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

art wrote:
...
ART



Art:

What kind of data/text/diagrams/etc. on vertical monopoles/unipoles
omnis' do you have?

Regards,
JS

"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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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