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

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'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

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

"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 -

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.

art wrote:

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.

not at all.. The PTO's current strategy is to grant the patent unless
obviously defective, and let potential infringers down the road spend
the time to break the patent.

The examiners are fairly knowledgeable in their areas, but they also
depend on what's in the application to describe why it's novel and
doesn't merely duplicate prior art.

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.

One almost never puts test results in a patent application. Why would
you..an invention doesn't have to actually work, today, it just has to
be described appropriately, and have appropriate claims. There are lots
of perfectly valid patents out there that have no test data: Feynman's
patents on nuclear powered airplanes would be one.

The "reduction to practice" requirement is met by "describing with
sufficient detail that someone ordinarily skilled in the art can
implement the invention". It's been over 100 years since the PTO
required working models or test data.

The only case where the PTO would actually have to have a working model
demonstrated would be for a perpetual motion machine (and one other,
which escapes me at the moment).



Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program
which the range test confirmed after the fact.


And this is true for most antennas these days... Simple antennas have
been around a while and wouldn't be likely to be patented. A complex
antenna which might be patentable is probably tricky enough to build
that one would want to model it first, before "cutting metal".

And, any decent modeling code(s) will have extensive validation against
range tests, so it's not much of a surprise when the antenna works as
modeled. The surprises come from aspects that weren't modeled.

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

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.

..

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