|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. OH NO! That thing is raising it's ugly head again.... - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
wrote in message oups.com... i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip would give roughly the same results. On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote: On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote: Jimmie D wrote: ... Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. Jimmie Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly, with efficiencies in the single digits ... JS I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams accept it? I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of this inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info. The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing something new. Art Even a 6ft verticla can be made to perform reasonably well on 40m when used with a good ground system, the ground system thay were using is probably as close to ideal as you can get. The big difference is in using a short antenna with a poor to mediocre ground system, then they stick out like a sore thumb I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent they posted.What would be the point of doing a test like this if you didnt get qualatative data? Without the data the st might as weel have been, "hey good buddy you sound fine over here at theWinn Dixie, I cant see my S meter 'cause the lights out on it but yo sound like 30 over to me" Jimmie |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
Soory Mike Didnt mean to hijack your post
Jimmie "Mike Kaliski" wrote in message ... "John Smith I" wrote in message ... Actually, old news from 3 years ago ... http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147 JS The guy doesn't even seem to realise that height is one of the prime factors in optimising propogation, particularly at medium wave frequencies and vhf. Building a tall mast costs plenty of money and if commercial radio stations could broadcast efficiently from an antenna the size of a bean can, they would have done it years ago. This is surely just a couple of coils wound in opposite directions with capacitive coupling and a capacity top hat to prevent coronal discharge and maximise current in the top half of the antenna. Basically a form of top loaded, inductively wound whip antenna tapped somewhere up from the base in order to pick up a 50 ohm matching impedence at the design frequency. I don't see any new or innovative principles at work here. Now if he could make it work efficiently on all frequencies with 50 ohms impedence and with no requirement for further matching or adjustment of any sort, I would be impressed. :-) Mike G0ULI |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent they posted. Heh, heh. Jimmie youze is throwin' 'round them scientifical terms like "nearly as well" and "comparable to". Heck I'ze gettin' all confoozlated. But not so confusticated that I'll not get me wonna them mircle antennies! Seriously though, you are right. There has been precious little real data on this antenna since the first press release in '04. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
... Now if he could make it work efficiently on all frequencies with 50 ohms impedence and with no requirement for further matching or adjustment of any sort, I would be impressed. :-) Mike G0ULI Well then, let me take you at least half way to being impressed: 1) "The technology is completely scalable: Take the component values and divide them by two, and you get twice the frequency; take all the component values and multiply them by two, and you are at half the frequency," said Vincent. "There are two poles in the antenna, and where I place the poles in relation to one another-how much I bring the two resonant frequencies together or spread them apart-enables me to emulate different antennas, from a quarter-wave to a five-eighths wave." " 2) "All I have to do is tap the helix at its base, and you get a perfect 50-ohm match with out any lossy networks as are required for other advanced antenna designs," said Vincent. 3) "Eight years ago, antenna design was 90 percent black magic and 10 percent theory," said Vincent. "But now, with my design, they are 10 percent black magic and 90 percent theory." The above from this URL: http://www.jefallbright.net/node/2718 He mentions being able to create these in 1/4 to 5/8 design--so, create a 1/2 and loose the radials and salt water ... It is difficult to find real detail on this antenna! Makes 'ya wonder, don't it? JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 17 Jun, 19:34, Mike Coslo wrote:
"Jimmie D" wrote : I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent they posted. Heh, heh. Jimmie youze is throwin' 'round them scientifical terms like "nearly as well" and "comparable to". Heck I'ze gettin' all confoozlated. But not so confusticated that I'll not get me wonna them mircle antennies! Seriously though, you are right. There has been precious little real data on this antenna since the first press release in '04. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Look at the patent request to obtain the basics. The testing station tested it with a set up that is tracable to normal standard antennas. Results therefor can be compared against a standard antennas with confidence. The testing was done by a independent source so a review of the results shows what you get. The patent was accepted by the PTO so on the surface it would appear that there is something new here even if the experts are baying at the moon ahead of time knowing that all is known about antennas. It would be interesting if the independent test reports were included in the patent request which would infere that the PTO confirmed the propriety of the tests, usually by being present. Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program which the range test confirmed after the fact. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
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 |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
... 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 Art: It is all in the numbers (odds.) If you know how to gamble, you know how to play the odds. Show me one street smart individual and I will show you someone who knows the ropes ... Being a naysayer has great advantages, most experiments/"new inventions" turn out less than what may have been expected ... playing the odds of "naysaying" you can always claim a better than avg. "batting avg." It's all in the game ... play it right and you expose the details. Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 17 Jun, 20:57, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote: ... 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 Art: It is all in the numbers (odds.) If you know how to gamble, you know how to play the odds. Show me one street smart individual and I will show you someone who knows the ropes ... Being a naysayer has great advantages, most experiments/"new inventions" turn out less than what may have been expected ... playing the odds of "naysaying" you can always claim a better than avg. "batting avg." It's all in the game ... play it right and you expose the details. Regards, JS Very true unless you have to state why Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com