On 24 Jun, 19:51, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

snip.

I am just disappointed that the patent system allows a rearrangement of
already and quite commonly known/implemented designs/methods/practices
to be patented; as far as I am concerned, all this should be considered
to be in the public domain ...
Regards,
JS

I don't see it that way. He tried something that all denied would
work.
If he had not tried it we would still be on existing equipment.
If this works as suggested the frontier of antenna design has moved
a long distance forward providing a new platform from which to start
on the next discovery. We have had decades to improve antenna whips
without success now because of the inquisivity of one person who was
not to be deterred by couch naysayers, we now have a larger group
of experimentors that are willing to experiment to look for something
new.
Doesn't sound to bad to me for the hobby. Probably has uses in WiFi
and embedded antennas.

art wrote:

...
I don't see it that way. He tried something that all denied would
work.
...

Art:

Your view is certainly arguable ... it is difficult to take up a
defense-able stand on either side of the worth of this patent--in my
humble opinion ... however, I have no horse in the race.

Regards,
JS

Try one; prove me wrong; I dare ya!

Regards,
JS



I don't see where the "inventor" of the DLM style antenna has violated
any laws of physics... He has simply found the sweet spot of mixed C &
L and short straight radiating sections along a shortened antenna to
pull it into resonance while maintaining a a flatter SWR curve...
With the helical lower section if that is how it is actually
functioning also acting as an auto transformer he simplifies the
matching of the feed point to coax...
Sevick proved that shortened antennas can work well...
If you look at the Fisher Island data for the DLM it shows that the
gain of the antenna improves considerably with top loading - a finding
we would definitely expect in a shortened monopole... Authors from
Sevick, to Cebik, to W8JK, to W8JI, have championed the benefits of
top hats for short antennas...

BTW, we have the oposite end of the spectrum in the distributed
capacity antenna with multiple caps along the length to redistribute
current peaks... So using capacitive reactance to redistribute
current along the antenna is well known and documented...

All in all, it sounds like a fun antenna, John... The guys really
ought to be looking at this as a method of trimming 160 and 80
verticals to a more manageable size while retaining some bandwidth and
having easy matching... If I didn't already have full size antenna
arrays for these bands I would be out there building one to see how it
performs...

I would hope that all those posting on the topic have read all the
URL's provided - and also noted the point that the antenna benefits
from being elevated and having elevated radials to work against , even
whilst mounted over the excellent ground plane of the Navy's test
range - a major piece of information......

denny / k8do

Denny wrote:

...
All in all, it sounds like a fun antenna, John... The guys really
ought to be looking at this as a method of trimming 160 and 80
...
denny / k8do


Denny:

I already like 'ya more than I did yesterday; This is why we got into
amateur radio, isn't it?; How come so many seem to have forgotten?

Warm regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:

...

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

JS

"Denny" wrote in message
oups.com...


Try one; prove me wrong; I dare ya!

Regards,
JS



I don't see where the "inventor" of the DLM style antenna has violated
any laws of physics... He has simply found the sweet spot of mixed C &
L and short straight radiating sections along a shortened antenna to
pull it into resonance while maintaining a a flatter SWR curve...
With the helical lower section if that is how it is actually
functioning also acting as an auto transformer he simplifies the
matching of the feed point to coax...
Sevick proved that shortened antennas can work well...
If you look at the Fisher Island data for the DLM it shows that the
gain of the antenna improves considerably with top loading - a finding
we would definitely expect in a shortened monopole... Authors from
Sevick, to Cebik, to W8JK, to W8JI, have championed the benefits of
top hats for short antennas...

BTW, we have the oposite end of the spectrum in the distributed
capacity antenna with multiple caps along the length to redistribute
current peaks... So using capacitive reactance to redistribute
current along the antenna is well known and documented...

All in all, it sounds like a fun antenna, John... The guys really
ought to be looking at this as a method of trimming 160 and 80
verticals to a more manageable size while retaining some bandwidth and
having easy matching... If I didn't already have full size antenna
arrays for these bands I would be out there building one to see how it
performs...

I would hope that all those posting on the topic have read all the
URL's provided - and also noted the point that the antenna benefits
from being elevated and having elevated radials to work against , even
whilst mounted over the excellent ground plane of the Navy's test
range - a major piece of information......

denny / k8do


I agree, this is just nothing new. As you say Jerry Sevick has already been
thier and done that. Jery already has established that making a short
antenna is no big deal as long as you have a good ground system and a low
loss matching network How well Vincents antenna performed has more to do the
the excellent ground system used in the test than anything special about the
antenna..



Jimie

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

Jimmie D wrote:

...
I agree, this is just nothing new. As you say Jerry Sevick has already been
thier and done that. Jery already has established that making a short
antenna is no big deal as long as you have a good ground system and a low
loss matching network How well Vincents antenna performed has more to do the
the excellent ground system used in the test than anything special about the
antenna..
Jimie

You must realize that you are either severely mentally disabled, of a
liar of monumental effort!

If not, don't worry, the rest of us do ...

JS

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