On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux wrote:
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.

Let us have a fresh look at the emergence of this new antenna
where amateurs confess that they do not know all the details
but it MUST be a fake, but for why they cannot explain.
The Naval antenna testing facility tested the antenna as they do
with all military antennas. The test figures are published on the web
( put the antenna initials in Google) The computor program was home
brewed
and verified later by the IEEE, again see report on google. )
The test performed by the Navy also confirmed this home brewed report
before the IEEE reviewed it after the fact
Now I am in no way saying it has merit tho the methods used to check
his claimes appear to have validity. Remember that I have provided
a new antenna on this newsgroup. The mathematics were supported
independendly
and STANDARD computor programs confirm it but again amateurs
cannot find themselves able to accept anything new. Look at Cecil's
page where he has a Zepp dipole for all frequencies using stubs,
do you think they believe Cecil? I wrote up a similar antenna
where the tuning mechanism is a loop with a dipole protruding out from
each side
and where the loop is tuned with a variable capacitor which also
emulates
the Zepp for all frequencies( See the Gaussian thread).
Even when hams model it they can't believe it,
completely disregarding scientific back up. Remember it is AMATEUR
radio
who learn radio basics but only in a few cases actually UNDERSTAND the
basics.
I also provided a three element antenna on a eight foot boom that
excels the
specs that ARRL optimised in every region and at the same time
provided more
gain per unit length than the accepted Gain/Boom length graph printed
in most books.
Again amateurs are loathe to accept anything new except when it is
in a book that they can learn from but not necessarily UNDERSTAND.
As a side note, one of my past PTO examinas did not know the
difference
between parallel and series circuit but that is O.K.
His job is to enter key words from an application and see what patents
emerge so he can send them to the applicant, from then on it is
resolved on grammatical terms . I would like to see a thorough
examination of this new vertical antenna if only to find out where the
Navy
and the IEEE were in error. I certainly would not trash it on
the basis of comments by amateurs on this newsgroup unless they
provided credible proof that they were knoweledgable about the
specifics
of the antenna and could then provide credible reasons why it
should not be accepted. That ofcourse will never happen
in this newsgroup. Look up at the howl that emanated on this group
on such a simple subject such as Gauss together with conservative
and non conservative fields. We even have teachers in this group
who could not come forward to explain it to others as well as some
who denied any possibility of a connection. This is just an
amateur group who likes to play word games with others to get a
"gottcha",
It is not a scientific group with credible backgrounds that
by itself demands attention, it is just a group of amateurs
from various fields and pursuits where their every post reflect
their true abilities.
Regards
Art