On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 17:09:08 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:

The following excerpt is lifted directly from the Patent database for
patent 5,625,367 at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=IN/unwin-art

So the antenna experts in this group don't understand how it functions
We need only observe that public record, to observe an obvious error:
"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."
the patent office accepted it as viable even tho
my writing was not clear because they had a samplke.
Well, um, yes, perhaps.... Is this samplke patented too?

The source of your grief with books, trade magazines, periodicals,
seminars, professionally juried papers, reports, educators,
instructors, hams, engineers, citizen banders, Boy Scouts, and the
rest appears to be in the near universality of their teaching that
directors are tuned higher and reflectors are tuned lower than the
driven element. Such inversions are consistent in your writings tho'
with the backwards interpretations of Q, Series/Parallel resonance,
Efficiency (did I forget anything?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC