John Smith I wrote:

...
Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

These images:
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...ottomhelix.jpg
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...ading_Coil.jpg
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/both.jpg

Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of
coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc.

A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded
pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe
errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps
purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper
pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire.

1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09
2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45
3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19
4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free

materials $12.73
tax $1.18
----------------
total $13.75

Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS

On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

...

Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...s.com/both.jpg

Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of
coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc.

A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded
pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe
errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps
purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper
pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire.

1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09
2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45
3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19
4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free

materials $12.73
tax $1.18
----------------
total $13.75

Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS

Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed
Regards
Art

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:04 -0700, art wrote:

On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

...

Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...s.com/both.jpg

Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of
coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc.

A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded
pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe
errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps
purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper
pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire.

1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09
2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45
3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19
4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free

materials $12.73
tax $1.18
----------------
total $13.75

Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS

Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed
Regards
Art

Truth is often stranger than fiction, but patents have the monopoly on
the absurd.

Taken from top of Page 2 "Other publications"

T. Simpson, "The Dick Loaded Monopole Antenna,"
IEEE Transactions of Antennas and Propagation,
vol. 52, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 542-545.

Hardly worth going any further into the mysteries of this invention.
Dipole envy? :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jun 21, 9:36 pm, John Smith I wrote:


Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS


Hummm, I would use a slightly wider spacing with the
loading coil wires.. Too tightly wound.. I assume the
wire is enameled... The problem with this, is your
lower coil is the same diameter as the center load.
But, your lower coil is actually the more efficient
of two, being it's wider spaced. You are stunting
your upper coil with too close together windings.
I actually believe the current distribution would be
slightly better with all center loading, than with the
mix of two coils, one being basically a base load.
I would also clip those "mast" wires where they
don't run along side of that coil. Thats not good.
Like I say, I've already tried all this with helical
glass whips combined with larger hi-Q coils.

I don't use it anymore. Now all my loading is one
center loading coil.
I once combined the glass stick helical windings
with the larger lumped coil. But came to the conclusion
it was a bad idea because the narrow helical windings
on mine were more lossy than the larger coil.
But on yours, all windings are the same size dia..
So it really doesn't matter, except as far as current
distribution. My gut instinct is that you would force
more current up the mast , using only the upper
center loading coil. This is what you should test.
Use equal whip and stinger sizes, and compare
the "split loading", with a loosely wound all
center coil. Not tight wound like you have.
Have about at least a wires width of space between the
windings.
If the all center loaded antenna didn't win, I'd be kinda
surprised. The way I see it, if you share loading
locations, the current distribution will also share
the two locations.. IE: you should have more current
lower on the mast with the split coils, than with
only a center coil. To me, this should offset any
advantage of less total turns being needed, from
using partly a base load. All center loading should
need a few extra turns to tune vs the split setup
I would think, but it's not enough to hurt you much.
MK

wrote:
I actually believe the current distribution would be
slightly better with all center loading, than with the
mix of two coils, one being basically a base load.

Yes, you are right. One high-Q coil with linked flux
is more efficient than two half coils in different
locations. Splitting one coil into two can be considered
the first delta step toward linear loading, known to
be lossier than single-coil center loading.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

...
Hummm, I would use a slightly wider spacing with the
loading coil wires ...

The coils used were used only as a visual aid. That part is left up to
the individual experimenter ... no attempt was made to do the actual
experiments for the reader ...

However, if you read Mr. Vincents data, this coil is "closely wound."
And, I documented the construction of the jig itself, not the individual
components to be used. The importance here is how quickly components
can be swapped in and out ...

Low Q might be very desirable to someone valuing bandwidth over other
aspects ... not only out of the box thinking is necessary,
out-of-the-box-experimenting is accepted here ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:

...

A DLM by unknown builder: http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/dlm.jpg

JS

On Jun 25, 11:12 am, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

...

A DLM by unknown builder:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/dlm.jpg

JS


Exactly like the mobile antennas I use to run.. In fact, still have
one
of them in that basic config..
I didn't use the "metal mast" that runs along the glass part above the
coil.
I used the wire from the glass whip itself. The original antenna was a
5 ft
glass CB antenna. In it's reworked condition, it's 10 ft long, if I
use the
5 ft stinger. But on the higher bands, the coil is totally bypassed,
and the tuning is done by changing stinger length.
It works all bands 80-10.
But my new improved version does not use any helical windings on
the glass whip. I stripped them all off, and only use a large lumped
coil at the top of the glass whip. My present version was built from a
6 ft 20m hamstick which I butchered up. It's total height is 11 ft,
and
it also works all bands. It's the better antenna of the two.
BTW, I also have a 3 ft hustler mast which I can add to the base
of either one of those. Lengthens the mast 3 more feet under
the coil, and makes a large increase in efficiency. I use it when
parked.
MK

wrote:

...

Huh!

And, you didn't even realize the rest of us were only getting about 50%
efficiency of a full size antenna, out of our shortened? (vs. the 98%
Vincents seems to be!)

Too bad, you could have shared back with us then and looked like a
superstar--instead of a fibber!

Oh well, I am sure you will be "right on it" next time ...

JS

On Jun 25, 12:36 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Huh!

And, you didn't even realize the rest of us were only getting about 50%
efficiency of a full size antenna, out of our shortened? (vs. the 98%
Vincents seems to be!)

Too bad, you could have shared back with us then and looked like a
superstar--instead of a fibber!

Oh well, I am sure you will be "right on it" next time ...

JS


Fibber? Where do you come up with this BS..Do you want me to
take a picture of it? Crap, you better get your head out of your
kazoo if you want me to talk to you.
I give you the benefit of the doubt by even discussing
it with you, but you start your usual smart ass remarks,
and basically pull a "Telemon".. I don't need to prove
anything to you. I could care less really. My mobile antenna is
as good as it can be, for the physical restraints, and
it got to that point at least 3-4-5 years ago..
I'm not going to run a hat on my mobile, and I accept
that loss in performance. That why I run a long 5 ft stinger
whip.
I don't feel the need to "reinvent" stuff and be a radio superstar.
I have better things to do with my time. 98% efficient? Over
what ground? Have they compared to a fully top loaded
vertical? A coax fed dipole is about 98% efficient.. :/
Must be one heck of a radial system is all I can say..
What does this look like on the back of that truck?
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/fd3.jpg
I got your fibber hanging..
That antenna started out as a 6 ft 20m hamstick
I got for free.
But I used it on 40m, by adding a 5 ft stinger.
Worked very well overall.
Then I stripped all the windings off and installed the
larger coil you see in the picture.
The other 5 ft version I have is the same , except it's coil
is mounted about 2.5 feet above the base, instead of 5,
and the helical windings at the base, and even some above
the large coil are still intact. The antenna works quite well.
But my antenna with no helical windings is more
efficient. But thats more due to coil location,
than less efficient coil loading.
I don't know who you think you are, but I was doing
what you are doing now, in 1988. That's when I
built that partly helical "plastic bugcatcher".
Many others were doing the same in 1958 I'm
sure...
If I had a digital camera handy, I'd already have a
picture waiting for you. You can tell by looking at
it, I've used it for years on end. It's about 19 years
old, and has thrashed many a tree branch.
I play mainly on 80 and 40 meters mobile.
Go do some testing there, and get back to me.
This 10m testing on a mobile doesn't mean too
much to me.. It's easy to get high efficiency on
that band. Most any "wonderstick" will do.
Lets see this thing kill on 80m where the likelyhood
of ground loss overiding the coil loss kicks into play.
The low bands are the real test of a short vertical.
I saw one mention that elevating this antenna will
improve the performance. Heck, elevating most
any kind of vertical or GP will improve performance..
That antenna is not special in that regard..
It really surprises me that you seem to think this
is some kind of new technology.. What, you
live in a cave?
MK