"COMPACtenna" - fact or fiction?

Discussion in 'VHF/UHF - 50Mhz and Beyond' started by KK6QMS, May 27, 2017.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Subscribe
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Left-3
  1. WD0BCT

    WD0BCT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I can hit all the repeaters I wish to with a mobile whip mounted on my steel patio picnic table. If I had it mounted 20 ft higher it would require programing a bunch of new repeaters that I would never use. So I don't bother. I believe in the KISS principal.
     
  2. WX1FLY

    WX1FLY Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I just put one of these on my car on a recommendation from another who has one. I don't know any theory and I am a new ham. I can say it works great driving all over los angeles receiving and transmitting on 2m and 70 cm.
     
  3. KC1DR

    KC1DR Subscriber QRZ Page

    I read through this thread, and noticed there were no responses from anyone that had actually used the antenna. I bought one from HRO and with some fiddling, mounted it on the roof rack of my Subaru Outback. My initial motivation was that I could drive into the garage without messing with an antenna, and I expected to give up some performance in exchange for convenience. To my surprise, I could hit repeaters with this antenna that I could not hit with a 1/4 wave mag mount on 2m. Don't ask me how it works, or the physics behind it. I'm happy with it.
     
    WX1FLY and KC8VWM like this.
  4. NG1H

    NG1H Ham Member QRZ Page

    That article appears to match up with what I have read before. The issue is being blown way out of proportion. I have yet to see a reputable claim that these designs/materials allow a small antenna to perform as good as a "full size" antenna. The claims were that they allowed them to perform as well as a moderately larger one. My understanding of this article is that it doesn't even go that far. It is saying that the design allows them to eliminate some/all of the matching components of a small antenna (or rather that the matching materials are much smaller), making the overall system smaller. Not that it makes the radiating element smaller.

    Interesting and if it does accomplish the claims then an improvement. But hardly the miracle people are calling it.
     
  5. AA5CT

    AA5CT Ham Member QRZ Page

  6. AA5CT

    AA5CT Ham Member QRZ Page

  7. N8NDL

    N8NDL Ham Member QRZ Page

    Read carefully Larry.
    The Broadband Roll Monopole by Zhi Ning Chen is ~1/4 wavelength tall; Dr. Nilsson's patent is of an antenna spiraled sheet component substantially ~1/20 wavelength tall.
    And Chen is entirely silent about an physics properties Dr. Nilsson discusses of diverse electromagnetic fields of his invented design.
    Chen is referenced in Dr. Nilsson's patent under "other publications".
     
  8. WD0BCT

    WD0BCT Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Sounds like an HF Rubber Duckie!
     
  9. AA5CT

    AA5CT Ham Member QRZ Page

    Why do you think I used language such as "looks like"? I think I used the appropriate language to describe the degree to which I thought one antenna matched the other, as these are conclusions I reached, a more or less independent party and observer to this affair.

    Where do you think I found the Chen paper? Is should be obvious, BUT, finding a workable link to the paper is the next step, which I took. It should be noted that not all references on patents mirror (to a large or small degree) the device being laid out and claimed in a patent; I thought this noteworthy, hence my remarks, which are not legal pronouncements in any manner, way, shape or form.

    Not having reviewed Nissson's theory, I cannot subscribe to it. Bits and pieces of it, as expressed by others who have reviewed the videos express some doubt as to the theories' validity, however. I will, or may, take a look in due time.

    I have, in my investigations of compact antennas over the past ~10 years tested a good number of those designs, comparing their performance against known antenna forms such as the canonical 1/2 wavelength dipole. I have even corresponded with one or two authors of said antennas. I have seen some surprising good results in these real-world tests, results not seen by others for whatever reason, so I am not so quick to judge as a few others have been prone to do on these new antenna designs.
     
  10. N8NDL

    N8NDL Ham Member QRZ Page

    Your comments are appreciated Larry.
     

Share This Page