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

Richard Clark wrote:
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

Or maybe lower?

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

Or maybe higher?

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

tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:
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

Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek?

tom
K0TAR

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:52:43 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
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

Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek?

Hi Tom,

It support's Arthur's faith in the PTO giving authority to invention:
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.

Of course, Arthur also leand on their credibility to recognize
something "different:"
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.

Considering that the PTO can be condemned and praised for the same
thing is about as clarifying as his explanation for gaussian antenna
theory. The original quote above (drawn from an actual patent that
teaches the "different" antenna theory of the inventor) has its
problems too, of course, but its "difference" makes it patentable.
Afterall, who could possible beat him in the marketplace by stealing
this idea?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

...
This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

From my time here, I have learned to love you, present wife is worried!
ROFLOL

Anyway, in the land yacht, I use a "boosted antenna" which utilizes a
mars device--works surprisingly well, and was purchased at a flea market
for ~$10 bucks. The thing is crap ... at least technically!

I know it should not work as well as it does, XYL wants me to replace it
with a mobile direct tv setup--hey, what can I say, I believe in fairy
tales?

Anyway, I was able to watch the lost tv series on it when we went to
visit family ...

I have time to play with such, it keeps me out of jail. :-)

Regards,
JS

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

LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
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

That is completely incorrect in the US. Publication is NEVER required
with respect to establishing prior art. At least two things
automatically support "prior art" status:

1) Valid documentation (but not necessarily publication) of the prior
art. This usually means something like a lab notebook entry, witnessed
by others.

2) Shipping a product that contains the prior art. No notification or
publication is required.

There are undoubtedly other means of establishing prior art that do not
require "publication". In the US, establishing prior art is a matter for
courts and lawsuits, so YMMV.

73,
Gene
W4SZ