I am unaware of a single regular contributor to this newsgroup that
would refuse to give an example, however simple or complex, of an
antenna that PROVES that what they are claiming is true.

Usually they are correct, sometimes it is arguable, seldom is anyone
wrong. But I've never seen anyone not step up.

Until Art Unwin.

Who refuses to prove anything.

Give us something to test or shut the hell up. You are boring.

tom
K0TAR

Tom, K0TAR wrote:
"Usually they are correct, sometimes it is arguable, seldom is anyone
wrong. But i`ve never seen anyone not step up.

Until Art Unwin.

Who refuses to prove enything."

I don`t think Art needs to prove that a 1/2-wavelength of wire behaves
as a reaonant 1/4- wavelength under proper conditions. It has been so
reported many times by many reliable reporters and should have become
common knowledge long ago.

I`ll quote only one source as I have no appetite for digging through
many dusty volumes right know. That source I consider very reliable is
"The 20th Edition of the "ARRL Antenna Book". On page 6-28 it says: "
The quarter-wavelengrh helically wound vertical can be used in the same
manner as a full-size vertical. That is, it can be worked against a wire
radial system (four or more radials) or it can be ground-mounted with
radials buried or lying on the ground.

On page 6-29 it says: " "Experience has indicated that a secrion of wire
approximately one half wavelength long, wound on an insulating form with
linear pitch (equal spacing between turns) will come close to yielding a
resonant quarter wavelength. Therefore, an antenna for use on 160 meters
would require approximately 230 feet of wire, spirally wound on the
support.

Art may have discovered the above alone but he was very unlikely to have
been the first discoverer.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:

On page 6-29 it says: " "Experience has indicated that a secrion of wire
approximately one half wavelength long, wound on an insulating form with
linear pitch (equal spacing between turns) will come close to yielding a
resonant quarter wavelength. Therefore, an antenna for use on 160 meters
would require approximately 230 feet of wire, spirally wound on the
support.

Art may have discovered the above alone but he was very unlikely to have
been the first discoverer.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard

I don't have any issues with spiral wound loaded antennas. I have
several hamsticks which fall in that category.

Perhaps you've missed the parts where he claims performance including
gain and especially directionality from a 160m antenna that is perhaps
the size of a shoebox. And has windings in one sense and then in the
other. That's the stuff he won't and can't prove works as claimed. And
I just remembered the part where he's going to put a DSS style dish
behind it to make it even more directive.

And then there's the imaginary physics that he claims makes all antennas
work.

Sorry, I stand on my statements.

tom
K0TAR

"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
On page 6-29 it says: " "Experience has indicated that a secrion of wire
approximately one half wavelength long, wound on an insulating form with
linear pitch (equal spacing between turns) will come close to yielding a
resonant quarter wavelength. Therefore, an antenna for use on 160 meters
would require approximately 230 feet of wire, spirally wound on the
support.

Art may have discovered the above alone but he was very unlikely to have
been the first discoverer.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

yeah, but art's 160m antenna fits in a shoebox.

"tom" wrote in message
. net...
Richard Harrison wrote:

On page 6-29 it says: " "Experience has indicated that a secrion of wire
approximately one half wavelength long, wound on an insulating form with
linear pitch (equal spacing between turns) will come close to yielding a
resonant quarter wavelength. Therefore, an antenna for use on 160 meters
would require approximately 230 feet of wire, spirally wound on the
support. Art may have discovered the above alone but he was very
unlikely to have
been the first discoverer.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


Richard

I don't have any issues with spiral wound loaded antennas. I have several
hamsticks which fall in that category.

Perhaps you've missed the parts where he claims performance including gain
and especially directionality from a 160m antenna that is perhaps the size
of a shoebox. And has windings in one sense and then in the other.
That's the stuff he won't and can't prove works as claimed. And I just
remembered the part where he's going to put a DSS style dish behind it to
make it even more directive.

And then there's the imaginary physics that he claims makes all antennas
work.

Sorry, I stand on my statements.

tom
K0TAR

oh yeah, i forgot the laser beam pattern... was it also circularly
polarized, or was that some later rant?

On Sep 5, 6:02*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"tom" wrote in message

. net...



Richard Harrison wrote:

On page 6-29 it says: " "Experience has indicated that a secrion of wire
approximately one half wavelength long, wound on an insulating form with
linear pitch (equal spacing between turns) will come close to yielding a
resonant quarter wavelength. Therefore, an antenna for use on 160 meters
would require approximately 230 feet of wire, spirally wound on the
support. *Art may have discovered the above alone but he was very
unlikely to have
been the first discoverer.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard

I don't have any issues with spiral wound loaded antennas. *I have several
hamsticks which fall in that category.

Perhaps you've missed the parts where he claims performance including gain
and especially directionality from a 160m antenna that is perhaps the size
of a shoebox. *And has windings in one sense and then in the other.
That's the stuff he won't and can't prove works as claimed. *And I just
remembered the part where he's going to put a DSS style dish behind it to
make it even more directive.

And then there's the imaginary physics that he claims makes all antennas
work.

Sorry, I stand on my statements.

tom
K0TAR

oh yeah, i forgot the laser beam pattern... was it also circularly
polarized, or was that some later rant?

Oh come on .you are riding on each others misinterpretations.
Pointless to follow this course. Watch the other thread on Gauss/
Maxwell.
I am sure there is somebody with some smarts that can state
specifically why it is correct or incorrect and just not shoot from
the hip with personal intuition. If the statement is in error then
every thing else falls apart. You don't need a character wipe out now.
The question of mine that is placed is clear and concise and I have
declared ownership of that statement.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Watch the other thread on Gauss/Maxwell.

again...

I am sure there is somebody with some smarts that can state
specifically why it is correct or incorrect and just not shoot from
the hip with personal intuition.

done. and no, i'm not going to go back and provide references as i have in
the past, as art would say... you do your own research, i don't have to
prove anything.

If the statement is in error then every thing else falls apart.

it is in error and everything else fell apart long ago.

On page 6-29 it says: " "Experience has indicated that a secrion of wire
approximately one half wavelength long, wound on an insulating form with
linear pitch (equal spacing between turns) will come close to yielding a
resonant quarter wavelength. Therefore, an antenna for use on 160 meters
would require approximately 230 feet of wire, spirally wound on the
support. *
______________

Such a helical may come close to resonance, but unless the overall
length of the helical structure approaches 1/4WL, its radiation
resistance (Rr) will not be as great as if a naturally resonant,
straight, ~quarter-wavelength conductor is used.

Lower Rr for "monopole" antennas will reduce the radiation efficiency
of these systems -- if they are not using a zero-loss r-f ground
connection.

RF