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

John Smith I wrote:


It is difficult to find real detail on this antenna! Makes 'ya wonder,
don't it?


One of the most impressive and strange things about these latter days
is that we have a lot of people who are amazingly skeptical about
science which has a pretty good system to avoid quackery , and yet are
willing to extend credulity to amazing claims.


I wonder if Mythbusters would be willing to take this antenna on? I
volunteer to explain the whole thing to Kari.... ;^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 17, 8:51 pm, John Smith I wrote:
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:

Doesn't impress me much, and it's not really new either.
I did that 12-15 years ago on my first mobile antenna..
"combining a helical mast with lumped loading coils."
Big deal...
Myself, I think he would be better off to dump the helical
windings, and just use all lumped loading..
A large high Q lumped coil will generally have less total
loss than using any narrower dia helical winding along
with a lumped coil.
I did away with the helical windings on mine. And I
still have good current distribution.
And slightly less loss.


1) "The technology is completely scalable:

What isn't ?

"
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.

Who says other designs have lossy matching networks?
Mine don't.. He calls that an advanced antenna design? Hummm...
I'll reserve comment...


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."

This is even worse... That statement is just total BS...


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 ...

Wow, that's really advanced.. I wish I could think to try that... :/

It is difficult to find real detail on this antenna! Makes 'ya wonder,
don't it?

JS

Not really.. The antenna is ok I guess, nothing really horrible about
it, but I don't see anything new. In fact, some of his statements are
sort of silly.. IE:
"For instance, in a normal quarter-wave antenna the current
continually drops off in a sinusoidal shape, but these antennas
don't do that," said Vincent. "The current at the top of the antenna
is 80 percent of the current at the base."

Wow..I suppose he thinks his antenna will outdo a full quarter wave
then I guess.. Good luck in the contest is all I can say...

Then you have this jibber jabber..
"Using a DLM antenna one-third to one-ninth the size of standard
quarter-wave antenna, he measured nearly 80 percent efficiency,
when conventional wisdom would dictate that an antenna the size
of a DLM should be only 8 to 15 percent efficient."

Look how vague it is.. Can't even get the size of his antenna right..
So how can we decide what to compare it to?
Also he makes no mention of ground quality, radials, etc..
It's easy to sound "advanced" when you don't give enough info
for anyone to prove you wrong...
Anyway... ho hummmm.... As you can tell, I'm really excited
about this new fangled technology.
MK

wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:51 pm, John Smith I wrote:

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:


Doesn't impress me much, and it's not really new either.
I did that 12-15 years ago on my first mobile antenna..
"combining a helical mast with lumped loading coils."
Big deal...
Myself, I think he would be better off to dump the helical
windings, and just use all lumped loading..
A large high Q lumped coil will generally have less total
loss than using any narrower dia helical winding along
with a lumped coil.
I did away with the helical windings on mine. And I
still have good current distribution.
And slightly less loss.


But then you would have something that is prior art.

Sometimes, all you want is a novel implementation of a standard thing,
so that you can patent it. For instance, say a helically loaded whip is
a readily known thing that's been around for years. You can't patent
that. But maybe you could get a (very narrow) patent for a helical
loading where the turn spacing follows some mathematical formula, and
you make some assertions that this spacing is special. Maybe it's
sinusoidal, and the resulting impedance curve has bumps in some places
that are "useful" in some application.

Now, you can go out and patent this literally one of a kind antenna.

You can market yourself as having "patented an antenna". The PR
department of your company can say "our patented antenna designs.."

and then you can go out and make regular old loaded whips with bulk
inductance...


"
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.


Who says other designs have lossy matching networks?
Mine don't.. He calls that an advanced antenna design? Hummm...
I'll reserve comment...

That's a standard part of every patent application. You have to "knock
the prior art" and say why your invention is an improvement. You'll see
statements like:

As Smith taught in patent 1,234,567, matching networks can be used to
provide the desirable 50 ohm termination impedance. However, lumped
components of sizes suitable for the applications we consider have
losses that are excessive.

[Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

[Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's]

Here's another "different" antenna:

To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector
element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along
the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director
elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom
on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver
element.

This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Lux writes:

wrote:
I did away with the helical windings on mine. And I
still have good current distribution.
And slightly less loss.


But then you would have something that is prior art.

It isn't prior art just because you did it.
It isn't even prior art if you can prove you did it.
It is only prior art if you published it. Or you can prove in some
other way that the idea was well known among those skilled in the art,
or obvious to them.

73
Jon

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
:


"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. :-)

The other day, just for fun, I modelled a shortened 80m dipole hung from
a 100-foot high supporting rope. The dipole was 35 feet long and had two
loading coils about 4 feet from each end. I fed it at the bottom end.

The thing would be fairly narrow and would require an autotransformer or
tuned match at the base (or a quarter wave open stub) but the PATTERN was
very nice, indeed. With all that current up that high, it's nice and
flat and low to the ground. Gain isn't spectacular, though, only about
1.5dbi. But phase 4 of them and you're up there with the big guns,
though probably only for about 10-20khz of the band.

And, on receive, it's a horizon-scraper. You'd hear stuff you didn't
even know was there before. Whether you can outshout THEIR local noise
and QRM is a different question, of course!



--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

On 17 Jun, 16:13, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"John Smith I" wrote in ...

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

Mike
The antenna is based on confirmed scientific findings of the masters
and can be proved mathematically as one would expect from such an
antenna.
It is true that what happens to radiation when it is formed is
important
but what is more important is to understand radiation in its formative
stage.
When this is understood then miniturisation comes to the fore that
may
well be more important than the TOA but then even this antenna can be
raised in height. There is a lesson to be learned here. The Yagi was
invented by the Japanese in the early 1920 where America embraced the
invention
and where Japan did not. That same invention proved to be one of
Japans
undoing as they never caught on to the importance possibly by
beurocracy.
This new antenna has been pushed aside by America where I am positive
other Countries are moving fast ahead and now have 3 years lead to
play with.
It is America this time that is complacent. The antenna is there,
the mathematics is there and Maxwells laws are still there, all of
which conform with each other both with this antenna and my Gaussian
antenna but who cares.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 17 Jun, 16:13, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"John Smith I" wrote in
...

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

Mike
The antenna is based on confirmed scientific findings of the masters
and can be proved mathematically as one would expect from such an
antenna.
It is true that what happens to radiation when it is formed is
important
but what is more important is to understand radiation in its formative
stage.
When this is understood then miniturisation comes to the fore that
may
well be more important than the TOA but then even this antenna can be
raised in height. There is a lesson to be learned here. The Yagi was
invented by the Japanese in the early 1920 where America embraced the
invention
and where Japan did not. That same invention proved to be one of
Japans
undoing as they never caught on to the importance possibly by
beurocracy.
This new antenna has been pushed aside by America where I am positive
other Countries are moving fast ahead and now have 3 years lead to
play with.
It is America this time that is complacent. The antenna is there,
the mathematics is there and Maxwells laws are still there, all of
which conform with each other both with this antenna and my Gaussian
antenna but who cares.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG

Art

There is a place for miniaturised antennas, particularly for military
applications where size and weight of the antenna outweigh other
considerations which are important to commercial and amateur users e.g
bandwidth and efficiency.

The yagi has great front to back ratios and makes for a great if slightly
narrow band antenna for UHF TV reception here in the UK. These antennas are
generally sold tuned to cover the local TV frequency channels rather than
the whole of the UHF TV band. A lot of people will need to buy new antennas
when the switch over to digital TV broadcasting takes place as the digital
channels have been arranged to be at the opposite ends of the band to
analogue TV in most areas.

The yagi was probably the first antenna that did not conform to antenna
theory as it was understood at the time it was developed. Small loops and
E-H antennas also appear to defy logic at first glance but careful analysis
of their performance has revealed how they work with higher efficiencies
than previously believed possible.

Unfortunately for some, there is no magic or defiance of the accepted laws
of physics involved in the way they work.

There are still areas which provide fertile areas for experimentation,
particularly at the extremes of the radio frequency spectrum.

Regards

Mike

On 3 Jul, 10:17, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com... On 17 Jun, 16:13, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"John Smith I" wrote in

...





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

Mike
The antenna is based on confirmed scientific findings of the masters
and can be proved mathematically as one would expect from such an
antenna.
It is true that what happens to radiation when it is formed is
important
but what is more important is to understand radiation in its formative
stage.
When this is understood then miniturisation comes to the fore that
may
well be more important than the TOA but then even this antenna can be
raised in height. There is a lesson to be learned here. The Yagi was
invented by the Japanese in the early 1920 where America embraced the
invention
and where Japan did not. That same invention proved to be one of
Japans
undoing as they never caught on to the importance possibly by
beurocracy.
This new antenna has been pushed aside by America where I am positive
other Countries are moving fast ahead and now have 3 years lead to
play with.
It is America this time that is complacent. The antenna is there,
the mathematics is there and Maxwells laws are still there, all of
which conform with each other both with this antenna and my Gaussian
antenna but who cares.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......XG

Art

There is a place for miniaturised antennas, particularly for military
applications where size and weight of the antenna outweigh other
considerations which are important to commercial and amateur users e.g
bandwidth and efficiency.

The yagi has great front to back ratios and makes for a great if slightly
narrow band antenna for UHF TV reception here in the UK. These antennas are
generally sold tuned to cover the local TV frequency channels rather than
the whole of the UHF TV band. A lot of people will need to buy new antennas
when the switch over to digital TV broadcasting takes place as the digital
channels have been arranged to be at the opposite ends of the band to
analogue TV in most areas.

The yagi was probably the first antenna that did not conform to antenna
theory as it was understood at the time it was developed. Small loops and
E-H antennas also appear to defy logic at first glance but careful analysis
of their performance has revealed how they work with higher efficiencies
than previously believed possible.

Unfortunately for some, there is no magic or defiance of the accepted laws
of physics involved in the way they work.

There are still areas which provide fertile areas for experimentation,
particularly at the extremes of the radio frequency spectrum.

Regards

Mike- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting that you mentioned efficiency. Radiation in itself is very
efficient
i.e. in the 98% region It is how we use it is where the efficiency
goes down.
But if initial efficiency starts of with 98% and with a superconductor
we
gain two percent it becomes very obvious that loss of efficiency even
if
large is minor when compared to the reduction in size. As far as
narrow bandedness is concerned of the yagi this has little to do with
efficiency
but with what we do with the radiation which by coupling as a method
of
focussing to get a major lobe. True this is an advantage to some but
the
penalty is narrow banded because of compromises that are forced upon
one where
the desirables do not appear in sync with each other. So yes a very
small
antenna may be less efficient but how much does that loss in
efficiency
match up to the advantage in size and where the final shape provides
desirables that are in sync with each other. Amateurs have long
thought that
bigger is better and if it doesn't fall down then it is not big
enough!
All of which is not based on radiation itself but on the basis of
Yagi
technique on how we use that radiation. Times have changed from the
old
days where gain was everything. Miniturization has become so important
as well as equal surrounding coverage that the cell phone has become
an instantaneous replacement for long distance transmission in the
commercial world. As I read in this latest quarterly magazine for the
antenna trade
the biggest hold up today in communications is to design drivers with
low impedance levels such as 5 ohms where this in fact misuses modern
day science.
We now can obtain miniturised design with minimul reduction of
bandwidth and minimul
loss of comparitive efficiency where higher impedance feed is so more
electrically efficient
that it makes low impedance a lost cause. I am quite sure that other
countries are not discarding such logic and thus taking advantage of
the intervening years
for advances in the military field where secrecy can be adhered to.
Well at least for a while.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG