|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Actually, old news from 3 years ago ... http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147 JS The guy doesn't even seem to realise that height is one of the prime factors in optimising propogation, particularly at medium wave frequencies and vhf. Building a tall mast costs plenty of money and if commercial radio stations could broadcast efficiently from an antenna the size of a bean can, they would have done it years ago. This is surely just a couple of coils wound in opposite directions with capacitive coupling and a capacity top hat to prevent coronal discharge and maximise current in the top half of the antenna. Basically a form of top loaded, inductively wound whip antenna tapped somewhere up from the base in order to pick up a 50 ohm matching impedence at the design frequency. I don't see any new or innovative principles at work here. 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 |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
[stuff] Quite obviously, you are missing the real point here ... here is more. http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/n...&VNETCOOKIE=NO http://electronicsweekly.com/Article...f+monopole.htm http://www.uri.edu/news/vincent/report05/testreport.pdf http://ema.arrl.org/article.php?sid=1025&mode=&order=0 JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: [stuff] Quite obviously, you are missing the real point here ... here is more. http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/n...&VNETCOOKIE=NO http://electronicsweekly.com/Article...f+monopole.htm http://www.uri.edu/news/vincent/report05/testreport.pdf http://ema.arrl.org/article.php?sid=1025&mode=&order=0 JS John That is one beautifully constructed antenna and the antenna test facility is to die for. All those radials and salt water! Mike G0ULI |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message ... "John Smith I" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: [stuff] Quite obviously, you are missing the real point here ... here is more. http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/n...&VNETCOOKIE=NO http://electronicsweekly.com/Article...f+monopole.htm http://www.uri.edu/news/vincent/report05/testreport.pdf http://ema.arrl.org/article.php?sid=1025&mode=&order=0 JS John That is one beautifully constructed antenna and the antenna test facility is to die for. All those radials and salt water! Mike G0ULI Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. Jimmie |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Jimmie D wrote:
... Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. Jimmie Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly, with efficiencies in the single digits ... JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote: ... Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. Jimmie Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly, with efficiencies in the single digits ... JS I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams accept it? I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of this inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info. The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing something new. Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip
would give roughly the same results. On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote: On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote: Jimmie D wrote: ... Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. Jimmie Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly, with efficiencies in the single digits ... JS I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams accept it? I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of this inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info. The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing something new. Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
... I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams accept it? ... He states it uses a "2-dimensional helix", think about that (since I can't find a pic or construction details), flatten a helix and you end up with a zig-zag pattern of wire. .. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. OH NO! That thing is raising it's ugly head again.... - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
wrote in message oups.com... i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip would give roughly the same results. On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote: On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote: Jimmie D wrote: ... Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with a very high quality ground system. Jimmie Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly, with efficiencies in the single digits ... JS I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams accept it? I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of this inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info. The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing something new. Art Even a 6ft verticla can be made to perform reasonably well on 40m when used with a good ground system, the ground system thay were using is probably as close to ideal as you can get. The big difference is in using a short antenna with a poor to mediocre ground system, then they stick out like a sore thumb I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent they posted.What would be the point of doing a test like this if you didnt get qualatative data? Without the data the st might as weel have been, "hey good buddy you sound fine over here at theWinn Dixie, I cant see my S meter 'cause the lights out on it but yo sound like 30 over to me" Jimmie |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
Soory Mike Didnt mean to hijack your post
Jimmie "Mike Kaliski" wrote in message ... "John Smith I" wrote in message ... Actually, old news from 3 years ago ... http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147 JS The guy doesn't even seem to realise that height is one of the prime factors in optimising propogation, particularly at medium wave frequencies and vhf. Building a tall mast costs plenty of money and if commercial radio stations could broadcast efficiently from an antenna the size of a bean can, they would have done it years ago. This is surely just a couple of coils wound in opposite directions with capacitive coupling and a capacity top hat to prevent coronal discharge and maximise current in the top half of the antenna. Basically a form of top loaded, inductively wound whip antenna tapped somewhere up from the base in order to pick up a 50 ohm matching impedence at the design frequency. I don't see any new or innovative principles at work here. 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 |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Jimmie D" wrote in
: I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent they posted. Heh, heh. Jimmie youze is throwin' 'round them scientifical terms like "nearly as well" and "comparable to". Heck I'ze gettin' all confoozlated. But not so confusticated that I'll not get me wonna them mircle antennies! Seriously though, you are right. There has been precious little real data on this antenna since the first press release in '04. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
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: 1) "The technology is completely scalable: Take the component values and divide them by two, and you get twice the frequency; take all the component values and multiply them by two, and you are at half the frequency," said Vincent. "There are two poles in the antenna, and where I place the poles in relation to one another-how much I bring the two resonant frequencies together or spread them apart-enables me to emulate different antennas, from a quarter-wave to a five-eighths wave." " 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. 3) "Eight years ago, antenna design was 90 percent black magic and 10 percent theory," said Vincent. "But now, with my design, they are 10 percent black magic and 90 percent theory." The above from this URL: http://www.jefallbright.net/node/2718 He mentions being able to create these in 1/4 to 5/8 design--so, create a 1/2 and loose the radials and salt water ... It is difficult to find real detail on this antenna! Makes 'ya wonder, don't it? JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 17 Jun, 19:34, Mike Coslo wrote:
"Jimmie D" wrote : I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent they posted. Heh, heh. Jimmie youze is throwin' 'round them scientifical terms like "nearly as well" and "comparable to". Heck I'ze gettin' all confoozlated. But not so confusticated that I'll not get me wonna them mircle antennies! Seriously though, you are right. There has been precious little real data on this antenna since the first press release in '04. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - Look at the patent request to obtain the basics. The testing station tested it with a set up that is tracable to normal standard antennas. Results therefor can be compared against a standard antennas with confidence. The testing was done by a independent source so a review of the results shows what you get. The patent was accepted by the PTO so on the surface it would appear that there is something new here even if the experts are baying at the moon ahead of time knowing that all is known about antennas. It would be interesting if the independent test reports were included in the patent request which would infere that the PTO confirmed the propriety of the tests, usually by being present. Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program which the range test confirmed after the fact. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 17 Jun, 18:40, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote: ... I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams accept it? ... He states it uses a "2-dimensional helix", think about that (since I can't find a pic or construction details), flatten a helix and you end up with a zig-zag pattern of wire. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... etc. ... (poorly represented in ascii here) This must drop the inductance of the "helix coil" drastically, leaving you with only the self-capacitance of the conductor (-jX), which requires a "loading coil" of +jX ... Also, there is some text I interpret to suggest there is some additional coupling somewhere at the center, however, I can't find enough material to confirm or reject this ... JS One of the links provided pictures of the testing station which I believe belonged to the Navy. I believe they have also applied for a follow up patent that contains propriety information that has not yet been released. True, we have had a string of questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers. When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend ourselves as being antenna experts. Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
... True, we have had a string of questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers. When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend ourselves as being antenna experts. Art Art: It is all in the numbers (odds.) If you know how to gamble, you know how to play the odds. Show me one street smart individual and I will show you someone who knows the ropes ... Being a naysayer has great advantages, most experiments/"new inventions" turn out less than what may have been expected ... playing the odds of "naysaying" you can always claim a better than avg. "batting avg." It's all in the game ... play it right and you expose the details. Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 17 Jun, 20:57, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote: ... True, we have had a string of questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers. When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend ourselves as being antenna experts. Art Art: It is all in the numbers (odds.) If you know how to gamble, you know how to play the odds. Show me one street smart individual and I will show you someone who knows the ropes ... Being a naysayer has great advantages, most experiments/"new inventions" turn out less than what may have been expected ... playing the odds of "naysaying" you can always claim a better than avg. "batting avg." It's all in the game ... play it right and you expose the details. Regards, JS Very true unless you have to state why Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
... Very true unless you have to state why Art Art: You missed, but not by much; change that to, "... unless you have to CORRECTLY state why." Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
: "John Smith I" wrote in message ... Actually, old news from 3 years ago ... http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147 JS The guy doesn't even seem to realise that height is one of the prime factors in optimising propogation, particularly at medium wave frequencies and vhf. Building a tall mast costs plenty of money and if commercial radio stations could broadcast efficiently from an antenna the size of a bean can, they would have done it years ago. This is surely just a couple of coils wound in opposite directions with capacitive coupling and a capacity top hat to prevent coronal discharge and maximise current in the top half of the antenna. Basically a form of top loaded, inductively wound whip antenna tapped somewhere up from the base in order to pick up a 50 ohm matching impedence at the design frequency. I don't see any new or innovative principles at work here. 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. :-) The other day, just for fun, I modelled a shortened 80m dipole hung from a 100-foot high supporting rope. The dipole was 35 feet long and had two loading coils about 4 feet from each end. I fed it at the bottom end. The thing would be fairly narrow and would require an autotransformer or tuned match at the base (or a quarter wave open stub) but the PATTERN was very nice, indeed. With all that current up that high, it's nice and flat and low to the ground. Gain isn't spectacular, though, only about 1.5dbi. But phase 4 of them and you're up there with the big guns, though probably only for about 10-20khz of the band. And, on receive, it's a horizon-scraper. You'd hear stuff you didn't even know was there before. Whether you can outshout THEIR local noise and QRM is a different question, of course! -- Dave Oldridge+ ICQ 1800667 |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
John Smith I wrote:
It is difficult to find real detail on this antenna! Makes 'ya wonder, don't it? One of the most impressive and strange things about these latter days is that we have a lot of people who are amazingly skeptical about science which has a pretty good system to avoid quackery , and yet are willing to extend credulity to amazing claims. I wonder if Mythbusters would be willing to take this antenna on? I volunteer to explain the whole thing to Kari.... ;^) - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
Look at the patent request to obtain the basics. The testing station tested it with a set up that is tracable to normal standard antennas. Results therefor can be compared against a standard antennas with confidence. The testing was done by a independent source so a review of the results shows what you get. The patent was accepted by the PTO so on the surface it would appear that there is something new here even if the experts are baying at the moon ahead of time knowing that all is known about antennas. not at all.. The PTO's current strategy is to grant the patent unless obviously defective, and let potential infringers down the road spend the time to break the patent. The examiners are fairly knowledgeable in their areas, but they also depend on what's in the application to describe why it's novel and doesn't merely duplicate prior art. It would be interesting if the independent test reports were included in the patent request which would infere that the PTO confirmed the propriety of the tests, usually by being present. One almost never puts test results in a patent application. Why would you..an invention doesn't have to actually work, today, it just has to be described appropriately, and have appropriate claims. There are lots of perfectly valid patents out there that have no test data: Feynman's patents on nuclear powered airplanes would be one. The "reduction to practice" requirement is met by "describing with sufficient detail that someone ordinarily skilled in the art can implement the invention". It's been over 100 years since the PTO required working models or test data. The only case where the PTO would actually have to have a working model demonstrated would be for a perpetual motion machine (and one other, which escapes me at the moment). Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program which the range test confirmed after the fact. And this is true for most antennas these days... Simple antennas have been around a while and wouldn't be likely to be patented. A complex antenna which might be patentable is probably tricky enough to build that one would want to model it first, before "cutting metal". And, any decent modeling code(s) will have extensive validation against range tests, so it's not much of a surprise when the antenna works as modeled. The surprises come from aspects that weren't modeled. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
art wrote:
SNIP The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing something new. Art That's a joke, right? The US patent system is a mess. I'm not knocking the antenna BTW. Charlie. -- M0WYM www.radiowymsey.org |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux wrote:
art wrote: Look at the patent request to obtain the basics. The testing station tested it with a set up that is tracable to normal standard antennas. Results therefor can be compared against a standard antennas with confidence. The testing was done by a independent source so a review of the results shows what you get. The patent was accepted by the PTO so on the surface it would appear that there is something new here even if the experts are baying at the moon ahead of time knowing that all is known about antennas. not at all.. The PTO's current strategy is to grant the patent unless obviously defective, and let potential infringers down the road spend the time to break the patent. The examiners are fairly knowledgeable in their areas, but they also depend on what's in the application to describe why it's novel and doesn't merely duplicate prior art. It would be interesting if the independent test reports were included in the patent request which would infere that the PTO confirmed the propriety of the tests, usually by being present. One almost never puts test results in a patent application. Why would you..an invention doesn't have to actually work, today, it just has to be described appropriately, and have appropriate claims. There are lots of perfectly valid patents out there that have no test data: Feynman's patents on nuclear powered airplanes would be one. The "reduction to practice" requirement is met by "describing with sufficient detail that someone ordinarily skilled in the art can implement the invention". It's been over 100 years since the PTO required working models or test data. The only case where the PTO would actually have to have a working model demonstrated would be for a perpetual motion machine (and one other, which escapes me at the moment). Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program which the range test confirmed after the fact. And this is true for most antennas these days... Simple antennas have been around a while and wouldn't be likely to be patented. A complex antenna which might be patentable is probably tricky enough to build that one would want to model it first, before "cutting metal". And, any decent modeling code(s) will have extensive validation against range tests, so it's not much of a surprise when the antenna works as modeled. The surprises come from aspects that weren't modeled. Let us have a fresh look at the emergence of this new antenna where amateurs confess that they do not know all the details but it MUST be a fake, but for why they cannot explain. The Naval antenna testing facility tested the antenna as they do with all military antennas. The test figures are published on the web ( put the antenna initials in Google) The computor program was home brewed and verified later by the IEEE, again see report on google. ) The test performed by the Navy also confirmed this home brewed report before the IEEE reviewed it after the fact Now I am in no way saying it has merit tho the methods used to check his claimes appear to have validity. Remember that I have provided a new antenna on this newsgroup. The mathematics were supported independendly and STANDARD computor programs confirm it but again amateurs cannot find themselves able to accept anything new. Look at Cecil's page where he has a Zepp dipole for all frequencies using stubs, do you think they believe Cecil? I wrote up a similar antenna where the tuning mechanism is a loop with a dipole protruding out from each side and where the loop is tuned with a variable capacitor which also emulates the Zepp for all frequencies( See the Gaussian thread). Even when hams model it they can't believe it, completely disregarding scientific back up. Remember it is AMATEUR radio who learn radio basics but only in a few cases actually UNDERSTAND the basics. I also provided a three element antenna on a eight foot boom that excels the specs that ARRL optimised in every region and at the same time provided more gain per unit length than the accepted Gain/Boom length graph printed in most books. Again amateurs are loathe to accept anything new except when it is in a book that they can learn from but not necessarily UNDERSTAND. As a side note, one of my past PTO examinas did not know the difference between parallel and series circuit but that is O.K. His job is to enter key words from an application and see what patents emerge so he can send them to the applicant, from then on it is resolved on grammatical terms . I would like to see a thorough examination of this new vertical antenna if only to find out where the Navy and the IEEE were in error. I certainly would not trash it on the basis of comments by amateurs on this newsgroup unless they provided credible proof that they were knoweledgable about the specifics of the antenna and could then provide credible reasons why it should not be accepted. That ofcourse will never happen in this newsgroup. Look up at the howl that emanated on this group on such a simple subject such as Gauss together with conservative and non conservative fields. We even have teachers in this group who could not come forward to explain it to others as well as some who denied any possibility of a connection. This is just an amateur group who likes to play word games with others to get a "gottcha", It is not a scientific group with credible backgrounds that by itself demands attention, it is just a group of amateurs from various fields and pursuits where their every post reflect their true abilities. Regards Art |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux wrote: art wrote: and the IEEE were in error. I certainly would not trash it on the basis of comments by amateurs on this newsgroup unless they provided credible proof that they were knoweledgable about the specifics of the antenna and could then provide credible reasons why it should not be accepted. That ofcourse will never happen in this newsgroup. Look up at the howl that emanated on this group on such a simple subject such as Gauss together with conservative and non conservative fields. We even have teachers in this group who could not come forward to explain it to others as well as some who denied any possibility of a connection. This is just an amateur group who likes to play word games with others to get a "gottcha", It is not a scientific group with credible backgrounds that by itself demands attention, it is just a group of amateurs from various fields and pursuits where their every post reflect their true abilities. Regards Art simple answer... its a 3 year old article, who do you know that is selling them? if they were anything special someone would have picked them up and started marketing them. speaking of which, who have you lined up to sell your 'gaussian' designs art? can you even define it yet?? |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
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. 1) "The technology is completely scalable: What isn't ? " 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... 3) "Eight years ago, antenna design was 90 percent black magic and 10 percent theory," said Vincent. "But now, with my design, they are 10 percent black magic and 90 percent theory." This is even worse... That statement is just total BS... The above from this URL: http://www.jefallbright.net/node/2718 He mentions being able to create these in 1/4 to 5/8 design--so, create a 1/2 and loose the radials and salt water ... Wow, that's really advanced.. I wish I could think to try that... :/ It is difficult to find real detail on this antenna! Makes 'ya wonder, don't it? JS Not really.. The antenna is ok I guess, nothing really horrible about it, but I don't see anything new. In fact, some of his statements are sort of silly.. IE: "For instance, in a normal quarter-wave antenna the current continually drops off in a sinusoidal shape, but these antennas don't do that," said Vincent. "The current at the top of the antenna is 80 percent of the current at the base." Wow..I suppose he thinks his antenna will outdo a full quarter wave then I guess.. Good luck in the contest is all I can say... Then you have this jibber jabber.. "Using a DLM antenna one-third to one-ninth the size of standard quarter-wave antenna, he measured nearly 80 percent efficiency, when conventional wisdom would dictate that an antenna the size of a DLM should be only 8 to 15 percent efficient." Look how vague it is.. Can't even get the size of his antenna right.. So how can we decide what to compare it to? Also he makes no mention of ground quality, radials, etc.. It's easy to sound "advanced" when you don't give enough info for anyone to prove you wrong... Anyway... ho hummmm.... As you can tell, I'm really excited about this new fangled technology. MK |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
|
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On 18 Jun, 14:32, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message oups.com... On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux wrote: art wrote: and the IEEE were in error. I certainly would not trash it on the basis of comments by amateurs on this newsgroup unless they provided credible proof that they were knoweledgable about the specifics of the antenna and could then provide credible reasons why it should not be accepted. That ofcourse will never happen in this newsgroup. Look up at the howl that emanated on this group on such a simple subject such as Gauss together with conservative and non conservative fields. We even have teachers in this group who could not come forward to explain it to others as well as some who denied any possibility of a connection. This is just an amateur group who likes to play word games with others to get a "gottcha", It is not a scientific group with credible backgrounds that by itself demands attention, it is just a group of amateurs from various fields and pursuits where their every post reflect their true abilities. Regards Art simple answer... its a 3 year old article, who do you know that is selling them? if they were anything special someone would have picked them up and started marketing them. speaking of which, who have you lined up to sell your 'gaussian' designs art? can you even define it yet??- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Simple you say, there are two patent requests, one last year and one this year. Who said they are not making deals now? As far as a gaussian design definition you are not equipped to understand it. It has been stated on this group but with your lack of knoweledge about Gauss you can never be able to understand it, thus it is hard for you to consider yourself as legitarmate critic if you don't understand the subject. Per your posts thru the years you haven't found a person that you could like or you couldn't attack. Your posts reflect who you really are, somebody with no credability. |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote: [Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's] Here's another "different" antenna: To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver element. This is the world's first gaussian array. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Jim Lux wrote:
... And, any decent modeling code(s) will have extensive validation against range tests, so it's not much of a surprise when the antenna works as modeled. The surprises come from aspects that weren't modeled. Jim: Your text is interesting. I went ahead and put together, on the little I could glean from the info on this, an antenna. I marked a pvc pipe on both sides, drilled it, and put the wire though, basically as a series of hair pin loops. "Tap'ed" it, obtained a 50 ohm match (had to use a variable cap) and it works, I need more data ... I need a complete pic and data so I can duplicate his construction ... I have an open mind. However, this "thing" is so simple, it is better I confirm or reject "it" on my own observations ... it may, or may not, be nothing ... Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux wrote: [Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's] Here's another "different" antenna: To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver Or maybe lower? resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver Or maybe higher? resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver element. This is the world's first gaussian array. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC tom K0TAR |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux wrote: [Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's] Here's another "different" antenna: To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver element. This is the world's first gaussian array. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek? tom K0TAR |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Dave wrote:
... simple answer... its a 3 year old article, who do you know that is selling them? if they were anything special someone would have picked them up and started marketing them. speaking of which, who have you lined up to sell your 'gaussian' designs art? can you even define it yet?? Funny you should mention that ... I tore apart last years cell phone. There is a strange looking "antenna" which is etched onto the pcb board--strikingly similar to what "he" (the guy with the "weird antenna" ) has described ... JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
Richard Clark wrote:
... This is the world's first gaussian array. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Richard: From my time here, I have learned to love you, present wife is worried! ROFLOL Anyway, in the land yacht, I use a "boosted antenna" which utilizes a mars device--works surprisingly well, and was purchased at a flea market for ~$10 bucks. The thing is crap ... at least technically! I know it should not work as well as it does, XYL wants me to replace it with a mobile direct tv setup--hey, what can I say, I believe in fairy tales? Anyway, I was able to watch the lost tv series on it when we went to visit family ... I have time to play with such, it keeps me out of jail. :-) Regards, JS |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:52:43 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux wrote: [Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's] Here's another "different" antenna: To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver element. This is the world's first gaussian array. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek? Hi Tom, It support's Arthur's faith in the PTO giving authority to invention: As a side note, one of my past PTO examinas did not know the difference between parallel and series circuit but that is O.K. Of course, Arthur also leand on their credibility to recognize something "different:" The patent was accepted by the PTO so on the surface it would appear that there is something new here even if the experts are baying at the moon ahead of time knowing that all is known about antennas. Considering that the PTO can be condemned and praised for the same thing is about as clarifying as his explanation for gaussian antenna theory. The original quote above (drawn from an actual patent that teaches the "different" antenna theory of the inventor) has its problems too, of course, but its "difference" makes it patentable. Afterall, who could possible beat him in the marketplace by stealing this idea? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
Jim Lux writes:
wrote: 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. It isn't prior art just because you did it. It isn't even prior art if you can prove you did it. It is only prior art if you published it. Or you can prove in some other way that the idea was well known among those skilled in the art, or obvious to them. 73 Jon |
Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
Jim Lux writes: wrote: 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. It isn't prior art just because you did it. It isn't even prior art if you can prove you did it. It is only prior art if you published it. Or you can prove in some other way that the idea was well known among those skilled in the art, or obvious to them. 73 Jon That is completely incorrect in the US. Publication is NEVER required with respect to establishing prior art. At least two things automatically support "prior art" status: 1) Valid documentation (but not necessarily publication) of the prior art. This usually means something like a lab notebook entry, witnessed by others. 2) Shipping a product that contains the prior art. No notification or publication is required. There are undoubtedly other means of establishing prior art that do not require "publication". In the US, establishing prior art is a matter for courts and lawsuits, so YMMV. 73, Gene W4SZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com