About Us

Jim Lux · June 18th 07, 11:26 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna

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]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
KB9RQZ Makes One Post After Another Then Claims Others Are LYING When His Own Words Are Quoted VERBATIM	[email protected]	Policy	3	September 26th 06 01:57 PM
the 'language' of physics GOSPELS FAR FROM THE TRUTH --Mor...	[email protected]	Shortwave	18	August 7th 05 02:59 AM
Physics according to toad	Cmd Buzz Corey	Policy	5	May 28th 05 04:57 PM
NY TIMES says new super-small Hammie Antenna defies physics	Nicolai Carpathia	CB	16	June 12th 04 08:08 PM
Ye canna change the lars o' physics	Dave VanHorn	CB	5	August 2nd 03 08:34 PM

Menu

About Us