On 17 Jun, 18:40, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:

... I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?

...

He states it uses a "2-dimensional helix", think about that (since I
can't find a pic or construction details), flatten a helix and you end
up with a zig-zag pattern of wire.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ... etc. ... (poorly represented in ascii here)

This must drop the inductance of the "helix coil" drastically, leaving
you with only the self-capacitance of the conductor (-jX), which
requires a "loading coil" of +jX ...

Also, there is some text I interpret to suggest there is some additional
coupling somewhere at the center, however, I can't find enough material
to confirm or reject this ...

JS

One of the links provided pictures of the testing station which
I believe belonged to the Navy. I believe they have also applied
for a follow up patent that contains propriety information
that has not yet been released. True, we have had a string of
questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that
is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently
not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure
can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers.
When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend
ourselves as being antenna experts.
Art