re. Bilal Isotron
Jim Hahn
due to CC&R's and was thinking of this for 40 meters. Jim
w5lz
Jim,
I've used one on 10 meters. performed about the same as
a 1/4 vertical. Very 'touchy' to tune.
'Doc
CAM
> I've used one on 10 meters. performed about the same as
> a 1/4 vertical. Very 'touchy' to tune.
However, this doesn't extend to 40m. A 40m Isotron does NOT
perform nearly as well as a 1/4WL vertical.
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Mark Keith
I don't see how they could even come close. I've had 40m 1/4wl both
elevated and ground mounted. Even a hustler 5 btv vertical which was
about 24? ft tall seemed like a dummy load compared to the full 1/4
wave. The lossy traps killed it. But even still, if an isotron could
beat a hustler vertical, I'd be very surprised. And also a full 1/4 wave
on 40 meters is not at all touchy to tune. Quite the opposite. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
w5lz
Mark,
Sorry 'bout that. Try one and see.
'Doc
Mark Keith
want to send a free test model.....g But there is no way one of those
little things will equal a 1/4 wl vertical. Just ain't gonna happen,
unless maybe the plant the vertical on an rf sink hole. And I wonder if
they test to paths where the vertical would be in it's element, say at
night on long paths. Sure, there may be a fluke occasion of the isotron
doing ok on short to medium paths, but if they are equaling a 1/4 wl
vertical with any regularity, their vertical has serious problems. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
Fractenna
The Istotron antenna is a resonant tank circuit with extremely low radiation
effficiency below 14 MHz. Many of its installations actually use attached
lengths of wire(!) as a counterpoise. Make that a radiating counterpoise, as
the vast majority of the radiation comes from this wire.
In 73 last year, there was actually an article recommending a ski pole(!)
attachment to enhance the field strength.....
The argument has been made that the Isotron allows the user to place the
antenna at higher heights than a more conventional antenna, and that may very
well be the case. For example, there are many installations where a inverted V
cannot be practically supported (due to various restrictions)at 40 feet but an
Isotron can.
The Isotron 'benefits' from being a point like radiator in a multipathed,
ground-backed environment. In that case--especially when placed at a reasonable
height-- it or any OTHER very electrically small antenna will experience angles
and propagation paths where it will meet or exceed the signal strength of a
conventional antenna at lower height.
Clearly there exist a niche for which this works. But taken as itself, it or
any other very electrically small radiator will not do well. Don't expect to
get 200 countries on 160M with it...
73
Chip N1IR
w5lz
Mark Keith wrote:
> Sorry about what? Me try an isotron? that'll be the day, unless they
> want to send a free test model.....g But there is no way one of those
> little things will equal a 1/4 wl vertical. Just ain't gonna happen,
> unless maybe the plant the vertical on an rf sink hole. And I wonder if
> they test to paths where the vertical would be in it's element, say at
> night on long paths. Sure, there may be a fluke occasion of the isotron
> doing ok on short to medium paths, but if they are equaling a 1/4 wl
> vertical with any regularity, their vertical has serious problems. MK
> --
> http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
I'm sorry that you can't believe what I told you. And,
since you don't believe that in the particular case I spoke
of, that the Isotron was comparable to a 1/4w groundplane,
that you should try it your self.
Since you say you won't do that, then I won't say "sorry
'bout that", I'll just say "tuff".
'Doc
CAM
> I'm sorry that you can't believe what I told you. And,
> since you don't believe that in the particular case I spoke
> of, that the Isotron was comparable to a 1/4w groundplane,
> that you should try it your self.
> Since you say you won't do that, then I won't say "sorry
> 'bout that", I'll just say "tuff".
> 'Doc
If one has a good ground plane and can get most of the power to
radiate from the 1/4WL of feedline before it reaches the Isotron,
I can believe it. :-)
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Mark Keith
>
> I'm sorry that you can't believe what I told you. And,
> since you don't believe that in the particular case I spoke
> of, that the Isotron was comparable to a 1/4w groundplane,
> that you should try it your self.
> Since you say you won't do that, then I won't say "sorry
> 'bout that", I'll just say "tuff".
> 'Doc
Well, I won't spend any money on it. If they want to send me a free one
I will. But, even if I was to buy one first thing monday morning, I
still don't think it will equal a 1/4 wl vertical. On long hauls my full
size dipoles can't equal the verticals on long paths over a 1000 miles.
If a full size dipole won't do it, why should I believe one of those
little isotrons will? I'd rather put my money on my mobile antenna
rather than the isotron for 40m use. Not to mention the price of those
isotrons is ridiculous. Also I'm curious to what path/ distance you are
talking about as a comparison. I haven't had anything yet that would
beat my 1/4 wl gp on 40m for dx use. Only going to a bobtail or a beam
would be an improvement. The reason I know this is of all my local
buddies that worked VK land in the early AM, the only one who could ever
beat me out was running a bobtail curtain. No one had a beam to try. I'm
sure a good yagi would have eaten me for lunch. None of the dipoles or
loops tried could beat the GP. Not even close. My GP was 4 s units over
my dipole to VK land. Every day. But don't feel overly bad that I won't
buy one. I won't buy anything else either. Never have bought a premade
hf antenna in my life. Likely never will. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
Tom W8JI
>
> I'm sorry that you can't believe what I told you. And,
> since you don't believe that in the particular case I spoke
> of, that the Isotron was comparable to a 1/4w groundplane,
> that you should try it your self.
> Since you say you won't do that, then I won't say "sorry
> 'bout that", I'll just say "tuff".
> 'Doc
Hi Doc,
It's easy to find rumors and stories that all kinds of antennas do all
knids of magic things...as long as we depend on stories.
Factually, that antenna has nothing going for it except it is small.
The inductor is of poor or modestly poor design, the radiating area is
small and not even optimized. It clearly isn't an optimized design,
and clearly would be poorer than an optimized antenna with the same
dimensions.
Like the Hex beam, the RAI beam, the DDRR or DRR antenna, the CFA
(crossed- field antenna), the double bazooka and the long list of
compact fractal antennas...there is nothing magic going on.
It works like any other antenna that size would work, if designed with
the same losses. And you can bet there are many ways to skin that cat
all equally good (or poor).
The Isotron might indeed be "comparable" to a properly installed and
designed 1/4wl groundplane when it is a fraction of that GP's size,
just like my 7 HP lawnmower is "comparable" to my 40 HP full size
tractor. If my tractor is in wet clay going uphill, and the lawn mower
on concrete going downhill, my little riding lawnmower can even beat
my tractor in pulling loads under the right conditions.
73 Tom
Bill Aycock
it on 10M- didnt say he had done A/B tests (would be interesting)-
compared to a 1/4w vertical- did not say 'ground plane' (probably meant
that, though) and- didnt say how it was mounted- how high- etc.
It's really just another non-provable anecdotal claim without enough
back-up to be worth all this bandwidth.
Bill- W4BSG
w5lz wrote:
>
> Mark Keith wrote:
> > Sorry about what? Me try an isotron? that'll be the day, unless they
> > want to send a free test model.....g But there is no way one of those
> > little things will equal a 1/4 wl vertical. Just ain't gonna happen,
> > unless maybe the plant the vertical on an rf sink hole. And I wonder if
> > they test to paths where the vertical would be in it's element, say at
> > night on long paths. Sure, there may be a fluke occasion of the isotron
> > doing ok on short to medium paths, but if they are equaling a 1/4 wl
> > vertical with any regularity, their vertical has serious problems. MK
> > --
> > http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
>
Mark Keith
>
> You guys should go back to what Doc said at first- he said he had tried
> it on 10M- didnt say he had done A/B tests (would be interesting)-
> compared to a 1/4w vertical- did not say 'ground plane' (probably meant
> that, though) and- didnt say how it was mounted- how high- etc.
>
> It's really just another non-provable anecdotal claim without enough
> back-up to be worth all this bandwidth.
>
> Bill- W4BSG
The original poster wanted to use it on 40 though. Being as on 10m
nearly anything will work ok, a comparison to that band's performance
when it will be used on 40m is not a good indicator. And even if I was
on 10m, I'd still rather have the vertical. I don't see Doc's original
post in my thread. Only the "clip" from Cecils post. Of course, the
original poster may have no other choice, and I could see one being
better than nothing at all. But any hopes of one acting like a 1/4 wl on
40m will only lead to frustration. As long as the original poster
realizes that, I don't think the thread a waste. MK
William F. Hagen
dipole, it is not claimed to be. However, it does work, I have had 5x9
reports over many hundred of miles away. The bottom line with an antenna
like this is that it is for use in a situation where a dipole or
vertical 1/4, or a inverted L cannot be used due to space limitations.
It is clearly a compromise, where the compromise is to either not do the
work, or do the work with something that sacrifices some radiation
efficiency. Better something than nothing, but if a better antenna is
do-able , then do it. If not, use a compromise antenna and get something
out there.
Fractenna wrote:
>
> >w5lz wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark,
> >> Sorry 'bout that. Try one and see.
> >> 'Doc
> >Sorry about what? Me try an isotron? that'll be the day, unless they
> >want to send a free test model.....g But there is no way one of those
> >little things will equal a 1/4 wl vertical. Just ain't gonna happen,
> >unless maybe the plant the vertical on an rf sink hole. And I wonder if
> >they test to paths where the vertical would be in it's element, say at
> >night on long paths. Sure, there may be a fluke occasion of the isotron
> >doing ok on short to medium paths, but if they are equaling a 1/4 wl
> >vertical with any regularity, their vertical has serious problems. MK
> >--
> >http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
> >
>
w5lz
Maybe this will help you understand what I said;
"Jim,
I've used one on 10 meters. performed about the same as
a 1/4 vertical. Very 'touchy' to tune.
'Doc"
So tell me what's so hard to understand? I never said anything
about 40 meters. I haven't used an Isotron on 40 meters, so I can't
compare it to a 40 meter groundplane, a 4 element array, or a wet
noodle on 40 meters. If you read the above quote VERY carefully,
you might see that I said 10 meters, and it did perform about like
a 1/4 wave antenna that I was using. I didn't say it was as good,
was better, was better to 1000 miles, or any of the other things
you 'read' into my post. So, once again, take a real close look
at my above quoted original post... Then, hold your breath till
they send you a FREE antenna.
'Doc
PS - I even left the mis-spelling in it.
Fractenna
>> since you don't believe that in the particular case I spoke
>> of, that the Isotron was comparable to a 1/4w groundplane,
>> that you should try it your self.
>> Since you say you won't do that, then I won't say "sorry
>> 'bout that", I'll just say "tuff".
>> 'Doc
>
Comparing the antennas--THEMSELVES--together, the isotron cannnot, and will
never, be equivalent to a 1/4 wave monopole.
It is, and always will:
1) be lower in field strength;
2) ne narrower in bandwidth
As I have said, there are occasional and sometimes CONTRIVED circumstances
where propagation effects will be important and the isotron may have a field
strength advantage over the 1/4 wave. But as it stands, this nonsensical and
ill--informed bluster is the same sort that fans the embarrassing ham
enthusiasm for the CFA.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
>Comparing the antennas--THEMSELVES--together, the isotron cannnot, and will
>never, be equivalent to a 1/4 wave monopole.
That isn't true. It would depend on the installation of each antenna,
and the distance and direction. For example, straight up...mounted at
1/4 above a good ground screen or counrterpoise, the isotron likely
would be better.
Or you could have a crummy ground on the monopole, or have it tucked
against a building.
>It is, and always will:
>1) be lower in field strength;
>2) ne narrower in bandwidth
What is "ne narrower"? Depends on how good the installation of each
is, doesn't it?
>As I have said, there are occasional and sometimes CONTRIVED circumstances
>where propagation effects will be important and the isotron may have a field
>strength advantage over the 1/4 wave. But as it stands, this nonsensical and
>ill--informed bluster is the same sort that fans the embarrassing ham
>enthusiasm for the CFA.
....and a lot of the antennas you promote.
73 Tom
Fractenna
>you might see that I said 10 meters, and it did perform about like
>a 1/4 wave antenna that I was using.
It is exactly this assessment which misleads.
The two cannot equally perform. IF YOU CHOOSE ENVIRONMENT(S) that , from
propagation characteristics, favor one over the other, you introduce an aspect
which has nothing to do with the relative performance. That is what you have
done here.
73
Chip N1IR
Peter O. Brackett
[snip]
> ....and a lot of the antennas you promote.
[snip]
I agree, on this NG, we can do without "promotions".
Promoters are ok on their WWW sites.
We'll all go there with our "caveat emptor" hanging out, but promotion is
not appropriate on this open technical discussion NG.
Peter K1PO
JerryL
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000626080910...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Fractenna
>Funny, sounds like a someone talking about a 'fractal' antenna. !!
>
>
I'm sure that, if this is the case, there are many professional, amateur,
academic, and commercial readers who would deeply benefit from said 'talk'.
You cannot fill them in because you are fabricating this statement.
Accurate info on fractal antennas can be found on the series of pages to be
seen at the URL
Readers are also invited to join the fun on the FRACTAL ANTENNA REFLECTOR by
doing:
73
to All,
Chip N1IR
---------------------------------------------------------
GOT FRACTAL? Check out the ham page on http://www.fractenna.com for info on
fractal antennas!
------------------------------------------------------
JerryL
Nuther strike, lordy, this is better than 'Bass fishing'!
"Fractenna" <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000626105707...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
CAM
> That isn't true. It would depend on the installation of each antenna,
> and the distance and direction. For example, straight up...mounted at
> 1/4 above a good ground screen or counrterpoise, the isotron likely
> would be better.
Using the Isotron as a top hat? :-)
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
Mark Keith
>
> To those who read more into my post than was there,
>
> Maybe this will help you understand what I said;
>
> "Jim,
> I've used one on 10 meters. performed about the same as
> a 1/4 vertical. Very 'touchy' to tune.
> 'Doc"
>
> So tell me what's so hard to understand? I never said anything
> about 40 meters. I haven't used an Isotron on 40 meters, so I can't
> compare it to a 40 meter groundplane, a 4 element array, or a wet
> you might see that I said 10 meters, and it did perform about like
> was better, was better to 1000 miles, or any of the other things
> you 'read' into my post. So, once again, take a real close look
> at my above quoted original post... Then, hold your breath till
> they send you a FREE antenna.
> 'Doc
> PS - I even left the mis-spelling in it.
I understand that, but my point was, if he is going to use it on 40m,
how will a comparison of it's performance on 10m against a 1/4 wl gonna
do him much good? That could give him the impression that it may also
act like a 1/4 wl on 40m. It won't. A 1/4 wl on 40m is a GOOD antenna
assumming it has the radial system under it. I don't know if I could say
that about the isotron. But I guess I'll never know for sure, since they
won't likely send me a free one. Can't really blame them there. I don't
mail out a whole lot of free antennas myself. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
w5lz
Fractenna wrote:
>
> >If you read the above quote VERY carefully,
> >you might see that I said 10 meters, and it did perform about like
> >a 1/4 wave antenna that I was using.
>
> It is exactly this assessment which misleads.
>
> The two cannot equally perform. IF YOU CHOOSE ENVIRONMENT(S) that , from
> propagation characteristics, favor one over the other, you introduce an aspect
> which has nothing to do with the relative performance. That is what you have
> done here.
>
> 73
> Chip N1IR
If anyone is 'misleading' anyone, it's you. Did I say they
were of 'equal performance'? Of course I chose the environment!
It was the one I was 'in', didn't pick it for propagation or
anything else. Stupid assesment of an inocent statement.
I think what you should remember is that this is not a class-
room, you are not the instructor, and mine was statement of what
I observed under non-laboratory conditions. If you feel like
you should gove me a 'grade' for that, then have at it, but
rememebr that I'm not enrolled in any of your classes.
'Doc
w5lz
Whoa! Did anyone but 'frac' think I was promoting the
Isotron antenna? And what are the, "lot of antennas you
promote"? Lets see, I've "promoted" dipoles, verticals,
non-resonant doublets, loops, and (?). Seems I've "promoted"
most antennas, at one time or another, except a 'fractenna'.
Is that the problem???
'Doc
w5lz
Fractenna wrote:
>
> >> I'm sorry that you can't believe what I told you. And,
> >> since you don't believe that in the particular case I spoke
> >> of, that the Isotron was comparable to a 1/4w groundplane,
> >> that you should try it your self.
> >> Since you say you won't do that, then I won't say "sorry
> >> 'bout that", I'll just say "tuff".
> >> 'Doc
> >
>
> Comparing the antennas--THEMSELVES--together, the isotron cannnot, and will
> never, be equivalent to a 1/4 wave monopole.
>
> It is, and always will:
> 1) be lower in field strength;
> 2) ne narrower in bandwidth
>
> As I have said, there are occasional and sometimes CONTRIVED circumstances
> where propagation effects will be important and the isotron may have a field
> strength advantage over the 1/4 wave. But as it stands, this nonsensical and
> ill--informed bluster is the same sort that fans the embarrassing ham
> enthusiasm for the CFA.
>
> 73
> Chip N1IR
The only thing 'contrived' is your responce to a non-scientific
comparison between antennas. Sounds like the response from
frustration.
Just take the statement for what it was. Don't assume that it was
the result of a multitude of observations/measurements, it wasn't.
If you make a comparison, and see/hear no difference between two
objects, how else are you supposed to state it?
Typical 'fractenna', if you can't honestly 'pick' at someone's
responce to a post, try to change what they said so you can 'pick'
it to death to "prove" your a "Pretty Hot Dude".
'Doc
PS - It's the "Doc" nickname isn't it? Does it really bother you
that much? It isn't because I'm a PHD, 'frac', it's just a
nickname. Don't let it bother you.
Fractenna
> Just take the statement for what it was
I did indeed; it is pseudoscience. I do not condone it.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
> The only thing 'contrived' is your responce to a non-scientific
> comparison between antennas. Sounds like the response from
>frustration.
Hey Doc,
Before you go there, read Chip's famous "Runs on Ten Meters" postings
with his FQY antenna.
He depends on the worse kind of absolute nonsense when it promotes HIS
agenda, but is very quick to point out why anyone who disagrees with
him should use "science".
For example, Chip thinks that working X number of stations an hour
when ten meters is wide open to Europe somehow proves his FQY
works. When called on it, he threw a "Nate".
Looks like a bad case of do as I say, not as I do.
73 Tom
Tom W8JI
wrote:
>Heh, heh, heh...!
>Nuther strike, lordy, this is better than 'Bass fishing'!
Without the "B", and you caught a big one.
73 Tom
Fractenna
> room, you are not the instructor, and mine was statement of what
> I observed under non-laboratory conditions.
Why are you so frustrated, when we agree? The problem was that you talk about
performance of the two antennas in an equivalent way. They do not perform
equivalently; second order effects may make them APPEAR that way, but it is a
bogus assessment.
The isotron(design(s)) is a mediocre radiator at 10 and 6 M and a poor one at
20M and longer.
73
Chip N1IR
w5lz
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck,
and squats like a duck... It's comparable to
a duck. It may not be 'equivalent' to a duck,
but if you're not planning to eat it, who cares?
'Doc
Les Nagy
in reply to:
> > Just take the statement for what it was
> I did indeed; it is pseudoscience. I do not condone it.
> 73
> Chip N1IR
Mr. Cohen:
I would like to remind you of similar statements that you have made and
failed to back up yourself. I have yet to see the promised information on
your web site. You made the statement that it was forthcoming and I can only
conclude that you have enough time to initiate and respond on this
newsgroup, but not enough time to deliver something that you publicly
promised. It is in the public record as you are so fond of stating.
See the attached below for my proof of your promise. It is reposted
unedited, as posted, and without prejudice.
This is my last communication with you, and I will not respond to any
attempt by you to communicate further. I will view any attempt of
communication from you to be harassment and will take any legal action at
my disposal to prevent any such harassment. You are not allowed to reference
this or any past posting of mine in any conversation, posting, or
correspondence you may have in the future with anyone or I will consider it
harassment and will seek any and all legal remedy at my disposal. You are
not allowed to use my name or the name of my company or the name of any of
my associates in any conversation, posting or future correspondence or I
will have to take any legal action I may have at my disposal. I will also
take any attempt to interfere with or intervene in any communication any
other party might
have with me regarding any of my postings on this newsgroup to be an attempt
by you to harass and defame me and I will take any legal action which is
available to me to recover any damages. All of the above conditions apply to
any company you may be employed by or do consulting for or are allied to,
any associates at these places of employment or consultation or alliance,
and any person who might have interests of any kind in these places of
employment or consultation or alliance, or any person related to you either
by
marriage or birth, or any friend or acquaintance of yours, or any person
employed by yourself.
The above is public notice and holds all the same legal weight as any
similar notice you have posted in the past or may post. Any actions you or
the above specified parties take regarding this matter will be made public
and posted for the public record for free use in any current or future
undertakings you in which you might be involved.
Without prejudice;
Les Nagy
Any opinions stated hear are mine and only mine and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of any of my associates, employers, friends, or any
company I have with which I have affiliation.
--
----
Les Nagy mailto:in...@atsi.on.ca
Aldebaran Technological Services Inc.
Phone: 905-388-1011
Fax : 905-388-9028
http://www.atsi.on.ca
Fractenna <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991020073041...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> Gary, KF7BS, just had his fractal quad yagi article come out in the
October
> issue of 73, with a picture (as mentioned) on the cover.
>
> Gary tried a variant of the design on the ham page of
http://www.fractenna.com
> where he scaled the size of the reflector slightly (up from the
driven).Model
> of his parameters on size and spacing show an improvement in bandwidth,at
the
> expense of F/B and forward gain. This is no surprise; I encountered this
when I
> first modeled it and tweaked for the gain, as I do not need to work 2M
FM:-)
>
> I measured an on the air F/B of about 18 dB for Gary's antenna from a
> continental QSO (he is in Oregon; I'm in MA) a couple of weeks back. His
22
> foot high fractal was both stronger (approximately 2 dB) and had much
better
> F/B than his dad--W7UMO- who was using a tri bander up 45 feet, about 15
miles
> away.
Could you please verify;
1. Specific radio equipment and its condition used by both Oregon
parties?
2. Actual power delivered to each antenna for each measurement?
3. Local geographic conditions and ground conductivity within 3 or 4
wavelengths of each Oregon party?
4. Size of types of structures surrounding each Oregon party within 3 or
4 wavelengths?
5. Number of measurements made of each station and the values and times
of each measurement?
6. The design and condition of the tribander?
7. Specific equipment used to measure the received signal and the
range,resolution and calibration of the meter used?
8. The settings of the receiving equipment for each measurement?
9. The type of modulation used and the method used to produce the
modulated signal if modulated?
10. Propagation conditions for each measurement?
11. Polarization of each transmission and polarization of receiving
antenna?
Was a very local control transmission checked before and after each
measurement? I probably have left out some relevant questions, so please
feel free to correct any omissions.
>More on this on the ham page soon.
I look forward to seeing more.
>
> The fractal quad yagi is about 4 1/2 feet on a side with a boom of about 5
1/2
> feet.
> Gary says its the best 10M antenna he's had up; his previous ones included
a
> TH3 (I believe). He is very positively surprised by the great results he's
> getting; in our QSO he says this is the first small antenna he's used that
> lived up to it's promises.
>
> If you have questions for Gary about the article, I suggest joining us on
the
> fractalantenna reflector on onelist.com. Also,Gary's e-mail is:
> kf...@iname.com.
>
> 73
> Chip n1IR
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Les Nagy mailto:ln...@netaccess.on.ca
President: Aldebaran Technological Services Inc.
Phone: 905-388-1011
Fax : 905-388-9028
http://www.nas.net/~lnagy
Chipn1ir <chip...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991021130200...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> Les said:
>
> <Subject: Re: KF7BS's FRACTAL YAGi ARTICLE in 73
> Date: 1999/10/20
> Author: Les Nagy <ln...@netaccess.on.ca>
> Posting History
>
> Fractenna <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991020073041...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> > Gary, KF7BS, just had his fractal quad yagi article come out in the
> October
> > issue of 73, with a picture (as mentioned) on the cover.
> >
> > Gary tried a variant of the design on the ham page of
> http://www.fractenna.com
> > where he scaled the size of the reflector slightly (up from the
> driven).Model
> > of his parameters on size and spacing show an improvement in
bandwidth,at
> the
> > expense of F/B and forward gain. This is no surprise; I encountered this
> when I
> > first modeled it and tweaked for the gain, as I do not need to work 2M
> FM:-)
> >
> > I measured an on the air F/B of about 18 dB for Gary's antenna from a
> > continental QSO (he is in Oregon; I'm in MA) a couple of weeks back.
His
> 22
> > foot high fractal was both stronger (approximately 2 dB) and had much
> better
> > F/B than his dad--W7UMO- who was using a tri bander up 45 feet, about 15
> miles
> > away.
>
> Could you please verify;
>
> <1. Specific radio equipment and its condition used by both Oregon
parties?
>
> Happy to include when the description goes up.
>
> <2. Actual power delivered to each antenna for each measurement?
>
> Same:-)
I assume Chip that the smiley indicates some degree of uncertainty of this?
>
> < 3. Local geographic conditions and ground conductivity within 3 or 4
> wavelengths of each Oregon party?
>
> Nope. This is not a range measurement. Nor is it presented as such.
> Differential measurements; range measurements; AND model observables have
> already been reported on the fractal quad Yagi. A chamber measurement has
also
> been presented on the web page for the fractal quad element.
>
> If you are not interested in on the air comparisons, that's quite alright.
They
> prove nothing--save they make for a COMPELLING case when they are
corroborated
> and enforce range, chamber, and modeling results. That is what's happening
> here.
I actually do not have any problems with on air comparisons especially when
the antennas are connected to the same station in turn. I was trying to
understand the REAL significance of the 2dB difference reported. I would not
normally count a 2dB measurement as a real difference unless the total
difference of all relevant test conditions were known to be the same to say
within 0.5dB or better.
>
> <4. Size of types of structures surrounding each Oregon party within 3
or 4
> wavelengths?
>
> Irrelevant. Even if the structures were known they would vary in
orientation
> for various azimuths. The results Gary and I got were virtually
> indistinguishable from his experience with Oceania qso-s at a very
different
> azimuth.
>
> I know what diffraction is; so do you. Let's not show off Les:-)
Although I don't necessarily agree with your assesment of relevance, I will
accept that local conditions are similar enough to not matter.
>
>
> <4. Number of measurements made of each station and the values and
times of
> each measurement?
>
> Times are irrelevant. 4 measurements per station.
Times are relevant if they correlate with propagation conditions.
>
> <6. The design and condition of the tribander?
>
> Sure; on web page when it goes up.
>
> <7. Specific equipment used to measure the received signal and the
> range,resolution and calibration of the meter used?
>
> Sure; on page as mentioned.
>
> <8. The settings of the receiving equipment for each measurement?
>
> No differential changes. Absolute settings are irrelevant.
Agreed
>
> <9. The type of modulation used and the method used to produce the
> modulated signal if modulated?
>
> CW. Continuous, unmodulated carrier.
>
> <10. Propagation conditions for each measurement?
>
> MUF exceeding 30 MHz. Slow QSB of time scale 2 minutes average peaks.
MAximum
> recorded variation about 15 dB.
I hope your web page on this will contain an explanation on how a 2dB
measured difference is a real performance difference under these conditions.
>
> <11. Polarization of each transmission and polarization of receiving
antenna?
>
> All linear horizontal.
>
> <Was a very local control transmission checked before and after each
> measurement?
>
> Yes. VERY local. Preaamped RX noise (antenna disconnect) floor consistent
with
> no systemic gain changes.
>
> More on this on the ham page soon.
>
> <I look forward to seeing more.
>
> SO would I! Unfortunately hams do not have access to the info you insist
upon.
> HF Range measurements are fine; if you can spare $30,000, in trade for
range
> time Les, how about coming down here and we'll take that ol' 10M Fractal
Quad
> Yagi down to AFRL Ipswich and put her through her paces:-)
>
> 73,
> Chip N1IR
I would love to able to spend that kind of money on a whim, but as you
probably have guessed I am not up to that one. I meant that I was looking
forward to seeing the more you promised on your web site.
Please announce the availability of the mentioned future web page when it is
up.
> Chipn1ir <chip...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991021130200...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Snip
> > Nope. This is not a range measurement. Nor is it presented as such.
> > Differential measurements; range measurements; AND model observables
have
> > already been reported on the fractal quad Yagi. A chamber measurement
has
> also
> > been presented on the web page for the fractal quad element.
> >
Could you point me to the chamber measurement on your web site? All I can
find are computer model results. Where might I find the differential and
range measurement reports? What is a "model observable"?
Snip
Thanks.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Les Nagy mailto:ln...@netaccess.on.ca
President: Aldebaran Technological Services Inc.
Phone: 905-388-1011
Fax : 905-388-9028
http://www.nas.net/~lnagy
Fractenna <frac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991021190219...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> >Could you point me to the chamber measurement on your web site? All I can
> >find are computer model results.
>
> 1)Let me put it this way: in the picture, I;m not holding up a model
result:-)
> Please look again. There is most certainly a differential mesasurement.
I do not doubt the existence of your antennas for 10m. I obviously would not
have asked where to find the info you mentioned if I had found it, or if it
was reasonably easy to find.
>
> The range measurement was reported on this web site some time back.
Why do you remove information from your website if it is relevant? I would
have liked to see this range measurement.
>
> 2) The chamber measurement has been reported on this NG several times, and
is
> on the Jan update of the fqy page. Further info will be on the white paper
> shortly.
>
> > Where might I find the differential and
> >range measurement reports? What is a "model observable"?
>
> An observable is a quantity that can be observed. The term is common in
the
> physical sciences, in particular OBSERVATIONAL sciences.
>
> A model is a simulation of that quantity. Therefore....
>
> :-)
>
> >
>
> I regret that I have no patience for repeated postings of the same info,
and
> accept any criticism you wish to proffer in that regard.
>
> I, frankly, just don't have the time.
I did not ask for you to repost the actual test results, only that you point
me in the right direction to find them myself.
>
> Now: I would like to ask some questions:-)
>
> Is an on the air estimate of observables an EXPERIMENT or an OBSERVATION?
> Are OBSERVATIONS valid representations of quantities? Under what
CIRCUMSTANCES are
> OBSERVATIONS useful? Under what circumstances do they have no bearing and
> insight in real world conditions?
>
> Should a college ham station be used by students, under guidance of
faculty, to
> understand observables? Or should students be asked only to rely on range
and
> chamber measurements to understand and compare antennas?
>
> On WHAT BASIS does one weight second, third and fourth order effects as
being
> of importance? Does listing such effects imply that the results should not
be
> presented, as valid?
>
> These are not malicious leads; you obviously have some interest in
metrology
> and protocol; I am interested in you sharing your thoughts.
>
> Thanks!
>
> 73,
> Chip N1IR
>
Like you Chip, I only have so much time to spend on certain things. I
believe that I already had provided my opinion on the observations given in
my previous post. This thread is obviously turning away from its original
subject which was the real world performance of a user's home made fractal
shaped quad, and that was what I wanted to clarify.
This antenna seems interesting and the potential benefits cited by you are
compelling reasons to try one out myself. I am finding it difficult to find
unambiguous construction information for this antenna and you are in an
obviously unique position to supply this unambiguous information to someone
like myself. If I had this information I would probably try one myself. If I
had real test results to read I would probably have compelling reasons to
look harder for the construction details.
Thanks anyway for the report which started this thread, and I will wait to
see the web page relating to this before I comment further or inquire
further.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Les Nagy mailto:ln...@netaccess.on.ca
President: Aldebaran Technological Services Inc.
Phone: 905-388-1011
Fax : 905-388-9028
http://www.nas.net/~lnagy
Fractenna
> and squats like a duck... It's comparable to
> a duck. It may not be 'equivalent' to a duck,
> but if you're not planning to eat it, who cares?
> 'Doc
>
Thanks for calming down.
To answer your question, an anatomist would ONLY compare the duck and, say, the
chicken, after removing one from the pond and one from the hen house (or
concentration camp if you are a CHICKEN RUN fan...). Separating out the
environment is one of the the big challenges of ethology, for instance.
At this point I suspect you get my point.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
> Whoa! Did anyone but 'frac' think I was promoting the
> Isotron antenna? And what are the, "lot of antennas you
> promote"? Lets see, I've "promoted" dipoles, verticals,
> non-resonant doublets, loops, and (?). Seems I've "promoted"
> most antennas, at one time or another, except a 'fractenna'.
> Is that the problem???
> 'Doc
Not you Doc.
I was speaking of the Barron of Bent.
73 Tom
Tom W8JI
wrote:
SNIP
That's the advantage of having multiple-personalities. One of them is
always right.
73 Tom
K1BQT
For one thing, Les at least knows how to spell "harassment". For another, he
writes better legaleese.
Rick K1BQT
Richard Harrison
"The fractal quad yagi is about 4 1/2 feet on a side with a boom length
of about 5 1/2 feet. Gary says it`s the best 10 meter antenna he`s had
up,----."
The quad perineter seems to total 18 feet for the four sides. That would
be just over 1/2-wave for the 4 sides, I believe. If the quad element is
square and driven in the middle of one side, would it not appear to the
transmission line as a ahort-circuit located 1/4-wave distant, and thus
present a high impedance to the transmission line?
So, wouldn`t a high current appear in the center of the far side, and a
small current appear in the near side? Doesn`t radiation mostly come
from the far side, and very little from the near side, which is
connected to the transmission line?
This seems to me to be very much akin to Arnold Bailey`s 1/4-wave folded
dipole.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
Fractenna
Well, I wrote it a long time ago, and it has nothing to do with this thread.
As I do not answer fractal antenna questions on this NG, I invite you and
others to post in the future on the fractal antenna reflector. To join:
FYI I answered Richard off-line.
73
Chip N1IR
---------------------------------------------------------
GOT FRACTAL? See the ham page on http://www.fractenna.com for info on fractal
antennas!
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Harrison
"That would be just over 1/2-wave for the four sides---."
I`ve received an e-mail challenge to my arithmetic. So, here is my work:
Let`s say the center of the 10-meter band is 28.8 MHz (square root of
the product of the limits). The corresponding wavelength is 10.42
meters. 10.42 meters = 34.18 feet, I used 3.28 feet per meter for
conversion.
The 18 foot perimeter of the quad divided by the wavelength of 34.18
feet is 0.53 wavelength, or "just over 1/2-wavelength by my calculation.
The electrical distance from the feedline to the short-circuit point is
half the perimeter distance or 0.263 wavelength, or just over
1/4-wavelength by my calculation.
I believe my previous posting is correct. I`m sure someone can show me
where I might have gone astray.
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZi
Fractenna
I did show you, and I have no idea why you post as a response to an e-mail.
Your response here is incorrect.
The perimeter length--that is the total amount of wire-- is in excess of 1
wave. The form factor is 4 1/2 feet on a side. If you placed the element
against your side it would be below your armpit. All this is apparent and
obvious from the ham page info on:
The antipodal side of the feed has a second current max.
Look at the FAQ's on the http://www.fractenna.com site to see a relative size
of the FQY element and a folded dipole .
For some time I have provided the EZNEC file of the 10M FQY to those on the
fractal antenna reflector. Still available. Thus there is a readily
accessible--and n-topic --internet source for such queries.
Go to
fractalantenna-subscribe @ egroups.com
to join.
Beyond that, I will not respond to any fractal antenna queries- accurate or
incorrect --on this NG. Why? I have just been told that Thomas Rauch, W8JI
continues to harass me and has made it public that: "I hate Nate". I have
genuine concerns, and fear, about the extremes he will manifest this hate and
am legally in the process of stopping it.
I have a family and many elders to support; I can't let them be compromised by
the work of such a hateful person.
If you do not have respect for a fellow human being there is nothing I can say.
As it stands, I have asked you not to encourage his harassing responses; he has
and continues to use this topic as a focus for his hateful obsession.
73
Chip N1IR
Bill Aycock
list constitutes public access, his dictionary is not the same as mine.
I quit the group after it became obvious that there was nothing of value
(and almost NO postings) there. THe average (and I have them all)
posting count for the last two months I was on the list was about two.
I have heard that the EZNEC file is only available by individual
requests, in which one must promise not to spread it around. (Am I
wrong?) I would like to get the file, but not at the expense of making a
useless promise, and I will not lie to get it.
HOwever- I see nothing wrong with the arithmetic- just with the use of
the "form factor" for the wire length. He (Chip) wont tell the wire
length, without the EZNEC file, so - keep guessing.
Bill
Richard Harrison
fractal quad. So, I remembered seeing it on the cover of the October
"73" magazine. On examining with a magnifying glass, it appears to be
constructed of tortured wire with many 90-degree bends.
I have no idea of how that behaves, but it certainly should be different
from a straight-wire version. My comments thus are not applicable.
Fractenna
>list constitutes public access, his dictionary is not the same as mine.
>I quit the group after it became obvious that there was nothing of value
>(and almost NO postings) there. THe average (and I have them all)
>posting count for the last two months I was on the list was about two.
Nope; 16 was the average those two months. Highest was 230; lowest was 8.
Recently has been 15-20.
>
>I have heard that the EZNEC file is only available by individual
>requests, in which one must promise not to spread it around. (Am I
>wrong?)
You are wrong.
I would like to get the file, but not at the expense of making a
>useless promise, and I will not lie to get it.
>
I confirm that Bill Aycock cannot get this file. That is a correct statement.
Of course, it is also thoroughly consistent with the fact that he is NOT on the
fractal antenna reflector, and in the 15 months he was on it he never requested
the file.
>HOwever- I see nothing wrong with the arithmetic- just with the use of
>the "form factor" for the wire length. He (Chip) wont tell the wire
>length, without the EZNEC file, so - keep guessing.
>
Nope; I won't tell, because I have enough faith in hams to be able to add.
73
Chip N1IR
Fractenna
...and a much clearer photo is seen on the WEB at the ham page on
I don't see any common useage definition which is consistent with your
description at 'tortured'.
It most certainly does not have the characteristics of a 'straight wire' quad
of that size ( do we describe its 'elbows as "tortured"?) nor does it have the
same total wire length as a 1/4 wave quad.
But, then anyone with a smidgeon of interest web access can see that...
73
Chip N1IR
----------------------------------------------------------
GOT FRACTAL? Check out the ham page on http://www.fractenna for info on fractal
antennas!
-----------------------------------------------------------
Les Nagy
fascinate. When something claims to be as good or better than something it
shouldn't, I like to investigate.
I have an acquaintance who has a Bilal Isotron which apparently performs
better than a vertical 1/2 wave dipole situated on the same roof. In a
completely unscientific and unreliable "test" we compared received signal
strengths from a distance of about 3 miles and across a relatively large
elevation change for this distance. He was lower than I and there is
intervening ground. The band of operation was adjacent to the 10 meter band.
Now I considered the Isotron to be nothing more than a highly reactive and
narrow band tuned load which happened to radiate and thought that there was
no way that it could even come close to a properly tuned and installed
vertical dipole. Well the received signal strength was detectably higher.
The same transmitter was used for both antennae, the same receiver and
antenna were used for the receiving end, and the tests were repeated ten
times each within 20 minutes.
My rationale is that in the antenna world height is an important factor, and
it was possible for the acquaintance to get the centre of the Isotron higher
than he could get the middle of the dipole. It is this factor which I
believe let the Isotron "perform" the way it did. It is also possible in my
mind that other inefficient compact antenna designs could perform better
than other "perfect" antennae in situations where the conditions do not
allow optimum placement of the "perfect" design.
Does anyone out there (who can legally communicate with me) have any view on
my speculation?
( I do have quite a few different email addresses for such a small company
and one person don't you think? ;) This is so that I can reliably
communicate without relying on one service. I have four more email addresses
on one of the accounts that are assigned to other persons so that there is
no confusion as to who is communicating. It was not my intention to promote
my company on this newsgroup, rather I was to lazy to change signature files
while posting. My apologies and it won't happen again. )
Le...@altavista.com
at...@on.aibn.com
in...@atsi.on.ca
ln...@mountaincable.net
Any and all unrequested email will be reported to the appropriate
authorities. I do not want response by email. Thanks.
Les Nagy
Peter O. Brackett
Don't take it personal!
My comment was meant to be a general one...
I've never observed you "promoting"!
Peter K1PO
"w5lz" <w5...@oio.net> wrote in message news:3957B698...@oio.net...
>
>
> "Peter O. Brackett" wrote:
> >
> > Tom:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > ....and a lot of the antennas you promote.
> > [snip]
> >
> > I agree, on this NG, we can do without "promotions".
> >
> > Promoters are ok on their WWW sites.
> >
> > We'll all go there with our "caveat emptor" hanging out, but promotion
is
> > not appropriate on this open technical discussion NG.
> >
> > Peter K1PO
>
Mark Keith
>
> I am generally interested in many things technical and scientific. Antennae
> fascinate. When something claims to be as good or better than something it
> shouldn't, I like to investigate.
>
> I have an acquaintance who has a Bilal Isotron which apparently performs
> better than a vertical 1/2 wave dipole situated on the same roof. In a
> completely unscientific and unreliable "test" we compared received signal
> strengths from a distance of about 3 miles and across a relatively large
> elevation change for this distance. He was lower than I and there is
> intervening ground. The band of operation was adjacent to the 10 meter band.
>
> Now I considered the Isotron to be nothing more than a highly reactive and
> narrow band tuned load which happened to radiate and thought that there was
> no way that it could even come close to a properly tuned and installed
> vertical dipole. Well the received signal strength was detectably higher.
> The same transmitter was used for both antennae, the same receiver and
> antenna were used for the receiving end, and the tests were repeated ten
> times each within 20 minutes.
I'm curious to the receiving antenna? That could have a bearing.
Vertical, horizontal?
>
> My rationale is that in the antenna world height is an important factor, and
> it was possible for the acquaintance to get the centre of the Isotron higher
> than he could get the middle of the dipole. It is this factor which I
> believe let the Isotron "perform" the way it did. It is also possible in my
> mind that other inefficient compact antenna designs could perform better
> than other "perfect" antennae in situations where the conditions do not
> allow optimum placement of the "perfect" design.
>
> Does anyone out there (who can legally communicate with me) have any view on
> my speculation?
Yep, I can talk to anyone. I would agree with that. There will be many
times where on antenna that might be less efficient can still outdo a
more efficient one. And the height and location of the current max can
have an effect. I'm not sure if an isotron thinks it a vertical or
horizontal antenna. A good case of an inferior antenna beating a better
one is running 40m at 3 AM to florida. My 40m mobile will be stronger to
FLA than my dipole at 36 ft. The mobile obviously less efficient, but
the takeoff angle is just right for Fla at that time of morning. This
could be compared to your case. The isotron could very well do pretty
good on 10m. Many small antennas do. But I would compare the two on a
few different paths to double check. A ground wave test is very good I
think for 10m, and usually won't lie to you much as far as low angle
performance, but I'd try a few dx contacts also, and a few shorter haul
stuff. If it keeps winning, I'd say it's working pretty well. Also there
is another factor you might consider.. It's quite possible the 1/2 wl
vertical has a bit of common mode currents flowing on the coax. This
would skew the pattern upwards, and maybe skew the results in the
isotrons favor. With a good decoupling section such as the radials a 1/4
wl below the feed that I've used before, this advantage might swing to
the 1/2 wave. But anyway, I agree, there are many times an "inferior"
antenna can win a certain comparison to a certain place at a certain
time. I see it all the time. MK
--
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
Fractenna
>>fractal quad.
I have no idea who told you that.
I said I was dumbfounded. Period--re: in reference to your interest in
responding by posting.
I regret that what I said about the harassing individual is already happening.
Now you understand why I provide an internet accessible list: to answer legit
questions while keeping the nonsense (and worse) out.
73
Chip N1IR
w5lz
Fractenna wrote:
>
----clipped-------
> At this point I suspect you get my point.
>
> 73
> Chip N1IR
Yes, I certainly understand what you're saying (on the surface
level, as well as others). After considering the source, I find
that I think my behavior has been rather silly. After all, why
should I be upset with anything you say? You've demonstrated to
me your abilities, knowledge and intent. There are responses that
are appropriate for 'in person' confrontations, and there are those
appropriate for 'remote' confrontations. I must admit that I may
have those responses confused. Feel assured that I will respond
in the 'correct' manner in the future.
Now, I paid attention to your paranoia concerning certain
perceived threats. This post is no threat to you. If you must
misconstrue this post to be a threat, please 're-word', or other-
wise misconstrue as you please. Having had a professional association
with others having mental conditions such as yours, I am aware of
the difficulty in controlling these aberrations. Just do your best.
'Doc
Les Nagy
Big snip
>
> I'm curious to the receiving antenna? That could have a bearing.
> Vertical, horizontal?
The receiving antenna is non other than the common vertical treepole
(vertical dipole hung in a tree for those non technical types ;) ) The
bottom end of the treepole is about 10 ft. from the ground.
Big snip
>But anyway, I agree, there are many times an "inferior"
> antenna can win a certain comparison to a certain place at a certain
> time. I see it all the time. MK
> --
> http://web.wt.net/~nm5k
--
----
Les Nagy
Richard Harrison
"I don`t see any common usage definition which is consistent with your
description as "tortured"."
You inspired my use of that word. Your talk of lawyers reminded me of
torts which have the same origins in language as torture. But,
regardless of why I chose the word, I didn`t look for any meanings, I
just used it.
Now I`ve looked it up. My "American College Dictionary", from 1962, long
after I finished college, says: Torture> To twist, force, or bring into
some unnatural position or form: (trees tortured by the storms).
This usage for the word "tortured" is at least as common as the word
"fractal" is when describing antennas.
The October 1999 "73" cover photo appeared as a couple of X`s with
toilet-paper roll cores skewered at various, but symmetrical intervals
along the lengths of the X supports. The photo should have been clearer.
I opened the magazine to the cover story and saw a segment chart that
looked like Bull Winkle`s antlers. My immediate reactiom: This doesn`t
look like a quad to me! So, I still haven`t read the story. I have a
moderate interest in the antenna. But I`m not going to wade through
something that seems poorly presented unless my needs are serious. I`m
not out to buy, so I must be attracted and sold.
Cortland Richmond
terminated on one of the two loading plates. This means it becomes part of the
radiator. If I wanted to test just the short part, I'd link feed the coil and
see if it worked as a a short dipole. My guess is, it would not work at all
welll.
Cortland
(ka...@saber.net)
Les Nagy wrote:
> I am generally interested in many things technical and scientific. Antennae
> fascinate. When something claims to be as good or better than something it
> shouldn't, I like to investigate.
>
> I have an acquaintance who has a Bilal Isotron which apparently performs
> better than a vertical 1/2 wave dipole situated on the same roof. In a
> completely unscientific and unreliable "test" we compared received signal
> strengths from a distance of about 3 miles and across a relatively large
> elevation change for this distance. He was lower than I and there is
> intervening ground. The band of operation was adjacent to the 10 meter band.
>
> Now I considered the Isotron to be nothing more than a highly reactive and
> narrow band tuned load which happened to radiate and thought that there was
> no way that it could even come close to a properly tuned and installed
> vertical dipole. Well the received signal strength was detectably higher.
> The same transmitter was used for both antennae, the same receiver and
> antenna were used for the receiving end, and the tests were repeated ten
> times each within 20 minutes.
>
> My rationale is that in the antenna world height is an important factor, and
> it was possible for the acquaintance to get the centre of the Isotron higher
> than he could get the middle of the dipole. It is this factor which I
> believe let the Isotron "perform" the way it did. It is also possible in my
> mind that other inefficient compact antenna designs could perform better
> than other "perfect" antennae in situations where the conditions do not
> allow optimum placement of the "perfect" design.
>
> Does anyone out there (who can legally communicate with me) have any view on
> my speculation?
>
Tom W8JI
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 23:33:10 GMT, "Les Nagy" <ln...@mountaincable.net>
wrote:
>The receiving antenna is non other than the common vertical treepole
>(vertical dipole hung in a tree for those non technical types ;) ) The
>bottom end of the treepole is about 10 ft. from the ground.
You can not reliably compare horizontal polarized antennas at large
distances, meaning distance much further than the beginning of the far
field zone, unless the sensing antenna is of like polarization and so
high above earth it is in th main lobe of the antennas under test.
When you try to test horizontally polarized antenna, especially when
you have a vertical receiving antenna, just the smallest amount of
feedline radiation or re-radiation from other conductors around the
antenna can make a huge difference in field strength.
Your test wasn't valid, just as any test of horizontal antennas at a
large distance that are mounted close to the earth's surface wouldn't
be valid. In virtually all cases, you would measure feedline radiation
or multipath scatter more than the actual antenna field.
73 Tom
Fractenna
>"I don`t see any common usage definition which is consistent with your
>description as "tortured"."
>
>You inspired my use of that word. Your talk of lawyers reminded me of
>torts which have the same origins in language as torture. But,
>regardless of why I chose the word, I didn`t look for any meanings, I
>just used it.
>
...incorrectly.
>Now I`ve looked it up. My "American College Dictionary", from 1962, long
>after I finished college, says: Torture> To twist, force, or bring into
>some unnatural position or form: (trees tortured by the storms).
>
>This usage for the word "tortured" is at least as common as the word
>"fractal" is when describing antennas.
>
Perhaps you can give just one published reference where an antenna is described
as "tortured".
The bibliography of fractal antenna articles is now in excess of 200. In three
weeks there will be at LEAST 6 papers on fractal antennas at the APS-URSI
meeting. In the new edition FRONTIERS IN ELECTROMAGNETICS there are --3--
chapters on fractal antennas.
So, you can see, it is becoming quite common.
On the other hand, I have never seen an antenna described in print as
"tortured".
>The October 1999 "73" cover photo appeared as a couple of X`s with
>toilet-paper roll cores
They are PVC pipe.
skewered at various, but symmetrical intervals
>along the lengths of the X supports. The photo should have been clearer.
Excuse me; are you holding me responsible for said cover? I didn't write the
article, I didn't take the picture; and I didn't build the antenna.
As I already mentioned, I have taken the same image, provided by KF7BS, and
enhanced the contrast. It has been on the ham page of
for 8 months.
>I opened the magazine to the cover story and saw a segment chart that
>looked like Bull Winkle`s antlers. My immediate reactiom: This doesn`t
>look like a quad to me! So, I still haven`t read the story. I have a
>moderate interest in the antenna. But I`m not going to wade through
>something that seems poorly presented unless my needs are serious.
I would like to know if anyone who has READ Gary's article describes it as
"poorly presented". How 'bout a reader's testimonial:-)?
I`m
>not out to buy, so I must be attracted and sold.
>
Who is selling anything to you Richard?
>Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI
>
73
Chip N1IR
Les Nagy
news:39595808...@news.akorn.net...
> Hi Les,
BIGSNIP
> Your test wasn't valid, just as any test of horizontal antennas at a
> large distance that are mounted close to the earth's surface wouldn't
> be valid. In virtually all cases, you would measure feedline radiation
> or multipath scatter more than the actual antenna field.
>
> 73 Tom
No doubt it was not a valid test. You will note that I used the word "test"
with the quotes around it. It was simply an on air comparison of his
particular setup and its signal strength as received by my antenna at my
location. But it does show that certain non-optimum designs (as far as
efficiency goes) can be apparently better in certain circumstances. Note the
specific use of the word "apparently".
I have always suspected that the Isotron was a radiating feedline topped by
a capacitve hat, if the assembly at the top could be viewed as such. Perhaps
this the reason it seems to work despite its size rather than the height of
the Isotron. I myself would not recommend the Isotron as a dipole works very
well for the cost. Performance versus cost is something I consider to be
important and $10 worth of wire and hardware that performs so well ranks
high in my world. The effort required to construct and erect the simple
dipole (in the 10 meter range) also is usually less than just the act of
erecting many commercial contraptions.
Thanks for the comments Tom, they added to my understanding.
--
----
Les Nagy
Will
schematic and drawing of these things, then all who care too may
*cheaply* investigate the claims of the Ralph Bilal. It has always
seemed more than slightly odd to me that you don't often come across
"back-engineered" plans for commercial ham antennas, in print or on the
net. Why is that? It is common to see such duplications of all sorts of
other circuits, accesory boxes, even whole radios. I don't see patent
statements or numbers in the ads or literature for the Isotrons, or
really any current production antennas, so legal liability isn't the
issue. Or is it that I am still too much of a novice to do it myself (I
hear a chorus rising. . .)? If I ever get my hands on an Isotron very
cheaply (not a lot to encourage me to pay more than ten bucks or so for
one of them), I will dissect, examine, measure, and report.
de Will KD7BFX
Tom W8JI
wrote:
.
>*cheaply* investigate the claims of the Ralph Bilal. It has always
>seemed more than slightly odd to me that you don't often come across
>"back-engineered" plans for commercial ham antennas, in print or on the
Probably because there is little reason to build them, once the
"fluff" is gone through removal of advertising claims.
73 Tom
Fractenna
>schematic and drawing of these things, then all who care too may
>seemed more than slightly odd to me that you don't often come across
>"back-engineered" plans for commercial ham antennas, in print or on the
>other circuits, accesory boxes, even whole radios. I don't see patent
>statements or numbers in the ads or literature for the Isotrons, or
>really any current production antennas, so legal liability isn't the
>issue. Or is it that I am still too much of a novice to do it myself (I
>hear a chorus rising. . .)? If I ever get my hands on an Isotron very
>cheaply (not a lot to encourage me to pay more than ten bucks or so for
>one of them), I will dissect, examine, measure, and report.
>
>de Will KD7BFX
>
I have already stated that this is merely a resonant tank circuit, in this case
with an extremely low radiation resistance.
Could some radio amateur kindly tell me what the "controversy" is? I have
already explained and it has been so noted, that this antenna is a poor
radiator, and that in cases where it has "out performed" a "full sized
antenna", this has been because of PROPAGATION effects and/or a radiating
counterpoise attached.
The same issue comes up with ANY and ALL very electrically small antennas.
I don't see anything in the Bilal literature that misleads anyone in this
regard. Frankly, it is only with the advent of the internet, that a
pseudoscience behind such antennas has arisen, a pseudoscience predominantly
highlighted by the CFA.
I think what hams need is someone to publish an article articulating how and
when a very electrically small antenna can and will "out perform" a full sized
one. That would take all the mystique away and actually benefit manufacturers
like Bilal and others. I do not have the time for writing one up, but will be
happy to advise anyone that does.
Make no mistake about it-- we are heading into an era of SMALLER ham antennas
based on covenants and so on. Large towered antennas will become rarer and
rarer. I have seen this already occurring in the Boston area, as fewer towers
go up and more come down.
73
Chip N1IR
Tom W8JI
>Perhaps you can give just one published reference where an antenna is described
>as "tortured".
This antenna discussion group is tortured by your presence.
Tortured.
>On the other hand, I have never seen an antenna described in print as
>"tortured".
The antenna design was tortured and twisted by the blustering wind
coming from the nutty professor until it fit his prurposes.
Tortured.
73 Tom
Tom W8JI
>I
The first "I".
>have already stated that this is merely a resonant tank circuit, in this case
>with an extremely low radiation resistance.
Most antennas are tank circuits, in one form or another. Nothing
spectacular there.
>Could some radio amateur kindly tell me what the "controversy" is? I have
The second "I".
>already explained and it has been so noted, that this antenna is a poor
>radiator, and that in cases where it has "out performed" a "full sized
>antenna", this has been because of PROPAGATION effects and/or a radiating
>counterpoise attached.
Just like when your "fractal quad-yagi" beats other antennas. Same
thing.
>The same issue comes up with ANY and ALL very electrically small antennas.
Bingo.
>I don't see anything in the Bilal literature that misleads anyone in this
Third "I".
>regard. Frankly, it is only with the advent of the internet, that a
>pseudoscience behind such antennas has arisen, a pseudoscience predominantly
>highlighted by the CFA.
Like "fractal electromagnetics"?
>I think what hams need is someone to publish an article articulating how and
Fourth "I".
>when a very electrically small antenna can and will "out perform" a full sized
>one. That would take all the mystique away and actually benefit manufacturers
>like Bilal and others. I do not have the time for writing one up, but will be
Fifth "I".
>happy to advise anyone that does.
>
>Make no mistake about it-- we are heading into an era of SMALLER ham antennas
>based on covenants and so on. Large towered antennas will become rarer and
Do you have real factual statistics that support that claim, or is
this just a wild guess like your claims about the local AM BC towrs in
your area that were incorrect?
>rarer. I have seen this already occurring in the Boston area, as fewer towers
Fifth "I".
>go up and more come down.
>
>73
>Chip N1IR
Five paragraphs, five "I's".
From Psychology and Modern Man, page 223. "One sign of narcisism is
the repeated opening of communications with "I". This places the
narcistic person in the center of every statement."
Interesting post.
73 Tom
George T. Baker
built or works, or that no one would want to waste time building one.
72/73, George
Fairview, TX 30 mi NE Dallas in Collin county
Amateur Radio W5YR, in the 54th year and it just keeps getting better!
R/C since 1964 - AMA 98452 RVing since 1972 Kachina #91900556