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.