Fwd: NEC-LIST: CFA in short

In a message dated 2/22/99 5:27:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bergervo_at_natlab.research.philips.com writes:

<<
 They are: a size reduction (of about 100, compared with a 1/2 wave
 antenna) and at the same time a relatively large frequency range
 (about 1/20 to 1/50 of the operating frequency) and finally about the
 same gain as a dipole.
 
 This is extraordinary, because resonant antenna structures as we know
 them, could not achieve this. The first two claims would only be
 possible with a very low gain, which is in contrast with the third
 claim.
 
 To be specific: a shortened dipole (1/100 times the half-wave length)
 when tuned with an ideal inductor, would have a Q-factor of about one
 million. This would give it a 10000 times smaller bandwidth than the
 CFA claim. If this Q is reduced by Ohmic losses to about 100 (more
 in line with the claimed frequency range) then the gain would also be
 reduced to -40dB, much lower than the CFA claim.
 
 This should explain that the CFA claims are extraordinary. I leave it
 to others to speculate whether they are true.
 
 Greetings,
 Jos>>

Nice summary Jos. I didn't realise they were claiming such for
something SO electrically small.

At least with (some) fractal antennae the field strength advantage
when JUST electrically small (>1/12 wave) is ascribable to
phasing. Don't know what miracle explains the (allegedly high) CFA
field strength

Does anyone know if the Henf ("Super C") antenna also makes such
claims as the CFA?
 
 73
Chip N1IR
 
Received on Tue Feb 23 1999 - 04:19:38 EST