On 30 May, 12:20, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 29 May, 21:52, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

On 29 May, 19:12, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

On 29 May, 09:41, "Frank's"
wrote:
"art" wrote in message

groups.com...

I was reading up on the above antenna which is a take off
of an antenna I patented ,( Constant Impedance
Matching System) and written up in QST March, 1998
I also described this system in earlier postings on this
newsgroup.-------------
--------- antenna)
ART

What page? Can't seem to find the reference in March '98 QST.
--
Frank
Thought about past times so I looked up
comments on the OWA antenna on the net
and got the reference to QST from there.
By the way this newsgroup laughed at this
and ridiculed me when I explained it a
few years before the article was written,
the same way they ridiculed with the
Gaussian antenna. A lot of people were
pointed to this patent by the patent
office with respect to their claims.
Note Cebik did some follow up writing
on that antenna.I applied for another
patent along the same lines at the same
time but let it go when my health went
down hill!
Art

Googled OWA and checked out he design of the antenna, Isnt this is
pretty
much what you get when you let a program likeYagi Optimiser tweak the
antenna for max bandwidth vs SWR? Seems like back in the 70s I
remember
some
truck stop special CB antennas built like this that made great claims
for
their SWR. No doubt the claim is correct but what is the tradeoff in
gain,
cost, ruggedness.....

Jimmie

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jimmie, If the cb antenna is the same as what I disclosed in my patent
I should not have obtained the patent! I do know that a few patent
requests
were referred to my patent after I disclosed it on this newsgroup so
it seems odd that I and others were not referred to the CB antenna as
being the prior art. As far as gain trade off there is none. The
constant impedance allows for continuation of gain at band edges when
the gain striven for is to high for the bandwidth in question. But
then this is just a patent, and I have always found that people would
always say I already knew that or it has already been invented. Odd
how some people react to the new or change. It will be the same for
the Gaussian antenna
as already one has stated it has already been invented but does not
give particulars. On the impedance antenna I had numourous requests to
go to San Francisco with all expences paid just to discus the basics
and future
but health problems of the heart told me to forget about the whole
thing as well as the sarcastic comments from the resident experts of
this group
which continues to this day. I don't need money so I am glad the idea
is still alive ala Cebik who has written extensively about it. Really
you should refer your questions to him rather than entrap me into
another augument.
Art

Wasnt talking about your patent, I found about OWA has no similarity to
your
patented design, They were just normal run of the mill yagis optimized
to
have a realtively flat SWR over there design range. Nothing new.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pound to a penny that you never read the patent or comments given on
this newsgroup
in the mid 90s or even OWA descriptions You can always give me a
pointer as to why
it was "run of the mill" matching system or where the OWA was
different, or all
the same. Like all things new comments abound that "I already knew
that" or
"it is nothing special".
What is it that you have against progress with respect to antennas?
Seems like any opposition to " all is known about antennas" is a
signal for attack
Art
in ham radio these days to keep the status quo!
Art

You lose, give me the pound..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your past shows that you are not the type to
look up archives but demand it of others to
do it for you. bSorry but your answer has no
credability. Run of the mill indeed