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

oups.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

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

oups.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

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

oups.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..

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

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
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

Whenever I reference an archive I always leave a path to it. Can you say the
same.

Jimmie D wrote:
...
Whenever I reference an archive I always leave a path to it. Can you say the
same.


Translation: "HOLY BREADCRUMBS, BATMAN!"

JS

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

Whenever I reference an archive I always leave a path to it. Can you say
the same.

5,790,081
5,625,367
?
--
Frank

On 29 May, 20:22, art wrote:
On 29 May, 19:49, "Frank's"
wrote:





LOL...A dummy load does great in the SWR dept.. Doesn't mean
I want to use one as a radiator of my precious RF... :/
As far as Art's matching design proposal, I can't see the '98 article
in question, so as usual, my cat has mittens.
MK

All I can find on the web is the following.

http://www.cebik.com/qex/owa.pdfhttp.../shack/Nov00/d...

Some mention is made of QST here, but they did not seem to
actually publish the article:

http://www.naic.edu/~angel/kp4ao/ham/owa.html

By the same author '98 QST, pp 38 - 40.

--
Frank

Frank, I saw that those same people were featured speakers
at Dayton last week on the subject of OWA antenna progresions.
Also Cebik is selling computor disks on the subject.
Shame Jimmie and others didn't attend Dayton to point
out to the amateur world the shortcommings of such blather
and nonsense with respect to antennas. If they did that
they could have placed themselves in a position to be high
lighted in next months QST. I am sure all at Dayton would
have been all ears to their antenna expertese with respect to
various antennas. You also could have asked them why
their patent request was rejected !
If you look back at the archives around 1995 Jimmie may
find it interesting. By the way Frank a short time ago
I was blasted for something inmy past based on more
than a single reflector. I find it interesting the FM
antenna on the net that described the reason for three
reflecters by the author of AO *( Brian Beasely) so you
can easily determine who knows what he is talking
about on this group despite the impressions they try to create.
Regards
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank,
I have been al over the place on the net with respect to articles
on OWA antennas and the only claims made are only per ideas.
Ideas can come from any where which also can include variations
of known patents so I see no problem./ The important point that
was missed that the closeness of the two elements is certainly
not intended as to provide a thick element to provide a wider
band impedance around which Cebik has written many articles.
True my method can provide wide gaps between the elements as
well as very narrow spacings which is where I focussed.
Basically my feeding method was the opposite arrangement where the
feed side of the matching system and where the element was split
to form a radiating loop nprior to the transfer point
.. The transfer point from this loop depended on the frequency of
use just the same as one would do when finding the ideal
impedance connecting point for any radiator.
However, every thing I have read is inferring that the band spread
of the OWA is created by two elements acting as oneto provide a
thicker element which ofcourse affects band width, but not to
the extent that it truly worth while.
Unfortunately Cebik bought this line of thinking
and extrapolated everything he wrote from that stand point which is a
pity.
If the seed had not been planted in the first place he would have
found things that have escaped him this time around and hopefully
one day he will realise the wrong turn that he made and share his
ideas in a more fruitfull way. This ofcourse does not prevent
others from picking up the ball and getting personal benefit from it
as I let the patent die when my heart faultering problems suggested
the
patent may not be the first thing to die! At this point I would
add that the Gaussian aproach is a much better one by placing all
data curves constant and in sync with each other which has been
major in creating a narrow band array as well as providing constant
gain
like a band pass filter curve and not a curve where different best f/
r
and gain peak frequencies forces compromises. Either way my reading
enforces my opinion of Cebik who is performing a valuable service
to ham radio since he writes things as he sees them as opposed to
slanting
to what he would like to believe, a very valuable attribute.
Best regards
Art

Jimmie D wrote:


- 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..



I am SOOOOOO glad that I plonked Art.

I recommend that everyone does it.

tom
K0TAR

On 31 May, 20:47, Tom Ring wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

- 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..

I am SOOOOOO glad that I plonked Art.

I recommend that everyone does it.

tom
K0TAR- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats O.K. Can't say I missed you
Art