Sydney CFA for Sale!
By Jack L. Stone, Publisher

es, the Sydney 1665 kHz CFA broadcast station is for sale and the owners are seeking an alternative site using a conventional antenna system. This news has cast serious misgiving about the CFA technology. Reports are that although still in operation, the present station is not operating in the CFA mode, but has been modified to operate more like a conventional antenna in order to stay on the air. As long as Dr. Kabbary was continuing his visits to the station site and reported operating improvement, one had to assume there was still hope. However, once news reached me about the owners’ plan to sell the CFA that said the end had come and there would be no more “fixing” of this site.

The big question is what went wrong? Was it really the fault of the CFA? Or was it something else? I have consulted with many sources close to the situation trying to ascertain the facts. The following notes are a report of those facts, as well as can be developed to this time. I welcome any updates and additions directly related to the situation.

A QUESTION OF SIGNAL STRENGTH
On previous occasions I have reported directly from information received from co-inventor Dr. Kabbary about the Sydney CFA as producing “good signals” following additional efforts of his to optimize the device. In fact, in my column last month (May 2000) I quoted Dr. Kabbary as saying that the station, which had previously been running 600 watts (see permitted maximum power of 400 watts later), was now running only 200 watts producing  Field Strength measurements “as good as a lambda/4 antenna” and such was observed by Engineer, John Innes and described in Dr. Kabbary’s words as:

“Some data of Sydney CFA : Power -very little - 200 watts now , before it was 600 watts transmitter ( has moved to another site.) Some field measurements, last Nov.1999, taken by John Innes and me, using his Potomac device:

170 mv/m at a small garden in a residential area, at distance 800 meter, for 200 watt input. 320 mv/m at open area, at distance 500 m, for 200 watt input Scaling, the CFA gives 300- 350 mv /m for 1.0 kW at 1.0 km... as good as lambda/4 antenna…

Adding to non perfect earthing system, because it is gravel rocky soil one earthing point.

My last visit to this site was to lower the radiation angle to get 17 % increase of the field i.e. 40% increase of power radiation on the ground. Nov, 1999. Kabbary”

As later discussed, the station was only permitted by its license to transmit at a maximum power of 400 watts, so apparently Dr. Kabbary misspoke when he said the power was dropped from the previous 600 watts. I requested documentation from Dr. Kabbary that would support the claims and better explain the FS measurements taken above as he described. In response to my request, Dr. Kabbary sent a FAX copy dated May 2,2000 of the diagram drawn at the time of that November, 1999. I’m a little confused by the 2/11/99 “Now” date as I thought this was an updated diagram after the drop in power to 200 watts. I suspect it should be 2/11/00 which is about right as I remember. Although not of good clarity, one can see enough from the diagram to get the idea of where the measurements were taken relative to the CFA station. To see a copy of that diagram with annotations, click here for diagram (120kb).

Following the publication of Dr. Kabbary’s report above, I received several messages of feedback from Australian and Tasmanian readers familiar with the Sydney site. The first was from Steve Olney, VK2ZTO who had taken FS measurements of his own and disputed those of Dr. Kabbary’s. Furthermore, as Steve pointed out, the information was stale-dated inasmuch as the station was still NOT producing a signal satisfactory to the owners of the station according to what he heard. This is apparently why he decided to take his own measurements and show his results of comparison between other area Narrowcast BC stations versus the 1665 kHz CFA. Steve posted his results on February 10, 2000 in the Compact Forum Y2K http://www.antennex.com/compactantenna/_y2k/0000003f.htm

Steve's posting of his FS figures did not format well and are hard to follow on the Forum (HTML won't handle "tabs'), so we have reformatted the numbers and here they are in the Table below:

Steve had this to say about the above FS figures (and I quote exactly as posted):

“…All figures have been rounded in favour of the CFA (believer figures) and it seems that at best and taking all possible advantages to the CFA it is still about 8dB down on the old "time warp" standard stations. This is allowing 3dB for the reported lower power for the CFA station. As the CFA is not such a long way down in height from a full 1/4 wave vertical, the question remains is it better than a short vertical of the same height with a very good ground plane around (copper sheet)? I don't believe so…. Steve Olney VK2ZTO”

Well, we seem to have disparities here between Steve’s readings and that of Dr. Kabbary’s, but the next message I received really caught my attention—it was from the Engineer, John Innes who, according to Dr. Kabbary, was involved in taking those measurements on the diagram furnished by Dr. Kabbary, and the person who supposedly signed off on the “good signals”. Now, we are getting closer!

FIELD STRENGTH MEASUREMENTS QUALIFIED
We have heard from Dr. Kabbary as to his view of things, and he made mention of Engineer, John Innes as being the witness to the good performance of the Sydney CFA. However, John Innes’ memory of things is somewhat different. Let me share this first contact from John, which I read with great interest and publish here with John’s permission:

“Hello, Jack, Since my name has been mentioned in connection with the Sydney CFA, I feel it appropriate that I should comment on your recent posting.

The licensed power of the Sydney station is 400 watts. It has been operated at 200 watts because of the interference caused to reception of other stations at residences within a block or two of the site - about what you would expect at the distance, whatever type of antenna was used. The station is in the process of moving to a new site both to avoid these complaints and to give space for a conventional antenna.  The station has advised me that they are open to offers for the CFA.

The field strength quoted by Dr Kabbary was the highest of several readings obtained round the 800 metre monitoring point; the average reading over time and positions is a few percent less.

The station is using the antenna, but not in CFA mode. It has been found that greater field strength, and about twice the impedance bandwidth, is achieved by strapping the disc to ground and feeding the barrel/cone structure through a simple tuning unit, avoiding the CFA feed network entirely.  I believe the difference to be due to losses due to high stored energy in the CFA network.  I suggest this test as a reality check on any operating CFA.

The Sydney CFA is installed on a building roof, with its base about 40 feet above ground, connected to ground via a wide copper strap. The ground is a large copper plate buried in an excavated hole with material added to improve the conductivity in the vicinity of the plate.  It could be considered that the structure is operating as a sixty-foot high, heavily top loaded antenna, fed near the top.

Part of the building structure would be in parallel with the strap, so that the effect is of a vertical with a larger ratio of width to height than a mast would have. This could account for the relatively wide bandwidth of the antenna itself; a study of fat dipoles would lead to this conclusion. For effective height, it may be significant that many of the CFAs seem to be installed on buildings.

I am an independent consultant, engaged from time to time by the station.  I am not an employee of the station, and have no pecuniary interest in it. The views expressed here are my own, and I do not purport to speak for the station. John S. Innes”

Now, here we have some input from an independent consulting engineer who has been directly involved in the project without anything apparently riding on the success or failure of this CFA. I wanted to know more! I followed up with additional questions of John. Here is the exchange in the order it occurred:

Q. Thank you, John. Appreciate this kind of direct information from someone close to the project. May I quote you on this? …Jack L. Stone

A. Yes, Jack, certainly. Further clarification. The transmitter has not been moved: the new site is yet to be selected. The power is simply wound down.   No changes have been made to the ground system since it was originally installed under Dr Kabbary's direction; I think his "Added to.." means "In addition,..."  And the 17% increase in field strength was in CFA mode from the start of his visit in November to the end of his adjustments. …John Innes

Q. John, a couple of follow-up questions:
1) If the CFA is up for sale, how much do they want ($USD)?
2) Did you have a close look at the network & what if anything did you notice about it? Does it look the same as the patent drawing? Appreciate your replies. …Jack L. Stone

A. Jack, I don't have an exact figure, but I know they want to recover at least some of their original costs. Probably an offer in the region of US$6,000 would get their attention, with the buyer to remove it.  Packing and transporting the top conical structure, which was brazed together inside, and the ground plane, which is like a 30' (guessed) square, copper-clad dance floor, all present their own challenge (--to a buyer).

The network was built by Dr Kabbary, and consists of one vacuum cap, one old coil that looks as if it came out of an STC transmitter, and a couple of coils of copper tube, without formers, all sitting on a wooden bench and some of them fixed to it with woodscrews.  And there is one large ceramic cap there as well; can't recall if it is in parallel with the vacuum cap, or separate; I think separately Dr K tried a couple of different arrangements of the basic components. Two bowl insulators take the outputs through the wall.  I don't know how closely the circuit conforms to the patent drawing, but in view of the simplicity, it must at least be closely functionally equivalent.  I have attached photo. The relative tidy NetwCF?(message corrupted and aborted from here).

NETWORK MYSTERY REVEALED!
As you will notice in John’s message above, he was about to discuss some pictures of the heretofore mysterious network used by Dr. Kabbary. I almost fell off my chair when John’s message suddenly exploded and was corrupted—no photos!

Fortunately, immediately after, John picked up where he left off and sent another message with attached photos of Dr. Kabbary’s network. Plenty of you have seen and experimented with the “antenneX” network described in the 80-meter construction articles, BUT, now for the first time we have a look inside that mysterious inner sanctum containing the other half of the CFA antenna system—the network! We have always speculated about their being some sort of yet undisclosed mysteries about that inaccessible transmitter room, and now for the first time, we have actual pictures, thanks to John. Let’s continue with John’s description about how things are set up to work:

New message received from John:
"Jack, I got part way through putting my reply together, when I got a huge burst of noise and garbage; can't imagine what the message must have looked like. I am amazed that my draft was sent, and not just lost to the bit bucket. I have been looking at the photos, and can piece together the network. There is a variable L in series with the input, to the common point. From the common point there is an L in series, to the cylinder output. There is probably an L from the cylinder output to ground; this component is obscured in one photo. From the common point there is a series C, consisting of a vacuum cap and a ceramic cap in parallel, to the disc output. And there is an L from the disc output to ground. A very conventional quadrature split arrangement; I can't imagine it is much different from the patent drawing. In the photos, the near output is the cylinder, and the far one is the disc.

The photos show a conventional tuning unit on an aluminum panel sitting in the middle of the CFA "breadboard" network; this is used to feed the cylinder output alone for normal transmission, when the CFA network is disconnected. …John"

Q. John, in seeing if anyone wants to purchase the CFA there, how old is it? …and when did the installation begin? I assume the $6,000 includes the whole system? …antenna & network, etc...... Jack

A. Jack, my memory is unreliable, but I find that the earliest correspondence in the file is late 1996, so about mid '96. The original rope guys have been replaced with galv wire rope with plastic insulators, as we were worried about deterioration with UV radiation after a couple of years.

The sum suggested is for an opening offer to the station - my guess at what would start a dialog.  I expect the station would include the network components, except the wooden bench, and probably include the gas capacitor that may be just visible in one photo, with the SF6 pressure gauge showing zero.  They could probably have the copper plate if they were prepared to dig it up: might have the biggest resale value... Availability would not be until the new site is up and running.

The antenna is on top of a portable building, a used building site office, which is itself on a factory roof. The network is in this upper hut, which originally also housed the transmitter. The feeders come out the hut wall, up beside the ground plane, horizontally in to the center again, and bolt onto the cylinder and disc there. So they are quite long enough to do some radiating themselves. The ground plane would be floor height on the fourth floor of an average building, and the top of the cone about half way up the fifth floor, if this gives an idea of the scope of the operation to disassemble the antenna and remove it. It could be done without a crane by sawing the cone into sections of transportable size and lowering them down on ropes. The ground plane would present a challenge: think of it as a copper clad dance floor. ...John

As John points out, the CFA in Sydney seems to follow the design described in the patent and there doesn’t appear to be anything special about the network that we didn’t already know. Okay, that special ingredient we were looking for now all the more points toward Dr. Kabbary and his ability, or inability to tune the device.

Next, I contacted Dr. Kabbary and advised him I was doing a story on the Sydney CFA station situation and asked him once more about his field strength figures and got this reply similar to the original one above: 

“CFA of Sydney: it gives 170 dB/uv - measured and signed by Mr.Innes of  Australia, at 850 m for input 200 watts, i.e. better than the Lambda /4 mast antenna…… Best regards, Kabbary.”

After receiving the reply above from Dr. Kabbary, I then pursued this issue again with John:

“Q. John, in my pursuit of the story about the Sydney CFA, I asked Kabbary his side of the story before I release anything half-baked that may be damaging to anyone. His reply back contained this about the FS measurements: …Jack”

(…it gives 170 dB/uV  -  measured and signed by Mr. Innes of  Australia, at 850 m for input 200 watts, i.e. better than the Lambda /4 mast antenna. …Kabbary)

I am told the figures indicate that the CFA is outperforming the reference antenna, or the promised performance by about 17%. This is confusing me because if this is so, why are the owners dropping the CFA? ... or do you disagree with Dr. K's comment?

Further, do you think the station owners would discuss this with me directly? I want to release a story, but it would be best if the principals on both sides have a chance to speak directly. ….Jack”

“A. Jack, 170 dB/uV - that's about 316 volts, isn't it?

I am sure you are aware that standard practice in deriving a figure of merit or efficiency of a broadcast antenna, to satisfy the FCC or any other rigorous criteria, requires measuring the field strength in many directions from the mast, and taking a sufficient number of readings, when variations are found, to be satisfied that an average of all of them corrects for local anomalies.   The reading quoted by Dr Kabbary is a single reading.  Furthermore, the readings were fluctuating at the time, and that value was the highest value seen, not the average.

Dr Kabbary must remember the conversation prior to writing down that the reading, in which he made an impassioned plea to write down the peak value, not the average. The fact that, in most other directions, overhead power lines and a railway make readings unreliable does not make this one reading any more correct. One single reading would not satisfy the FCC, it does not satisfy me, and it does not satisfy the station management. Sure, I witnessed that value observed at that time, but I do not consider it to constitute a Proof of Performance.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that the antenna produces a higher field strength in non-CFA mode, with the disc grounded and the CFA power splitting network out of circuit, than it does when in CFA mode as adjusted by Dr Kabbary, is the measure of whether the station should be satisfied that it got what it was promised. And, if you talk to the station, you might ask them if they were promised more than quarter wave performance, five eighth wave perhaps, and an absence of local interference. And how close the antenna came to meeting those goals….  John Innes”

I attempted to contact the station owners to see if they would confirm or deny any of this. I did not receive a reply, but they are welcome to provide that information for future publication. I certainly appreciate the cooperation I did receive in preparing this important story.

MANNER OF MOUNTING AND COUPLING
During this past month while preparing this story, I have also been in contact with other members of the scientific community, especially Dr. John Belrose whose own views and experiments with the CFA are summarized in this same June 2000 issue in the monthly column, From the Shack. In fact, Jack presented a paper recently to summarize his findings. A copy of that paper is also available in the column. His opening statement, simply put, says that an antenna is merely a coupling device and just as simply explains the dynamics of the CFA technology, which by its nature has a strong propensity to couple.

Many within the community, including Jack have reached the same conclusion that the CFA’s primary source of radiation comes from the manner in which it is mounted and its ability to interact with its surroundings. In this same vein, they conclude that except for Barnis, Egypt, all of the CFAs are mounted atop buildings clad with metal and that the building itself is doing most, if not all of the radiating, at least greatly enhancing the radiation. Jack also believes, the Sydney station especially, being a multi-story building with its copper straps to ground, plus the electrical wiring within the building (electrical mains) created a literal “wire grid” itself larger and taller than the CFA antenna.

As far as the Egyptian sites are concerned, Jack Belrose contends there is also the “Delta Nile” factor in that it provides high conductivity, “ … probably something like 25 mS/m”.

When asked about the “building factor”, Dr. Kabbary stated:

"Dear Mr. Stone, It is the voltage built up (surface charge oscillation) on the CFA antenna plates is the source of radiation, not the charge motion in the building –clad has zero voltage. ...Kabbary"

Dr. Kabbary went on to say in response to Jack Belrose about the building being the radiators, “…then that would assume all that was needed for a performing antenna is a building with similar-clad metal, and the CFA could be used as a standby antenna!!! ...Kabbary”

Dr. Brian Stewart and Maurice Hately were asked to contribute any comments they may have about this and Dr. Stewart had this to add:

“In relation to Dr Belrose's comments let me reiterate what Kabbary has already said.

If a building of height much smaller that the radiated wavelength is able to produce a groundwave radiation in excess of that of a lambda/4 vertical due to copper strips grounded to zero volts then we have discovered that small buildings/structures are simple and efficient groundwave radiation antennas.

If one wishes to dismiss the CFA due to the wrong application of antenna theory then we have to live with it at present. Often, no matter what we say, people will continue this mode of thought.

Only when more CFAs are put into active broadcast service on rooftops, and also on the ground, and when they continue to produce significant groundwave radiation in excess of a lambda/4 or lambda/2 then will people accept that the current application of antenna theory cannot explain the CFA behaviour.

Only then will people be open to an alternative application of effectively the same equations detailed in Maxwell's equations. …Best wishes Brian”

The reactions by Drs. Kabbary and Stewart do appear to make sense and that if the building is doing all of the radiation, then we can do away with towers and their huge radial system, and the CFA, or any other antenna for that matter and make antennas out of buildings that can more usefully serve a dual purpose as rental space on the inside and as an antenna on the outside! Just think of the revenues that can bring in, although I’m not sure what all of that intense radiation will do to the folks inside!

One thing remains certain about this CFA,  the Sydney station owners are unhappy enough to discontinue use of theirs, but, it still doesn’t yet answer all of the questions. Nor does it confirm with all certainty that the CFA technology was necessarily the main fault for its failure to reach the original expectations of the owners. For example, as described, running at full power created unacceptable interference with the neighbors. Could it be that without the full power, the signal became too weak to reach the station’s desired audience, in spite of all attempts by Dr. Kabbary to fine tune for maximum efficiency? Indeed, months before this breaking news of the Sydney shutdown, Dr. Kabbary had told me the station was "running too low of power". At the time, the statement puzzled me, but now it makes more sense. Perhaps it was a poor CFA site selection and doomed from the start! It would be interesting to know more about why this particular urban site was chosen. Also, I believe this was the very first CFA project outside of Egypt. I wonder if Dr. Kabbary would make the same decision to go forth with this project under these same conditions now?

Considering that Dr. Kabbary has only spent 10 years perfecting his CFA broadcast craft (at a cost of “millions” he says), let’s remember that he was only about halfway through that learning process when the Sydney CFA project was born. From the pictures I have seen of many of the other CFA stations, they appear to be out in the open and not crowded by so many objects as with the Sydney site shown here by the great pictures supplied by our good friend Bryan Eyre, VK7KBE of Tasmania. As I recall, the team of seven Brazilian engineers were concerned about turning on their expensive measuring equipment for fear of damage from the strong signals in the near field at the Tanta, Egypt station (Dr. Kabbary says that station is now very old, running 20 kW to give 13,5 mv/m). So, in the wide open spaces, the CFA can blast away without interfering with neighbors!

WHAT DID WE LEARN?
The obvious question that first comes to mind is, what could we possibly learn from a project that failed? I suppose that might be true if we had not been involved with intensive experiments for the past year or so and there are things about this installation that differ from all of our endeavors with this device. This information will surely lead to new experiments just to see what happens.

From this investigation, plus from working with Dr. John Belrose on his experiments and looking back on the numerous experiments of ours at antenneX and its readers, one major oddity jumped out of the heap—the Sydney CFA is grounded! Further, it is suggested by Jack Belrose that ALL of the CFAs are grounded as a result of being placed on the metal-clad buildings in the manner described here. In contrast to this discovery, if true, the one thing we always found in our own experiments is that the moment the CFA is grounded, the signal drops significantly! One can even touch a hand to any place on the antenna device and you will HEAR it drop signal through the speaker. I’ve heard that phenomenon personally!

We see from the manner in which the Sydney CFA is built and mounted, it indeed sits on top of a structure containing metal. Now, that grid may or may not be radiating, thus back to the “BuildingTenna” concept. As I’ve said, several members in the scientific community have reached this conclusion about this source of radiation being the primary factor. It’s a good theory, but, alas, it remains just that—theory! As I have stated to some of those members, if someone could simply attach some sort of measuring device to those structures and be able to stand back and point right to the spot(s) and to the meters’ “needle” indicating proof, then it remains theory and is no better of an argument than Dr. Kabbary’s claim that the building, etc. carries NO voltage. This area needs more analysis work and more proof one way or another. A computer simulation is not the proof. Only physical experiments under real conditions with scientific measurements will do.

Well, as it so happens, I am privy to more such real experiments about the "building-mounted effects" as determined by Gary Nixon and Jay Lemmons this past month and written about in Part III of the 160-meter CFA series appearing in this month's issue and I quote from that article:

"...I found that moving the CFA off the ground (soil conductivity in this area is approximately 15 ms/m) up to my wooden deck (36” above ground) almost doubled the field strength! This may account for all those roof-mounted CFAs! ....Of note is that the deck, being 36” above ground, is exactly one half the size of the ground plane dimension (72”) above ground. There may be a correlation between those figures. .....Gary Nixon"

Here again is an argument for not grounding the CFA! On the contrary as this experiment shows once again, the CFA does not like the direct grounding and is happier with some space between it and the ground as with the roof-mounting approach. Whether or not Dr. Kabbary was influenced by this grounding factor in his decision to mount this way, or if it was just more convenient so that the equipment could be located underneath remains to be clarified. But, Gary and Jay's experiments, done intentionally to test this theory, sure leans toward isolation as the preferred operating mode. But, if we use the spacing ratio noted by Gary above, the Sydney CFA at 40-feet (12m) of height would be separated too far from ground. This raises more questions than it answers!

The manner of feeding is in the "usual way" in that it is fed at the base of the "barrel" about three feet above the ground plane and about the same height as the disk, so no surprises there.

Coupling? Yes indeed! On that we can agree without equivocation! That little device will grab a hold of just about anything near it, especially if you have another antenna nearby, and this does lean toward the building radiation theory. It’ll fool some of the best experimenters. The CFA must be completely isolated in order to prove its separate and distinctive ability to radiate on its own merits. As mentioned above, the Sydney CFA is strapped to the ground with a copper strap. That strap is 40 feet long and one would think capable of producing quite a bit of radiation!

So, yes, Dr. Stewart is quite correct in saying that only when there are a sufficient number of these CFA devices mounted fully in the clear of all objects and not atop buildings filled with wire grids or clad with copper will the CFA be widely accepted as the wondrous device it claims to be. In fact, what are we waiting for? How about FS figures for Barnis, the only one already not on a building? Ah, but what about the Nile Delta factor there?

To summarize, we have learned that the Sydney CFA site is closing down, but there may be yet some unanswered questions As and when I have more news about the final disposition of this device I will report it along with any other pertinent news that may surface. If anyone is interested in purchasing the parts, I will be happy to assist in any way I can.

ONE CFA DIES BUT OTHERS ARE BORN!
Speaking of the Brazilian Team, I have mentioned before the impressive FS measurements taken by that group during their visit to Tanta, but I did not mention that their findings were impressive enough to convince the Brazilian station owners to select the CFA technology. I did not report it because I was asked not to do so until permission was given. Well, that permission has now been given and is published here for the first time based on a message just received from the leader of that Brazilian team of engineers, Mr. Sylvio Mauro Damiani:

“Hello Jack! Yes, it has been a while since we exchanged some ideas on CFA. I have some news for you: there are presently 2 (two) CFAs being manufactured in Brazil, under Dr. Kabbary's design. We opted for the local manufacturing because of high duties that should been paid if it were to be imported from someplace else (Egypt) and, as you know, our broadcasting stations here are all private owned in a similar fashion as the US radio stations. So, costs are an important matter of buying it or not.

Back to the two CFAs, the first one is being manufactured in the city of Goiania (capital city of the Goiaz state - GO), in the center of the country, near Brasilia. This antenna is under supervision of engineer Octavio Lima (one of my colleagues that joined us to the trip to Egypt).

It will run on 1230 kHz with 10 kW power. The antenna itself is still on the manufacturing phase of activities, being the testing phase previewed by June/July (2000) this year.

The second CFA (the one that caused me to visit the Egypt installations back in June/99) is being manufactured in Sao Paulo (my home city) by a well known and specialised antenna industry that also manufactures transmitting MW towers, and is to be installed in the city of Santos -SP- (located 70 km out of Sao Paulo, at sea shore). Its owner is "Radio A Tribuna" 660 kHz, also running 10 kW (5 kW initially), and also the CFA was designed by Dr. Kabbary. Its test period is being estimated for next August/September, and the idea is to bring Dr. Kabbary to Brazil for the adjustment of these two CFAs. 

On the contrary of other installations around the world, the Brazilian ones are going to be evaluated, measured, and the results made public freely, divulged, etc, once we have one to prove to our Communications Agency (ANATEL) that the CFA works, so as to join our "Rules and Regulations" on this matter. I also going to recommend  the two radio stations involved to invite anyone (including some skeptic people) to bring in their own measuring equipment and perform whatever tests they want to.

These are the facts and the plans, Jack. You are free to publish (or not) this news. Best regards, Sylvio M. Damiani”

NOW! That is some of the best news so far to be received directly from a CFA project engineer offering open invitations to one and all to inspect the sites and take measurements for themselves, of course assuming they work as hoped. I know that others, especially the “skeptics” referred to have voiced complaints about not being allowed access, for one reason or another, to some of the other CFA sites around the world. This is refreshing news indeed and I wish them good luck! My sincere thanks to Sylvio for replying so promptly to my recent request for this update.

As far as the sites in Kiel, Germany and San Remo, Italy we have only the reports that the CFAs are “working well” but nothing specific yet to report. Dr. Alberto Fassio did say his initial tests showed signal strength better than the lambda/4 mast antenna. Of course as reported last month, the Isle of Man CFA project is stalled by the local Planning Commission because of environmental issues heatedly debated there. The hearing on this matter originally scheduled for July 2000 has now been postponed until September 2000. This news just came in courtesy of Håkan Widensted:

Another brand new report is that I was recently contacted by engineers in Puerto Rico who have expressed interest in the CFA for a couple of island locations there. I obtained a quotation for them at the desired frequency and they are in the process of considering the proposal.

I can also state, without being specific, that I have been contacted by several branches of the US Military and other branches of the US Government about the CFA technology and they are studying it closely for applications they have in mind. Thus, considering that so many studies are being conducted by the scientific community, the US Military, US Government and countless experiments by antenneX readers, the CFA technology has at least proven to be one of the most interesting and heatedly debated antenna concepts to come down the pike in a long time, if ever since Marconi’s wire!

SERVER’S UP!
As a change of pace, let me switch to another subject entirely. We are pleased to announce that the antenneX website has migrated this past month to a new web server machine with hugely increased capacity. We were alarmed to discover that we were exceeding the capacity of the previous server by a factor of three! It is no wonder we were receiving some complaints about sluggish downloads! Amazingly, less than a year ago, we had plenty of capacity, but our traffic activity and load has increased so substantially and quickly, the server was literally crashing from under the weight, in spite of our robust UNIX/Apache system! Now, once again, we are well within the new server’s ability to keep up and everyone should notice a big improvement in speed.

IT’S NOT US!
While on the subject of sluggishness, I want to point out that it is not always, nor even very often that problems of speed or connection encountered are actually at our server, which is rarely down. For instance, although the overrun of its capacity did sneak up on us rather quickly, that situation has not existed for very long as was corrected quickly. Although there are far are too many factors making up the components of the Internet to discuss in the little space allocated here, I did want to bring your attention to one major aspect you should know about—Internet congestion.

Between your computer and any destination web server, are numerous connections through other computers, their equipment and software running the servers, thus the term “web” because it would look like a spider web on paper. Should you be curious about why things are running  slow at times, there is an easy way to check and see what may be the culprit in the pipeline by running a simple DOS command, “tracert”, which is short for “trace route”.

If you want to try this, go to the DOS (or NT) prompt and type tracert www.arrl.org (or any other domain of choice) and you will see it create a list of “hops” starting with your own ISP and continuing through each server routing connection between you and the final destination. It shows the amount of time in milliseconds between each hop. From that you can see where the slowdown occurs—at that particular moment in time. Also, you can see how many hops it takes to get there. Not only time between hops is important, but too many hops adds to the slowness because it takes more time with more hops (connections and time to get through them)! Routing is subject to fluctuations depending on whether servers are up and running or not. If one goes down, naturally the connections will need to be rerouted. This could be bad or good as far as time and congestion is concerned. You may not be able to get through at all for awhile. Folks naturally think the destination server is having problems, when its actually something else in between! In such cases, some "websters" can get through just fine because their routing is not affected.

Now the DOS “tracert” is interesting but dull and static, so how about watching what happens enroute in 3D real time? Well, here’s a little program "Trace 3D" by AutoNOC you can download for free and watch the hops and time changes in real time of any website. I’ve included three screen shots that show the same routing to ARRL’s website www.arrl.org taken a few seconds apart. Watch the radical graphical peaks and valleys bouncing up and down. This really gives a good snapshot of what’s going on and where the problems are. The "highs" indicate the bottlenecks. The download for this nifty little program is found at: www.autonoc.com/

| Click for Trace Route Screen Shots |

THE JUNE 2000 ISSUE NO. 38 CONTENTS:
OUR MONTHLY COLUMNS (plus this one by yours truly):
From the Shack by Jack L. Stone, Publisher
Yes, this month's column is written by yours truly, with the help of Dr. John S. (Jack) Belrose, PhD Cantab, VE2CV, Senior Radioscientist, Radio Sciences Branch of the Communications Research Centre, located in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Jack has been one of the leading skeptics of the CFA technology and in this article, Jack Belrose's CFA Experiments, Simulations and Real, his latest findings to support his beliefs are described, including technical papers and illustrations.

Antenna Modeling by L. B. Cebik, W4RNL
In the last episode, LB took a look at modeling antennas through the use of variables and equations. That antenna was a simple square quad loop. The technique chosen, from the many possible ones, was to define variables for element length and wire diameter in terms of fractions of a wavelength. For initial simplicity, everything was kept in free space. In this installment, we shall move on to a moderately complex antenna--a 3-element quad. After we model it in free space, we shall move it over ground to see what that move might require by way of revisions to our variables and equations in this second episode #28 entitled, Modeling by Equation: B. Bigger and Better Things.

Ham WorkShop by "Old George" George F. Sharp, KC5MU
After reading the J-Pole references made by Joel C. Hungerford, KB1EGI, in his fine article Finding Resonance: J-Poles & CFA, in the May 2000 issue of antenneX (now in Archive IV) Old George found it brought to mind more of his own numerous experiments with J-Poles. His approach is far less theoretical but tends more to practical the method of, build ‘em, test ‘em and go by what the meters say as written this month in Old George's article More on J-Poles.

MAY 2000 FEATURE ARTICLES IN THE LIBRARY:

Well, there you have it, folks—thanks for listening and remember, the reading lamp is always on for you in the reading rooms. If I can be of further help, I'm just a Stone's Throw! away.
reGARDS, Jack L. Stone, Publisher jack@antennex.com

Send mail to webmaster@antennex.com with questions or comments.
Copyright © 1988-2011 All rights reserved - antenneX©
Last modified: December 31, 2010