Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mar 4, 7:01 am, wrote:
Michael J. Coslo wrote: snippage Anyhow, if they have managed to make this antenna extremely efficient, what they must have done is make the RF resistance not become much lower as the physical size goes down. Some other possibilities are that they somehow managed to make the Velocity factor really low, maybe 25 percent. That's exactly what is being experimented with; materials that make the velocity factor low. Now how you do this without getting big losses in that material, I haven' t a clue, but evidently some people think they can do it. I looked a little at metamaterials on Wikipedia, and it is some interesting (read mind boggling) stuff. That to me is the issue, just how they can get a velocity factor low and maintain efficiency at the same time. Certainly in regular materials, where people have tried doing things like insulation adjustments, they have succeeded in shortening the antenna, but eventually run up against the no free lunch doctrine. Probably everyone already knows this, but in case anyone doesn't, an example of this is a wire dipole. If you use insulated wire, the antenna will be a little shorter than a bare wire antenna when tuned for a given frequency. The insulation changes the Velocity Factor. I'll not call shenanigans just yet. I've seen a lot of wonder antennas come and go in the short time I've been a Ham. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Tiny antennas from new technology? | Moderated | |||
Has anybody here tried the tiny tenna? | Shortwave | |||
Tiny 2 Mk 1 Firmware | Digital | |||
Tiny Tenna | Shortwave |