7 lbs
so that is something to contemplate this summer for top band. Have the
tilt set for approx 6 degrees which puts me above ground clutter and
will leave it there to get some experience on different bands and
conditions.
Art

So why haven't you already used it on 160, 80/75, 60, 40, 20, 17, 15,
12, 10, 6, or 2 and told use about your results?

I am quite anxious to hear how well this works, because if it works
well, I will be one of the first to make one.

Please include signal reports from the station you work as well as
signal reports concerning other stations they work.

A very good frequency to try this on would be 14.300, as they are quite
good net control operators. *If you work one of the 14.300 net controls,
please include their callsign and the time you worked them.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, he is never going to try the antenna or admit it doest work. Heck
I built the stupid thing knowing it was *a dummy load and a CBer's
joke just to say I built it. (I was also very *sick and bored at the
time). It doesnt work because the impedance of the antenna consist
primarily of ohmic resistance and dielectric losses. I doubt if he has
ever buit the damned thing .
*Giving that the design of his antenna is a known CBers prank, I
suspect Art comes from the same place.

*Unfortunately I also have known of someone else who behaves like Art.
He was truly a brillant person who repaired banks tabulating machines
back when they were all mechanical. He was brillant in more ways than
just mechanics, a true rennisance man if ever I met one. Then he had a
stroke. He latched on to this EXACT same "antenna" saying that he had
designed it even though I knew of its CB use years before he
discovered it. He used to be a good family friend until I showed him
his antenna did not work comparing it side by side to a simple dipole.
For Arts sake I hope he truly is just a prankster. I wouldnt wish the
changes I saw on the poor guy I knew on anyone.

I know I have seen the "antenna" before I knew it as a CB joke. I am
pretty sure *it was in my grandfathers collection of radio books which
dated from the 20s to the 40s used as a dummy load.

Jimmie

Jimmie
I hate to tell you but the antenna that you made was a result of
various statements where it would seem that the main object was to
proof me in error. So I gave a description of such an antenna to
satisfy the desires of my critics in the hopes that they would be
content.
That antenna is not the one I use . Sorry you went to a lot of work
for nothing.
Art

On Jun 6, 12:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 6, 11:35*am, JIMMIE wrote:



On Jun 5, 11:26*pm, tom wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
Just measured the SWR using mfj 259b where it measures 2:1@2 Mhz with
slight variences as the frequency increases. The meter only goes to
175 Mhz so I cannot measure further. How ever the varience is ever
decreasing so I would say in the Ghz range it should be linear at
something less than 2:1 So a normal transmitter will not require an
external tuner as frequencies are *scanned. Real neat. Weight is in
the order of 6.5 lbs and a weather balloon is capable of lifting 7 lbs
so that is something to contemplate this summer for top band. Have the
tilt set for approx 6 degrees which puts me above ground clutter and
will leave it there to get some experience on different bands and
conditions.
Art

So why haven't you already used it on 160, 80/75, 60, 40, 20, 17, 15,
12, 10, 6, or 2 and told use about your results?

I am quite anxious to hear how well this works, because if it works
well, I will be one of the first to make one.

Please include signal reports from the station you work as well as
signal reports concerning other stations they work.

A very good frequency to try this on would be 14.300, as they are quite
good net control operators. *If you work one of the 14.300 net controls,
please include their callsign and the time you worked them.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, he is never going to try the antenna or admit it doest work. Heck
I built the stupid thing knowing it was *a dummy load and a CBer's
joke just to say I built it. (I was also very *sick and bored at the
time). It doesnt work because the impedance of the antenna consist
primarily of ohmic resistance and dielectric losses. I doubt if he has
ever buit the damned thing .
*Giving that the design of his antenna is a known CBers prank, I
suspect Art comes from the same place.

*Unfortunately I also have known of someone else who behaves like Art..
He was truly a brillant person who repaired banks tabulating machines
back when they were all mechanical. He was brillant in more ways than
just mechanics, a true rennisance man if ever I met one. Then he had a
stroke. He latched on to this EXACT same "antenna" saying that he had
designed it even though I knew of its CB use years before he
discovered it. He used to be a good family friend until I showed him
his antenna did not work comparing it side by side to a simple dipole.
For Arts sake I hope he truly is just a prankster. I wouldnt wish the
changes I saw on the poor guy I knew on anyone.

I know I have seen the "antenna" before I knew it as a CB joke. I am
pretty sure *it was in my grandfathers collection of radio books which
dated from the 20s to the 40s used as a dummy load.

Jimmie

Jimmie
I hate to tell you but the antenna that you made was a result of
various statements where it would seem that the main object was to
proof me in error. So I gave a description of such an antenna to
satisfy the desires of my critics in the hopes that they would be
content.
That antenna is not the one I use . Sorry you went to a lot of work
for nothing.
Art

Jimmie
In most antenna books they tell you that twisted pair wires act as a
transmission line where local signals are canceled by the opposing
wire. What they state is correct and used often on field day to
connect to a real radiator for when used in a real emergency.
But the antenna experts never brought that to the attention of readers
until you just did
which says a lot about existing antenna expertise on this newsgroup.
Seem like that some things in the ARRL books are disregarded by the
gurus!
Regards
Art

On Jun 6, 1:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 6, 12:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:





On Jun 6, 11:35*am, JIMMIE wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:26*pm, tom wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
Just measured the SWR using mfj 259b where it measures 2:1@2 Mhz with
slight variences as the frequency increases. The meter only goes to
175 Mhz so I cannot measure further. How ever the varience is ever
decreasing so I would say in the Ghz range it should be linear at
something less than 2:1 So a normal transmitter will not require an
external tuner as frequencies are *scanned. Real neat. Weight is in
the order of 6.5 lbs and a weather balloon is capable of lifting 7 lbs
so that is something to contemplate this summer for top band. Have the
tilt set for approx 6 degrees which puts me above ground clutter and
will leave it there to get some experience on different bands and
conditions.
Art

So why haven't you already used it on 160, 80/75, 60, 40, 20, 17, 15,
12, 10, 6, or 2 and told use about your results?

I am quite anxious to hear how well this works, because if it works
well, I will be one of the first to make one.

Please include signal reports from the station you work as well as
signal reports concerning other stations they work.

A very good frequency to try this on would be 14.300, as they are quite
good net control operators. *If you work one of the 14.300 net controls,
please include their callsign and the time you worked them.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, he is never going to try the antenna or admit it doest work. Heck
I built the stupid thing knowing it was *a dummy load and a CBer's
joke just to say I built it. (I was also very *sick and bored at the
time). It doesnt work because the impedance of the antenna consist
primarily of ohmic resistance and dielectric losses. I doubt if he has
ever buit the damned thing .
*Giving that the design of his antenna is a known CBers prank, I
suspect Art comes from the same place.

*Unfortunately I also have known of someone else who behaves like Art.

On Jun 6, 1:23*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:25*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Jun 6, 12:07*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Jun 6, 11:35*am, JIMMIE wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:26*pm, tom wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:
Just measured the SWR using mfj 259b where it measures 2:1@2 Mhz with
slight variences as the frequency increases. The meter only goes to
175 Mhz so I cannot measure further. How ever the varience is ever
decreasing so I would say in the Ghz range it should be linear at
something less than 2:1 So a normal transmitter will not require an
external tuner as frequencies are *scanned. Real neat. Weight is in
the order of 6.5 lbs and a weather balloon is capable of lifting 7 lbs
so that is something to contemplate this summer for top band. Have the
tilt set for approx 6 degrees which puts me above ground clutter and
will leave it there to get some experience on different bands and
conditions.
Art

So why haven't you already used it on 160, 80/75, 60, 40, 20, 17, 15,
12, 10, 6, or 2 and told use about your results?

I am quite anxious to hear how well this works, because if it works
well, I will be one of the first to make one.

Please include signal reports from the station you work as well as
signal reports concerning other stations they work.

A very good frequency to try this on would be 14.300, as they are quite
good net control operators. *If you work one of the 14.300 net controls,
please include their callsign and the time you worked them.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, he is never going to try the antenna or admit it doest work. Heck
I built the stupid thing knowing it was *a dummy load and a CBer's
joke just to say I built it. (I was also very *sick and bored at the
time). It doesnt work because the impedance of the antenna consist
primarily of ohmic resistance and dielectric losses. I doubt if he has
ever buit the damned thing .
*Giving that the design of his antenna is a known CBers prank, I
suspect Art comes from the same place.

*Unfortunately I also have known of someone else who behaves like Art.
He was truly a brillant person who repaired banks tabulating machines
back when they were all mechanical. He was brillant in more ways than
just mechanics, a true rennisance man if ever I met one. Then he had a
stroke. He latched on to this EXACT same "antenna" saying that he had
designed it even though I knew of its CB use years before he
discovered it. He used to be a good family friend until I showed him
his antenna did not work comparing it side by side to a simple dipole.
For Arts sake I hope he truly is just a prankster. I wouldnt wish the
changes I saw on the poor guy I knew on anyone.

I know I have seen the "antenna" before I knew it as a CB joke. I am
pretty sure *it was in my grandfathers collection of radio books which
dated from the 20s to the 40s used as a dummy load.

Jimmie

Jimmie
I hate to tell you but the antenna that you made was a result of
various statements where it would seem that the main object was to
proof me in error. So I gave a description of such an antenna to
satisfy the desires of my critics in the hopes that they would be
content.
That antenna is not the one I use . Sorry you went to a lot of work
for nothing.
Art

Jimmie
In most antenna books they tell you that twisted pair wires act as a
transmission line where local signals are canceled by the opposing
wire. What they state is correct and used often on field day to
connect to a real radiator for when used in a real emergency.
But the antenna experts never brought that to the attention of readers
until you just did
which says a lot about existing antenna expertise on this newsgroup.
Seem like that some things in the ARRL books are disregarded by the
gurus!
Regards
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Art , I am proud of you. You gave a very direct, and accurate reply.
Your reply also indicates you are aware that your antenna could not
possibly function with any practical degree of efficency for the
reason you just stated. Sir I must complement you on the artistry, the
audacity and the tennacity of your scam, I absolutely loved it.

Jimmie

Don't get me wrong I gave it in fraustration with respect to the
gurus knowledge level and how they were judging me. I am or was an
engineer from the U.K. and I am not inferior to those educated in the
U.S. as some seem to think.A good laugh is good for the soul, a cheap
laught is good for nothing.
Regards
Art