wrote:

...

OK. Nope, we don't need to chat anymore, that certainly put things into
proper perspective ...

JS

wrote in message
ups.com...
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


Seems like I have seen a lot of Ham STIKS lately that were use to construct
homebrew antennas.

Jimmie

John Smith I wrote:
A DLM by unknown builder: http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/dlm.jpg



I saw the picture. It looks like a coil base not much unlike the
ham-stick, then a piece of wire back to ground, presumably a match,
above the helical, is a piece of brass or copper wire, then a regular
loading coil, and another piece of brass or copper for the stinger.

It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Buck wrote:

...
It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.

Buck:

Take a look at the patent. You have to create an account to view it,
the account is free:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.html

Regards,
JS

Buck wrote:

...
It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.

Hopefully, this URL will take you right to a schematic of the antenna:

http://tinyurl.com/2tqon2

JS

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:44:13 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

Buck wrote:

...
It doesn't sound like the descriptions I am hearing.

Hopefully, this URL will take you right to a schematic of the antenna:

http://tinyurl.com/2tqon2

JS

The section below with pictures made a difference. I saw that the
patent is in concept, that is the arrangement of the coils for the
desired effect and the design of coils which can be helical, squared
off, etc.

Thanks.

Buck
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

Buck wrote:

...
The section below with pictures made a difference. I saw that the
patent is in concept, that is the arrangement of the coils for the
desired effect and the design of coils which can be helical, squared
off, etc.

Thanks.

Buck

Buck:

Yeah, all that alright.

However, he also claims the "arrangement" he has increases the impedance
of the 1/4 wave shortened antenna to 72-100 ohms. This is interesting
in and of itself, shortened antennas tend to have impedances in the
single digits and are difficult to match efficiently ...

I am just beginning to toy with this version, maybe can get serious this
weekend ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
Actually, old news from 3 years ago ...

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147

JS

I am taking for granted that everyone realizes the inventor can be
emailed directly:



Regards,
JS

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:01:44 -0700, John Smith I
wrote:

John Smith I wrote:
Actually, old news from 3 years ago ...

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147

JS

I am taking for granted that everyone realizes the inventor can be
emailed directly:



Regards,
JS



the spammers will love this, but he will regret your posting his url
openly.



--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW

www.lumpuckeroo.com

"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."

John Smith I wrote:

[chit]

OK. So I went and wrote the inventor, the correspondence follows, he
knows naysaying idiots when he sees 'em--I think the following makes it
quite obvious:

Thanks John but I pay very little attention to that stuff. I now have a
patent on the DLM and 6 more pending and several new applications in
electromagnetics and antennas. I work with the EE dept here at URI and also
with the physics dept. as well as several other departments where my antennas
and expertise are being well received. I now also work with many undergrad
and post grad students.

The DLM works, they just don't want to admit it to themselves. What the DLM
does is it stores magnetic potential energy in the inductance of the helix and
moves it to another part of the antenna. In doing so creates a very large
current profile along the antenna. It is 2.778 times greater that for a
quarterwave for the same power input, hence it is why it is about 1/3 the
size. I also invented the flat helix which makes the fully planner DLM
possible.

Anyway it has been licensed to several applications including cellphones, RFID
and automotive applications. A large automotive supplier has it licensed for 6
applications with 4 more coming, One of these has been in tire pressure
monitoring, using my antenna they invented the first batteryless RFID tire
pressure monitor. Expect to use between 90 and 100 million antennas in 2008 in
just this one application. They went from a nobody in that market to most
likely owning it.

Within a few years I will be a multi millionaire so you see I just don't give
a dam what they think. Can you blame me, I am laughing all the way to the
bank.

I am now into thinfilm and monilithic antennas using DLM antenna technology. I
now have antennas so small operatng in the Ghz region that you need to use a
microscope to see them.

Thanks for the info but I pay very little attention to what THOSE people say,
think etc. They are pretty ignorant. Best regards and good to hear from you.
Rob


===== Original Message From John Smith I =====
Mr. Vincent:

Your DLM antenna has some discussion going on about it in amateur circles.

You may wish to view the usenet news group "rec.radio.amateur.antenna"

And, specifically, the thread:

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!

There have been a couple of naysayers! grin

Warm regards,
JS

Robert Vincent
Dept of Physics
University of Rhode Island
401-874-2063



And, if you think EZNEC (and ALL other software emulation of real world
constructions) is doing anything but running you in circles about the
past--think again ... of course if all you wish to find is the past--it
serves well ...

Regards,
JS