|
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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. Those who use this antenna should look at moving the extra director back closer to the driven element as the constant impedance is drawn not from the inferred increased diameter of the driven element but from the change over power point between the two close radiators which changes as frequency changes, i.e. the cross over point is related to the matching impedance point. (Coupling distances measured as low as 1 mm have been used successfully with mylar as an interface) There is absolutely no reason why this matching system should not be used more extensively where the search for gain has resulted in shortened bandwidth where the addition of this matching system has allowed for increases in gain. ( It should be noted that as the frequency is raised the input impedance requires extra inductance and capacitance for a better match and thus moves further along the radiator before tranference to the coupled antenna) ART |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
art wrote:
... ART Art: What kind of data/text/diagrams/etc. on vertical monopoles/unipoles omnis' do you have? Regards, JS |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
"art" wrote in message oups.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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
On 29 May, 09:41, "Frank's"
wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
On 29 May, 09:28, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote: ... ART Art: What kind of data/text/diagrams/etc. on vertical monopoles/unipoles omnis' do you have? Regards, JS A previous patent dealt with that when I placed a resonator very close to the center of a vertical. This resonator has a variable capacitor in it and the feed went up the center of the pole. This gave a 20 thru 10 multiband antenna. Again the resonator was only about a mm from the antenna. The group didn't like that either which is not a surprise. ART |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 29 May, 09:41, "Frank's" wrote: "art" wrote in message oups.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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
On May 29, 8:12 pm, "Jimmie D" wrote:
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 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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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.pdf http://www.antennex.com/shack/Nov00/dan_edit.htm http://www.cebik.com/vhf/owa.html 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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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...m/vhf/owa.html 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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
"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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
"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.. |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
"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. |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
Optimized wideband antenna OWA
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com