wrote:

...
I've already done the experiments.. Going on nearly 20 years ago..
I'm just telling what I see in the pix..

Yes, but then you didn't see what Mr. Vincent "seen", enough to get a
physics dept. of a university to back him, and mentioned by arrl! And,
gawd knows, arrl is a power to be recognised! COUGH!

But then, the naysayers have painted Mr. Vincent as a con man, indeed,
not just a "con man" but a "SUPER CON MAN!" The type of con man where
bankers lock their doors at his approach, men step before their wives in
protection, wives shade the eyes of their children, massive and powerful
men grasp their wallets tightly and expert con men run before him in
fear, envy and loathing! :-(

...
But I think it's good that you are testing the idea..
I wish some of the "inventers" would follow your lead..
MK


Yes, well, what I am hoping is to the the armchair-amateurs to do
something constructive ... however, some are amusing ...

JS

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:29:43 +0200, Jon Kåre Hellan
wrote:

writes:

On Jun 21, 10:26 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
no one really reads these patnets do they? Not evne the author.

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

Abstract:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...8/01282130.pdf

It's "Disk loaded monopole"

You didn't read the patent either, did you? ;-)

I don't blame you. It is like reading the telephone book (aside from
the obvious sloppiness).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jun 22, 4:07 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

I've already done the experiments.. Going on nearly 20 years ago..
I'm just telling what I see in the pix..

Yes, but then you didn't see what Mr. Vincent "seen", enough to get a
physics dept. of a university to back him, and mentioned by arrl! And,
gawd knows, arrl is a power to be recognised! COUGH!

Doesn't matter to me. I don't build my antennas for the ARRL. I build
them for me... I'm not even a member of the ARRL.. Never have been.



But then, the naysayers have painted Mr. Vincent as a con man, indeed,
not just a "con man" but a "SUPER CON MAN!" The type of con man where
bankers lock their doors at his approach, men step before their wives in
protection, wives shade the eyes of their children, massive and powerful
men grasp their wallets tightly and expert con men run before him in
fear, envy and loathing! :-(

I don't think he's a con man at all. But I don't think the information
he
provides give anyone enough info to make an accurate comparison.
Or at least from what I've seen.
There is nothing really "wrong" with his antenna. I just think there
are better ways to get what he is after, which seems to be mainly
improved current distribution. People have known how to improve
the current distribution for years.. Nothing new..
And it sure does not require multiple loading coils to accomplish.
His disks? Nothing more than small capacitive hats.. Nothing new
there.
I just don't see the hype, and in fact, I think his design would end
up
being inferior to what I would cook up for the same height mast and
stinger. Cecil seems to agree with me, so if you don't believe me,
maybe his word will mean a little more to you.
The *best* way to load a short vertical is with a large enough
capacity
hat to load the antenna with *no* loading coil needed.
And that is what your's truly would build if I had to have a contest
against his using the same height whip.
And the current distribution in such a case is pretty linear
across the whole whip. You ain't gonna beat that with a
bunch of multiple coils, disks, linear loading, etc, ad nausium..
But if you want to try, be my guest..
MK

On Jun 22, 5:32 pm, wrote:

The *best* way to load a short vertical is with a large enough
capacity
hat to load the antenna with *no* loading coil needed.
And that is what your's truly would build if I had to have a contest
against his using the same height whip.

BTW, I realize if the antennas were for a low freq, I might
have to use a coil in order to avoid a hat that was just too
big to handle, but still, I would concentrate as much capacitive
loading at the top as I could, and use the minimum inductor
value to match the antenna. If we both have to use coil loading,
mine should win. The current distribution will be more linear
on mine. And in a case using a large hat, it really doesn't
matter where the coil is. The current distribution will still
be fairly linear as long as the hat is big enough.
That would be about the only case where I might consider
a base loading coil to reduce coil windings.
MK

wrote:

[stuff]

Yes, it is duly noted that you would repeat what has been done before ...

However, we ALL know where that gets one, don't we?

Regards,
JS

On Jun 22, 5:56 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

[stuff]

Yes, it is duly noted that you would repeat what has been done before ...

However, we ALL know where that gets one, don't we?

Regards,
JS


I think it would give me the better antenna in this case.
I doubt he would want me at one of his seminars..
I'd be one of those hecklers that he has nightmares
about late at night. But in my case, I would whip out
my antenna and whoop him right there on the spot if he
was brave enough to compare.
I repeat what is proven to be best.
I've already tried all his methods,
and proven them inferior by testing.
I'll back up my jibber jabber with real working antennas.
Would be simple to set up too.. All I need is a
standing mast like yours, and a few wires to
string out a large top hat.
I wonder what his alphabet soup would buy him if he
lost... :/
MK

wrote:

[stuff]

In countless physics labs, around the world, students complete
experiments done countless times before--and this is good ... it is
hoped, one day, they go on to complete experiments never done before, or
even ones not done properly, or those were important data was missed ...

That is simply all I point out ... an open mind never knows for certain.

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

Actually, I don't think I explained that well--for want of a better
explanation ...

Take the Michelson–Morley experiment. They were attempting to find the
equivalent of how the doppler effect affects sound in air. However, if
the way matter affects ether is similar to the way air affects sound,
the earth and its' atmosphere would be a less than optimal test bed.

Indeed, if you take the horn from a train and place it in a long train,
you would loose the effect, the skin of the train
deflects/slows/distorts/whatever the air which causes the effect.

Now, if someone where to reconstruct the Michelson–Morley experiment
from the nose of a space shuttle (no matter intervening or massive
matter in close proximity), to mirrors traveling at the same speed and
in the same trajectory of the shuttle, perhaps a quite different
conclusion would be reached. Especially, if the matter of air and
proximity to earth is masking anything enough to throw off the experiment.

I know unexpected results were obtained when a long tether was let out
behind the shuttle, and never explained to my satisfaction.

Perhaps that is a somewhat better way to express what I attempted in the
post this one responds too ...

Regards,
JS

On 22 Jun, 17:21, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

[stuff]

In countless physics labs, around the world, students complete
experiments done countless times before--and this is good ... it is
hoped, one day, they go on to complete experiments never done before, or
even ones not done properly, or those were important data was missed ...

That is simply all I point out ... an open mind never knows for certain.

Regards,
JS

He has done everything to do with antennas. He has also read the WWW
from beginning to the end, nothing new he has done it all. I would
imagine that the antenna company that he designed antennas for
gave up and went bankrupt when he said he was going to retire.
I would imagine that is why the space ship landed today in
California no point in taking risks now that he has left.
IEEE is looking for an experienced antenna designer with
extensive knoweledge of all types of antennas with extensive
experience in determining worthwhile projects and be able to
smell those that would fool others. Must be able to provide
evidence of achievements that have benefited the advance of science.
Experience in winding coils accepted as well as evidence of
climbing towers to replace light bulbs. Must be a EE with a
Masters from an accredited college with a history of writing
papers on the science of antennas as well as able to judge
antenna designs presented to the IEEE. Trench diggers for
cable installations need not apply.
Maybe he will not be around to long as he is evidently
better than sliced bread in all the sciences.
I imagine that he made more money on the stock market
than the average broker

art wrote:

[stuff]

Well, it is good to remember, the boys in R&D (the ones who come up with
the new stuff) get paid just as much to find out what doesn't work, as
the do to find the stuff which does ...

It is the ratio of the two which determines if they keep their jobs or
not ... well, unless they work for gov't ...

Regards,
JS