|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
John Smith I wrote:
Actually, old news from 3 years ago ... http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147 JS This: "It would seem that despite the naysayers, the DLM antenna does work and quite well at that. Rob suspects that many homemade DLMs are now on the air in Europe and on our US west coast, judging from the e mail traffic he has received. Nice work, Rob!" Taken from he http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/print.php?storyid=14 Should be a good indication of the power the naysayers here have to dis-inform and promote their own personal views. Close attention should be made to the names and calls involved, and especially in further use of this newsgroup. Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Jun 17, 11:07 pm, art wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - BIG DEAL, I can stick up a 6ft radiator over a good ground sytem like the one in the article add the appropriate inductance and capacitance to make it resonant ant match it to the feed and most people will be impressed by how well it works. Take that same antenna ,stick it in my back yard using the best ground system as will be practical there whith a feedline that is also practical with my backyard installation and that antenna is going to suck bilge water. The fact is if you have the real estate and the financial means for the kind og ground system you need to make a short antenna work as well as the claims made in the article you might as weel go ahead and erect a full size antenna. Jimmie |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:04:18 -0700, JIMMIE
wrote: BIG DEAL, I can stick up a 6ft radiator over a good ground sytem like the one in the article add the appropriate inductance and capacitance to make it resonant ant match it to the feed and most people will be impressed by how well it works. Take that same antenna ,stick it in my back yard using the best ground system as will be practical there whith a feedline that is also practical with my backyard installation and that antenna is going to suck bilge water. The fact is if you have the real estate and the financial means for the kind og ground system you need to make a short antenna work as well as the claims made in the article you might as weel go ahead and erect a full size antenna. Jimmie Why erect a full sized 160 meter vertical IF a 40 foot vertical can do as well? -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:49:42 -0700, John Smith I
wrote: John Smith I wrote: Actually, old news from 3 years ago ... http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147 JS This: "It would seem that despite the naysayers, the DLM antenna does work and quite well at that. Rob suspects that many homemade DLMs are now on the air in Europe and on our US west coast, judging from the e mail traffic he has received. Nice work, Rob!" Taken from he http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/print.php?storyid=14 Should be a good indication of the power the naysayers here have to dis-inform and promote their own personal views. Close attention should be made to the names and calls involved, and especially in further use of this newsgroup. Regards, JS Where are instructions on building them? -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Buck wrote:
... Where are instructions on building them? Buck: You just have to go on the scanty details presented in the news releases, I can't even find a picture of the darn thing. However, I threw together a 1/2 wave - 6.5 ft. (includes 12 inch adjustable whip and disc top hat at base of whip.) "Plano Helix Coil" constructed by drilling two sets of holes on opposing sides of 1.125 pvc pipe, wire is then "laced" through these holes - forming a series of "hair pin loops" running the length of the pvc pipe. This gives an apparent equal radiated power on a sensitive homebrew FSM located ~3 wavelengths away as compared to a 1/4 wave 102 inch whip w/loading coil on 10 meters, both mounted as mobile antennas on the auto. I have no idea how close the design of this antenna matches Mr. Vincents design ... The antenna is worth playing with, definitely! I too would like more details on Mr. Vincents designs ... Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:32:40 -0400, Buck
wrote: Why erect a full sized 160 meter vertical IF a 40 foot vertical can do as well? Why indeed if you live in a sal****er marsh. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Jun 17, 8:34 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 I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:38:34 -0700, JIMMIE
wrote: If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Hi Jimmie, I've read the reports. The "inventor" wrote his paper with about as much class as an 5th grade science report. It was a hodge-podge of statements and intellectual clutter reminiscent of Arthur's writing. The technical report merely confirms the performance being no better than any small antenna. In other words, no surprise, and certainly no advancement over, say, any of dozen variations of the common screwdriver antenna of the same size. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
JIMMIE wrote:
I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search (harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers the same general application, there's a high probability that your patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution. The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that uncertainty has definite business value. The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts; and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again, vagueness works to your advantage here. Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Buck" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 05:04:18 -0700, JIMMIE wrote: BIG DEAL, I can stick up a 6ft radiator over a good ground sytem like the one in the article add the appropriate inductance and capacitance to make it resonant ant match it to the feed and most people will be impressed by how well it works. Take that same antenna ,stick it in my back yard using the best ground system as will be practical there whith a feedline that is also practical with my backyard installation and that antenna is going to suck bilge water. The fact is if you have the real estate and the financial means for the kind og ground system you need to make a short antenna work as well as the claims made in the article you might as weel go ahead and erect a full size antenna. Jimmie Why erect a full sized 160 meter vertical IF a 40 foot vertical can do as well? -- 73 for now Buck, N4PGW www.lumpuckeroo.com "Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two." If I had the real estate and the ground sytem I would probably erect a 1/2 wl or a 5/8. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Jim Lux" wrote in message ... JIMMIE wrote: I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search (harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers the same general application, there's a high probability that your patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution. The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that uncertainty has definite business value. The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts; and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again, vagueness works to your advantage here. Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. Dont think I metioned patents at any time. On the other hand if you want someone to buy your new miracle whiz bang antenna you either let people know how great it is with data from a reliable source or you omit your data giving vague discriptions to pull in the suckers. I dont think an affidavit from the testing facility on measured field strength compared to a full size antenna who have endangered his product. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
John Smith I wrote:
[stuff] This: "Our Technical Coordinator, Rob, K1DFT was guest presenter at the April 5th meeting of the Dallas (Texas) Amateur Radio Club. He thrilled a packed house with a multimedia presentation concerning his invention, the Distributed Loaded Monopole or DLM. Rob telephoned me after the event in addition to one of my Dallas friends who was in the audience to tell me how well the presentation was received. Congratulations Rob!! The Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) antenna testing range performed a full day of tests on a great many different versions of the DLM just the week before he left for Texas and validated every one of the DLM’s performance claims. That should quiet the nay sayers out there who wanted proof of the antenna’s efficiency and bandwidth." From he http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/a...php?storyid=12 JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
John Smith I wrote:
[stuff] This page: http://lists.contesting.com/_towerta.../msg00225.html shows someone is "listening", however, somehow he missed the "plano-helical coil", where each hairpin "turn" is serving as a small capacitance ... Also, the "plano-spiral top hat" seems to have been missed, essentially, I picture a concentric wound "flat" coil which also seems to present itself to being available to the "capacitive loading" effect. I have simply taken a flat sheet of 1/16 aluminum and cut a continuous spiral to create one to experiment with ... Geesh, I would trade a few hours work for just a good pic of this antenna, or at least a better description! Save a LOT of experimental work on this end ... And, then, there is that nagging mention about some sort of loading device in the center ... oh well, where is that hacksaw? JS |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote: [stuff] This: "Our Technical Coordinator, Rob, K1DFT was guest presenter at the April 5th meeting of the Dallas (Texas) Amateur Radio Club. He thrilled a packed house with a multimedia presentation concerning his invention, the Distributed Loaded Monopole or DLM. Rob telephoned me after the event in addition to one of my Dallas friends who was in the audience to tell me how well the presentation was received. Congratulations Rob!! The Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) antenna testing range performed a full day of tests on a great many different versions of the DLM just the week before he left for Texas and validated every one of the DLM’s performance claims. That should quiet the nay sayers out there who wanted proof of the antenna’s efficiency and bandwidth." If the NUWC range is like most other ranges, it's a facility that is essentially for rent to anybody who wants to use it. The range provides the site, the equipment, and the technicians. You tell them what tests you want to run, operate your equipment if needed, and they make the measurements and give you the data. As a rule, they'd make no substantive evaluation of the worth of anything tested there. You could hire them to make measurements on a 100ft spool of 20year old zipcord sitting on a folding chair, and they'd happily fire up the signal generator, measure the field strength, etc. It's not even all that expensive.. It could be something like $1000 to do a day's testing, and in comparison to what URI has already paid for their patent applications and K1DFT's salary, that's not a big deal. It might even be cheaper, since there's a variety of programs for government facilities to provide services and such to universities. If the range wasn't otherwise being used, all the equipment and staff is sitting around anyway, so the differential cost to run the tests is small. In other words, to say that "the range performed tests and validated claims" is probably not technically true. The range performed the tests, and presumably provided a report of the data they collected. The validation of claims is up to the person who writes the analytical report who takes the test data (presumably with it's measurement uncertainties identified) and shows that test data matches expected values within experimental error. From he http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/a...php?storyid=12 JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Jimmie D wrote:
"Jim Lux" wrote in message ... JIMMIE wrote: I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title Dont think I metioned patents at any time. True enough.. However, URI has filed for patents on this antenna. And, there's lots of ways an inventor can use their invention for financial gain, only some of which involve convincing folks that it's a good invention. On the other hand if you want someone to buy your new miracle whiz bang antenna you either let people know how great it is with data from a reliable source or you omit your data giving vague discriptions to pull in the suckers. Perhaps the goal isn't to sell antennas in this case? Maybe it's to burnish the reputation of a university? Maybe it's to establish a patent portfolio in the burgeoning world of wireless communications, and just hope somebody else with deep pockets (e.g. a cellphone mfr) comes up with a practical idea that's close enough to what you patented. I dont think an affidavit from the testing facility on measured field strength compared to a full size antenna who have endangered his product. The test facility would normally provide a copy of the data to whoever paid for the tests. The data package would include appropriate certifications that the equipment was calibrated and to what standards. It would also usually have a description of the test procedure used, either explicitly, or by reference to some standard published procedure. It's the buyer of the data that has the responsibility to make the claims and comparisons. (or not... I've been involved in some measurement campaigns where the data wasn't disclosed, for competitive reasons.) In any event, the independent test facility would almost never make any sort of "summarizing conclusions", except, perhaps for a regulatory compliance test, where they'd say: The tested device (S/N #001) met all requirements for XYZ, as demonstrated by the attached test data and procedures. Note well the reference to a single test article. All the lab can say is that "the thing we tested did this".. they won't (and can't) make any assertions about the design or whether other articles of the same design will perform the same, etc. |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote: [stuff] http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.html JS Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics, details, and description: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ... JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 20 Jun, 13:02, Jim Lux wrote:
JIMMIE wrote: I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was intentionally left out . Deception by ommission. If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made then he should provide all information to clarify the issue. Jimmie Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search (harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers the same general application, there's a high probability that your patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution. The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that uncertainty has definite business value. The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts; and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again, vagueness works to your advantage here. Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. Glad you wrote that Jim. A lot of people have no real idea of how the patent idea is used in commerce or that the claims are the most important part so at to protect in the event of new advances in science.When competing for contracts it is important to protect your designs even tho trivial incase the contract is put out again. I do have a question tho and that is with respect to trade secrets/utility patents. If a person decides not to patent and the idea is later deciphered does that prevent a patent issued to either party? With respect to submarines I thought the last changes to patent law now prevents this. Another posting stated that it is for the courts to determine if a patent was authentic yet I read that the courts have now stated that they are not in the game of overuling the patent office any more. Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Jim Lux wrote:
[stuff] I see! So now, old Rob-boy has not only whamboozled a whole bunch of Phd's and physics personnel at URI, he how as a "bunch" of hams from arrlri.org to carve notches on his pistol grips for ... interesting, the only hams able to see though his sham are here ... or else, the reverse is true! As my buddy Arnie would say, "Enteresting, veeerrry enteresting ... " JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Jim Lux wrote:
[stuff] A thought came to me when this all set the naysayers off, "Don't wait for him/URI to come courting amateurs and attempting to sell 'em antennas." The amount of profit to be had might not cover his dinner and drinks ... I'd imagine we need to search cell phones, wireless routers/switches/etc., military, cell towers, gov't, etc. to find the antennas--where profits are to be had ... JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
Submarine patents have gone away with a change in the maximum duration of a
patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue). Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing. Can not hide. 73, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: "Jim Lux" wrote in message Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 20 Jun, 16:32, John Smith I wrote:
Jim Lux wrote: [stuff] I see! So now, old Rob-boy has not only whamboozled a whole bunch of Phd's and physics personnel at URI, he how as a "bunch" of hams from arrlri.org to carve notches on his pistol grips for ... interesting, the only hams able to see though his sham are here ... or else, the reverse is true! As my buddy Arnie would say, "Enteresting, veeerrry enteresting ... " JS I see that Chip of Fractenna stated that he no longer had any "scientific interest" in the antenna after talking at length with the inventor. Chip is open minded so I am inclined to believe that it does not increase the state of the art with respect to antennas. The point is well taken that antennas can achieve great heights of achievements with respect to radiation but it is quite rare to achieve ALL desirables at the same time. I believe the ARRL optimised antenna that I compared my antenna with is a typical example of this and emphasises where my antenna shined. As far as antennas for amateur radio I really don't think there is a market for antennas other than the IR antenna I went to a couple of ham fests last year and they closed early because of the lack of buyers. I suppose ham radio reflects the veterans of WW2 where many of those who were doers are gradually dying off leaving former CBers in the majority. Regards Art Regards Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
[stuff] Obviously, all he might have done is found a way to use existing methods, techniques and knowledge to be able to change the loading and radiation characteristics ... However, that might just be enough to be usable. I have needed a stealth antenna more times than I could shake a stick at. And, smaller mobile antennas with improved characteristics are always desirable ... It is easier to bend laws than to break 'em ... JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
I really don't think there is a market for antennas other than the IR antenna I went to a couple of ham fests last year and they closed early because of the lack of buyers. Most Hamfests these days start too early and end too early. That has been a trend for several years now. It's short sighted though. If I want to go to say the Butler or Timonium Hamfests, both around 2.5 hours from Happy Valley, I have to get up at around 3 a.m. so I can be there when they open. Now it's getting to the point that unless you're a local, going to a Hamfest can be a great way to wreck your weekend. Sheer timing is the big problem IMO. Not Ebay or the actuarial tables. I suppose ham radio reflects the veterans of WW2 where many of those who were doers are gradually dying off leaving former CBers in the majority. I suppose that some of the Amateurs in that age group may believe such a thing. I kind of doubt it is the actual case though. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Michael Coslo wrote:
.... Most Hamfests these days start too early and end too early. That has been a trend for several years now. It's short sighted though. If I want to go to say the Butler or Timonium Hamfests, both around 2.5 hours from Happy Valley, I have to get up at around 3 a.m. so I can be there when they open. Now it's getting to the point that unless you're a local, going to a Hamfest can be a great way to wreck your weekend. Sheer timing is the big problem IMO. Not Ebay or the actuarial tables. I have to agree. I'm 4-6 hours from just about any hamfest I'd want to attend so I have to leave around midnight or get a hotel room. Not being in my 20's anymore it's a hotel room and that adds quite a bit of overhead to what would be low hamfest prices, and faced with that I usually put a search on ebay and wait for the email. If they started at noon or even 10:00 it would be a whole different story, I'd much prefer to buy at fests simply for the eyeball contacts. - Galen, W8LNA |
Patent realities was Guy from university physics dept.
art wrote:
On 20 Jun, 13:02, Jim Lux wrote: Glad you wrote that Jim. A lot of people have no real idea of how the patent idea is used in commerce or that the claims are the most important part so at to protect in the event of new advances in science.When competing for contracts it is important to protect your designs even tho trivial incase the contract is put out again. I do have a question tho and that is with respect to trade secrets/utility patents. If a person decides not to patent and the idea is later deciphered does that prevent a patent issued to either party? Nope.. he who discovers first gets the potential ability to patent, regardless of what you've done in the past. "first to discover vs first to disclose". (US vs EU) If you've disclosed it, you have a year to get the app filed (in the US.. everywhere else, you have to file before first public disclosure) "disclosure" is kind of a tricky thing too. That's why that evidence of date of invention (the classic bound notebook with the signature on the page of someone who "read and understood") is handy. That establishes "priority" From a strategic point, it used to be (before the started publishing apps) that you'd have a trade secret AND file an application. You'd mark your thing "Patent Pending". You'd make little changes (possibly in response to an examiner's questions, or possibly as a "Continuation in Part" CIP) in the application to extend the time before the patent gets granted and published. If someone looked like they had independently discovered what your secret is (or they acquired it by espionage), you'd let the application start running, and then you'd go to the competitor and say, "Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it. When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business. Feel Lucky?" Then, negotiations for a license ensue. This is all changing though, so don't take what I write as gospel. With respect to submarines I thought the last changes to patent law now prevents this. Another posting stated that it is for the courts to determine if a patent was authentic yet I read that the courts have now stated that they are not in the game of overuling the patent office any more. There is that, too... However, you still have to go to court to enforce your patent. The alleged infringer has to say why your patent is invalid or why they don't infringe. This isn't cheap. If the infringer is an off-shore mfr, then you might get a customs order to stop importation, but that's like playing whack-a-mole, because each and every container load will likely be from a (ostensibly)different infringer. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Submarine patents have gone away with a change in the maximum duration of a patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue). Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing. Can not hide. 73, Mac N8TT Gone mostly away, I'd say... There is an "art" in the writing of disclosures and claims that cause the patent to not look applicable. I knew someone who patented everything using the word "Catalyst" in the title, etc. There are thousands and thousands of catalyst patents issued all the time, so yours would be lost in the morass, and nobody has the time to read ALL the patents. Modern search engines help a lot to fight this. There's also the fact that standards bodies are much better about making participants in a standards setting process disclose their "patents in waiting" so you don't get submarined by adopting a standard, only to find the next year that it requires a license from some patent holder. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
gwatts wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: ... Most Hamfests these days start too early and end too early. That has been a trend for several years now. It's short sighted though. If I want to go to say the Butler or Timonium Hamfests, both around 2.5 hours from Happy Valley, I have to get up at around 3 a.m. so I can be there when they open. Now it's getting to the point that unless you're a local, going to a Hamfest can be a great way to wreck your weekend. Sheer timing is the big problem IMO. Not Ebay or the actuarial tables. I have to agree. I'm 4-6 hours from just about any hamfest I'd want to attend so I have to leave around midnight or get a hotel room. Not being in my 20's anymore it's a hotel room and that adds quite a bit of overhead to what would be low hamfest prices, and faced with that I usually put a search on ebay and wait for the email. If they started at noon or even 10:00 it would be a whole different story, I'd much prefer to buy at fests simply for the eyeball contacts. I really enjoy the hamfest at Dayton, where they start at 0800, and sell all day. I think how this got started was that the sellers agitated for earlier starts, and earlier begat earlier, until we ended up with what we have now. One of our semi local fests starts at 0700 and is over at noon. Obviously not going to get the church crowd either.. 8^) So I guess they got everything they wanted - and lost a lot of the customers in the deal. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
In message , Michael Coslo
writes gwatts wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: ... Most Hamfests these days start too early and end too early. That has been a trend for several years now. It's short sighted though. If I want to go to say the Butler or Timonium Hamfests, both around 2.5 hours from Happy Valley, I have to get up at around 3 a.m. so I can be there when they open. Now it's getting to the point that unless you're a local, going to a Hamfest can be a great way to wreck your weekend. Sheer timing is the big problem IMO. Not Ebay or the actuarial tables. I have to agree. I'm 4-6 hours from just about any hamfest I'd want to attend so I have to leave around midnight or get a hotel room. Not being in my 20's anymore it's a hotel room and that adds quite a bit of overhead to what would be low hamfest prices, and faced with that I usually put a search on ebay and wait for the email. If they started at noon or even 10:00 it would be a whole different story, I'd much prefer to buy at fests simply for the eyeball contacts. I really enjoy the hamfest at Dayton, where they start at 0800, and sell all day. I think how this got started was that the sellers agitated for earlier starts, and earlier begat earlier, until we ended up with what we have now. One of our semi local fests starts at 0700 and is over at noon. Obviously not going to get the church crowd either.. 8^) So I guess they got everything they wanted - and lost a lot of the customers in the deal. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - In the UK, amateur 'hamfests' and 'tailgate sales' used to be a fairly leisurely affair, starting at a round 11am, and go on until 5 or even 6pm, allowing lots of time to wander around, meet your long-lost friends etc (ie a 'good day out'). These days, opening time is often as early as 9am, with some dealers starting to pack up around noon. Ordinary tailgate sales sometimes do start at early as 7am. Things ain't what they used to be. Ian. -- |
Patent realities was Guy from university physics dept.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:13 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote: "Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it. When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business. Feel Lucky?" In fact, the manufacturer is completely lucky. Their product line can continue forever based on the design preceeding publication - even if the design and the publication are the same. They just can't change it. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Patent realities was Guy from university physics dept.
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:13 -0700, Jim Lux wrote: "Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it. When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business. Feel Lucky?" In fact, the manufacturer is completely lucky. Their product line can continue forever based on the design preceeding publication - even if the design and the publication are the same. They just can't change it. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC It's the second mfr that's got the decision to make, and decide if they're lucky. Here's the speculative scenario: 1) Mfr A invents something, files ap, keeps it secret 2) Mfr B invents same thing, but later 3) Mfr B starts making the thing 4) Mfr A gets their patent 5) Mfr B is instantly infringing, and can't continue mfr, distribution, sale, etc., without a license from A. If B knows that A has filed a patent in an area of B's interest (potentially indicated by mfr A selling a product labelled Pat.Pend.), they've got a real gamble when they invest in step #3. B can negotiate in advance of patent issuance before step #4 OR B can tell A to go away, gambling that a)they won't infringe the unknown patent when it does issue or b)that the patent won't issue or c) A won't have the resources to take B on for infringement. OR B can wait for the patent to issue, then negotiate with A for a license. The last strategy is particularly effective if, meanwhile B has filed for or patented something that happens to be infringed by A's existing mfr operation. They can cross license their patents. (happens all the time in the semiconductor business) |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
John Smith I wrote:
... Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics, details, and description: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ... JS These images: http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...ottomhelix.jpg http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...ading_Coil.jpg http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/both.jpg Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc. A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire. 1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09 2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45 3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19 4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free materials $12.73 tax $1.18 ---------------- total $13.75 Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick and dirty to construct! Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote: ... Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics, details, and description: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ... JS These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...s.com/both.jpg Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc. A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire. 1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09 2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45 3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19 4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free materials $12.73 tax $1.18 ---------------- total $13.75 Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick and dirty to construct! Regards, JS Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed Regards Art |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:04 -0700, art wrote:
On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote: John Smith I wrote: ... Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics, details, and description: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ... JS These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...s.com/both.jpg Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc. A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire. 1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09 2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45 3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19 4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free materials $12.73 tax $1.18 ---------------- total $13.75 Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick and dirty to construct! Regards, JS Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed Regards Art Truth is often stranger than fiction, but patents have the monopoly on the absurd. Taken from top of Page 2 "Other publications" T. Simpson, "The Dick Loaded Monopole Antenna," IEEE Transactions of Antennas and Propagation, vol. 52, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 542-545. Hardly worth going any further into the mysteries of this invention. Dipole envy? :-0 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
On Jun 21, 9:36 pm, John Smith I wrote:
Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick and dirty to construct! Regards, JS Hummm, I would use a slightly wider spacing with the loading coil wires.. Too tightly wound.. I assume the wire is enameled... The problem with this, is your lower coil is the same diameter as the center load. But, your lower coil is actually the more efficient of two, being it's wider spaced. You are stunting your upper coil with too close together windings. I actually believe the current distribution would be slightly better with all center loading, than with the mix of two coils, one being basically a base load. I would also clip those "mast" wires where they don't run along side of that coil. Thats not good. Like I say, I've already tried all this with helical glass whips combined with larger hi-Q coils. I don't use it anymore. Now all my loading is one center loading coil. I once combined the glass stick helical windings with the larger lumped coil. But came to the conclusion it was a bad idea because the narrow helical windings on mine were more lossy than the larger coil. But on yours, all windings are the same size dia.. So it really doesn't matter, except as far as current distribution. My gut instinct is that you would force more current up the mast , using only the upper center loading coil. This is what you should test. Use equal whip and stinger sizes, and compare the "split loading", with a loosely wound all center coil. Not tight wound like you have. Have about at least a wires width of space between the windings. If the all center loaded antenna didn't win, I'd be kinda surprised. The way I see it, if you share loading locations, the current distribution will also share the two locations.. IE: you should have more current lower on the mast with the split coils, than with only a center coil. To me, this should offset any advantage of less total turns being needed, from using partly a base load. All center loading should need a few extra turns to tune vs the split setup I would think, but it's not enough to hurt you much. MK |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
|
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
On Jun 21, 10:26 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:04 -0700, art wrote: On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote: John Smith I wrote: ... Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics, details, and description: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ... JS These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...jpghttp://asse... Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc. A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire. 1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09 2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45 3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19 4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free materials $12.73 tax $1.18 ---------------- total $13.75 Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick and dirty to construct! Regards, JS Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed Regards Art Truth is often stranger than fiction, but patents have the monopoly on the absurd. funny no one really reads these patnets do they? Not evne the author. Taken from top of Page 2 "Other publications" T. Simpson, "The Dick Loaded Monopole Antenna," IEEE Transactions of Antennas and Propagation, vol. 52, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 542-545. Hardly worth going any further into the mysteries of this invention. Dipole envy? :-0 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
On Jun 22, 6:54 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote: ... Hummm, I would use a slightly wider spacing with the loading coil wires ... The coils used were used only as a visual aid. That part is left up to the individual experimenter ... no attempt was made to do the actual experiments for the reader ... I've already done the experiments.. Going on nearly 20 years ago.. I'm just telling what I see in the pix.. However, if you read Mr. Vincents data, this coil is "closely wound." Well, if that is what he is doing, that is fine. I wouldn't though.. Just another glaring problem I see.. And, I documented the construction of the jig itself, not the individual components to be used. The importance here is how quickly components can be swapped in and out ... Yea, looks like you can do that quick enough.. Low Q might be very desirable to someone valuing bandwidth over other aspects ... not only out of the box thinking is necessary, out-of-the-box-experimenting is accepted here ... Low Q is not desirable with what should be a Hi-Q loading coil... :/ Well, unless you want to lose efficiency.. I don't worry about bandwidth. I'll retune the coil, stinger, whatever if I need to QSY.. Like I say, I've already been through all of this in nearly 20 years of building my own mobile antennas.. I really doubt you are going to find anything that surprises me here. I've built nearly every perversion of a short whip you can think of. But I think it's good that you are testing the idea.. I wish some of the "inventers" would follow your lead.. MK |
Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
writes:
On Jun 21, 10:26 pm, Richard Clark wrote: no one really reads these patnets do they? Not evne the author. Taken from top of Page 2 "Other publications" T. Simpson, "The Dick Loaded Monopole Antenna," IEEE Transactions of Antennas and Propagation, vol. 52, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 542-545. Hardly worth going any further into the mysteries of this invention. Dipole envy? :-0 Abstract: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...8/01282130.pdf It's "Disk loaded monopole" 73 LA4RT Jon |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com