"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
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?

I feel I have to answer this diatribe
The error refered to above was made by me and at least one person made a
huge meal out of it in poast posts.
After I did my initial experiments I decided I wanted it in the record. Past
experience on this ney showed that change is not readily accepted but I felt
strongly enough on what I had found so a patent write up seemed logical. The
cost of a patent is upwards
of $10.000 which if one never had a patent some will pay. That was not the
situation in my case. So I decided to try and do all the work myself. The
main thing in patents are the claims , the claims and the claims and in
legal matters that is what everything revolves around if your intent is to
make money which is not my intent. The patent office requires you to give a
disertation on prior art and also a portion where what you are claiming is
something new. Yes I made an error with regard to yagi elements, an
overcheck by somebody would have revealed that but I omitted to do that and
obviously these portions of a patent aplication didn,t bother the patent
office either. The patent office did ask for explanation and proof which tho
costly I provided. They changed one claim and made it very restrictive with
my permission as my desires was for record only and not for investment
purposes and the patent was granted. So yes I made an error, I have stated
this many times on this thread but it is a usefull tool to attack me even if
not relavent. I have rejected any sugestions regarding making money from
this or promoting it but I do defend the work that went into it as I do with
with my present work which arouses anger as it is a fresh aproach to
antennas.






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?).


With respect to my comments on books and the portions that people extract
from them to present themselves as experts.
It is not books themselves that I attack After allone must review the past
to see the future. They provide the information that allows one to forge
ahead AFTER you have received your education and not to provide one with an
anchor that prevents thoughts of pushing the envelope. In this thread
experts picked on a simple formula from a book as their anchor but they only
trotted out the formula without care of the restrictions involved, This
simple formula you will find pretty much in every technical book where
filters are being discussed. The formula assumes that the little circuit
does not radiate and the parts of the circuit are stuck together without
connecting links such that radiation could be ignored. When I used that same
circuit to make an antenna then I could not ignore the fact that connecting
wires will radiate and thus any formula applied must include the radiating
parts when using this simple formula, I saw no way around it. And the
inclusion of the radiating parts thus did not duplicate the path of high
impedance that unfolds with a simple parallel filter circuit
where radiation is ignored. Actually I found that high impedance
was not now a cast iron fact tho it did oftern result in high impedance hich
was manageble. I then bought a professional computor program which as large
enought to overcome errors that smaller programs can provide. The program
came out with the same answers. So then I took even another step and made a
antenna with accordance to the figures and again the answers
proved O.K. I then computed another parallel circuit from a different filter
form to see if all of this was one large error and by golly that worked as
it should and I got on the air (160 metres)
with the antenna in the horizontal position so it rotated and also in the
vertical position ( it is smaller than normal wavelength designed antennas)
and had some very nice QSO .
The bottom line is that the antenna workes great and if the experts
are totaly correct in resisting the idea I put before them then I have found
an excelent placebo which does not account for the contacts made around the
country and where I have yet to reqire an amplihier ( I do have one with
8877)
So for the benefit for some readers who have just happened on this attack I
am using the antenna that I describe. With respect to the patent antenna
above people in this town have made them by themselves as I am not in any
business mode just a sharing mode with fellow experimenters. For the
umpteeth time , Yes I, made an error when I said that directer length and
reflector lengths on a yagi as the wrong way around. I apologise profusely
for misguiding people on what a yagi looks like, an error that would NOT
occured if I shelled out $10,000 to lawyers instead of tackling the job
myself. I agree that yagi directors are usually shorter than the driven
element and a reflector is usually longer
than the driven element, I was in error when I wrote otherwise.


Best Regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG



st73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC