|
New antenna design
Gentlemen
! promised in the past that I would make details of my antenna available to you in September, something I am not able to do now My initial patent request at the moment is in the rejection mode. Like many others of this group the PTO do not recognise the importance of equilibrium with respect to the classical form of physics. In fact they state that all can be pre anticipated as there are many antennas that fall under such a scheme of things. In addition, they are asking for changes to a drawing that does not exist, either in my records or the web pre printed application. Obviously they are in a pre mode rejection approach since I cannot possibly accede to their request. Thus, in turn, I cannot release the antenna replication information because of their actions with respect to equilibrium . I know that some will cry fraud but there is nothing I can do about it. I spoke to a patent attorney for the military who tells me that most military patent requests are initially rejected but they are easily reversed if one took on the labor of a beurocratic appeal for which I do not have the funds or inclination. The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent # 2008 655,899 I think, where Fig 3 is a computer info print out and not accompanied by any such drawing which I am required to add to. If the PTO changes its stance on equilibrium I will, of course, proceed with sharing my antenna design work. I expect that this posting will provide cat calls and insults but I have been placed into a impossible position. If the patent office is correct that all shown is declared as obviouse then somebody, some day, will share with the rest of the World and we all will be privy to much smaller antenna designs. If the past century can be seen as a guide I and many of you will be long gone before this journey is repeated again. |
New antenna design
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent # 2008 655,899 Methinks these are yours: Constant impedance matching system http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081 Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367 Push button arranged for mounting to a panel http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ Push button assembly http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ Any more that I missed? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
On Aug 30, 1:57*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent # 2008 655,899 Methinks these are yours: Constant impedance matching system http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081 Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367 Push button arranged for mounting to a panel http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ Push button assembly http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ Any more that I missed? -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about 2008 when I applied for the subject antenna |
New antenna design
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: On Aug 30, 1:57*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent # 2008 655,899 Methinks these are yours: Constant impedance matching system http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081 Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367 Push button arranged for mounting to a panel http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ Push button assembly http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ Any more that I missed? Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about 2008 when I applied for the subject antenna Well, the only application I could find with 655,899 in it is a seat belt buckle. I thought I was being helpful by reminding you of some of the numbers. Numbers are always a nice thing to have. Do try to recall your application number so I can look it up. As for your difficulties with the USPTO, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you need help obtaining a patent, the very last place I would ask is the military. All their patents tend to become classified, even if they're trivial. Unless your patent has some obvious military significance, such as a plasma antenna, don't bother with the military. If you go to NASA, they'll want the rights to sell licenses for the technology: http://technology.arc.nasa.gov/partnering/licensing.cfm It's not terribly difficult to get a patent on your own: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29493.html http://www.ehow.com/how_4441109_get-patent.html and the usual YouTube videos: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=how+to+get+a+patent in 20 parts at about 9 min each. There's even fill in the blank software to make the necessary documentation and drawings easier: http://www.inventorprise.com http://www.patentpro.us If you can't get patent protection, you can manufacture your antenna and protect the technology as a trade secret. However, that's very difficult with antennas, as they're easily reverse engineered and analyzed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret Hmmmm.... are you planning to manufacture and sell your antenna? -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
On Aug 30, 7:02*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: On Aug 30, 1:57*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:11 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: The first patent request on this subject is on the web as Patent # 2008 655,899 Methinks these are yours: Constant impedance matching system http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081 Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367 Push button arranged for mounting to a panel http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ Push button assembly http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ Any more that I missed? Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about 2008 when I applied for the subject antenna Well, the only application I could find with 655,899 in it is a seat belt buckle. *I thought I was being helpful by reminding you of some of the numbers. *Numbers are always a nice thing to have. *Do try to recall your application number so I can look it up. You are different, you are polite Yes I will supply the patent request number and the subject is well discussed on this group. The bottom line is that the PTO does not recognize the term equilibrium the same as most of this group. From my education a theory is only that until it satisfies the laws of Newton and Maxwell. The boundary laws are such that with classical physics all laws deal with the Cosmos as a whole where balance or equilibrium reins supreme. There is no law in existence that is accepted without conforming to boundary laws which goes back to Newtonian laws. Now equilibrium and boundary rules do not occupy the curriculum in the U.S. I cannot explain why but this group and the PTO subscribe to the idea that equilibrium has no position in this Universe, that I have to accept even tho commercial computer programs based on Maxwell provide confirmation of my findings. I can move on,no sweat As for your difficulties with the USPTO, I have no idea what you're talking about. *If you need help obtaining a patent, the very last place I would ask is the military. *All their patents tend to become classified, even if they're trivial. *Unless your patent has some obvious military significance, such as a plasma antenna, don't bother with the military. *If you go to NASA, they'll want the rights to sell licenses for the technology: http://technology.arc.nasa.gov/partnering/licensing.cfm It's not terribly difficult to get a patent on your own: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/howtopat.htm http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29493.html http://www.ehow.com/how_4441109_get-patent.html and the usual YouTube videos: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=how+to+get+a+pa... in 20 parts at about 9 min each. There's even fill in the blank software to make the necessary documentation and drawings easier: http://www.inventorprise.com http://www.patentpro.us If you can't get patent protection, you can manufacture your antenna and protect the technology as a trade secret. *However, that's very difficult with antennas, as they're easily reverse engineered and analyzed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret Hmmmm.... are you planning to manufacture and sell your antenna? The PTO is losing examiners faster than it can replace them and this is showing. I want ham radio to serve those who are not equipted to join the group. If I apply for a patent and thus reveal my findings and the patent office does its thing then amateurs will gain by it but the wolves are then able to take all. On this group there is denial of a better way which is an obsticle all patent owners have to face so it is better for me to stay silent and wait for a better environment to provide my antennas. I have antennas that are way smaller than present even a directive rotatable top band antenna and I am content as are others I have shared with. While equilibrium in physics are disparaged in the U.S. sciences then I must be content with what I have! And I am as others are in the denial of its possible existance. Regards Art -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about 2008 when I applied for the subject antenna Foundit. It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason. See: Application Number 11/655899 or 20080231540 at: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=655899&OS=655899&R S=655899 Sorry about the giant URL. If that wraps or doesn't work, try: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html and type in either application number. If you're going to refer to your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix. For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. Probably my fault (or Quicktime). I suspect you may have some problems with claim 3. "3. A clustered array according to claim 1 where the radiating elements of said cluster have random three dimensional Cartesian directional positions of placement with respect to each other and the surface of the earth." I don't think you can patent a random collection of elements as it would be classed as too broad a claim. That would encompass all antennas that were NOT designed according to non-random calculations. While the use of randomness is possible (and common) in patents, I've noticed that they always disclose the method by which the randomness is achieved. I would be interesting in seeing a photo, NEC2 deck, and test results for your random element antenna. Take you time, no hurry. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
On Aug 30, 8:44*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about 2008 when I applied for the subject antenna Foundit. *It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason. See: *Application Number 11/655899 *or *20080231540 *at: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1... Sorry about the giant URL. *If that wraps or doesn't work, try: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html and type in either application number. *If you're going to refer to your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix. * For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. *Probably my fault (or Quicktime). I suspect you may have some problems with claim 3. "3. A clustered array according to claim 1 where the radiating elements of said cluster have random three dimensional Cartesian directional positions of placement with respect to each other and the surface of the earth." I don't think you can patent a random collection of elements as it would be classed as too broad a claim. *That would encompass all antennas that were NOT designed according to non-random calculations. While the use of randomness is possible (and common) in patents, I've noticed that they always disclose the method by which the randomness is achieved. I would be interesting in seeing a photo, NEC2 deck, and test results for your random element antenna. *Take you time, no hurry. The PTO has offered alternative claims but after trashing the request such an offer would not stand up in court. True a lot of people are just interested in saying they have a patent but I am not willing to pay maintenance fees for something that does not provide protection. The killer of course is the allegation that I have not placed numbers on a drawing which does not exist or was submitted from me. There is no oversight or redress from an examiners descision and no discussion available since he is not fluent in spoken English so time will run out and it will be declared abandoned. Walter Cronkite had the phrase that deals with such situations. By the way I use a program that uses Mininec as well as being an optimizer. I did have a academic in the antenna field confirm that my discovery was correct and provided NEC4 proofs which is what PTO accepts as a basic of proof. I got this confirmation not because I doubted what I had but it is the thing all engineers should do. So my work will sleep with me at night and never see the light of day and hams can feel they have lost nothing. At present I have no antennas left to operate on. -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
Art Unwin wrote:
snip The bottom line is that the PTO does not recognize the term equilibrium the same as most of this group. I wonder why that is? Maybe something to do with reality? tom K0TAR |
New antenna design
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... snip The boundary laws are such that with classical physics all laws deal with the Cosmos as a whole where balance or equilibrium reins supreme. What about the notion of entropy in a closed system? No balance there. |
New antenna design
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... snip I spoke to a patent attorney for the military What person is this? I ask because the phrase "military patent attorney" produced no results at Google. The phrase "patent attorney for the military " produces exactly one result: your post using the phrase. Why involve the military at all? I ask because the military doesn't buy from individuals. It buys from companies. Your antenna, whatever its ability to inspire wonderment (or not), will be developed and produced by a company that acquires rights to your eventual patent. (I have a passing acquaintance with military procurements, having worked on all three sides of that triangle: 21 years active military, 20 years defense contractor and five years Civil Service, including training for procurement.) |
New antenna design
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:19:32 -0700, "Sal M. Onella"
wrote: I ask because the phrase "military patent attorney" produced no results at Google. The phrase "patent attorney for the military " produces exactly one result: your post using the phrase. Last time I checked, we don't have a single "military". We have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and some other organizations, all under the Dept of Defense. Each have their own policies for handling patents. For example: Office of the Judge Advocate General Department of the Army Intellectual Property Office Regulatory Law and Intellectual Property Division 901 North Stuart Street, Arlington, VA 22203-1837. Basically a patent attorney. It's possible that Art talked to one of them. www.army.mil/USAPA/epubs/pdf/p27_11.pdf Looks old, but interesting. I ask because the military doesn't buy from individuals. It buys from companies. True. However all the branches will license patents from individuals. If they want something manufactured by a 3rd party, and they need a patent, they will arrange for licensing (or confiscation in case of need or secrecy). I don't wanna get into technology transfers and royalties. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:19:32 -0700, "Sal M. Onella" wrote: I ask because the phrase "military patent attorney" produced no results at Google. The phrase "patent attorney for the military " produces exactly one result: your post using the phrase. Last time I checked, we don't have a single "military". We have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and some other organizations, all under the Dept of Defense. Each have their own policies for handling patents. For example: Office of the Judge Advocate General Department of the Army Intellectual Property Office Regulatory Law and Intellectual Property Division 901 North Stuart Street, Arlington, VA 22203-1837. Basically a patent attorney. It's possible that Art talked to one of them. Not unless it was at a bar and Art was buying. A military attorney is not going to be talking to a civilian off the street. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
New antenna design
Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
I can't think of a single patent where I work has applied for that was classified (hint, US Navy R&E). I strongly doubt that anyone would seek any patent that had classified details. In industry, one uses patents and trade secrets to protect intelectual property. Patents have to be written in such a way that someone "skilled in the art" can duplicate the idea. I'm not sure of the current state of US patent law, but in general it was intended that someone would read a patent, build the device and improve it. The improvement would be a deriviative work or it may be something new. In either case, the original work, or a derivative work would be the exclusive property of the owner of the patent for a length of time, now 20 years from first publication or date of filing (whichever is earlier) in the US, and 21 years in the rest of the world. Trade secrets are different, they rely on things that have never been revealed. For example, the formula for WD-40, Coka Cola, or KFC breading. KFC is an interesting combination, the process was patented, the formula was not. So you can duplicate KFC chicken at home and now that the patent has run out in your restaurant in theory, but in practice, you can't because you don't know for sure what the ingredients and their proportions are in the breading. There quite simply is no need to seek a patent with classified details. It's similar to a trade secret, but instead of contracts and ethics protecting it, the secrecy of it is protected by law. There is also a law going back to the time of Lincoln administration about developing things under government contract, patenting them and then dedicating the patent to the people of the US. There is a big tax advantage, if it interests you, look up the details. As far as radios are concerned, one could have patented a transformer consisting of a toriodal core of powdered iron and other materials (aka ferite) without revealing the other materials. If that had been a "secret" invention, then others could duplicate the device but without the formula for the exact compostition of the core, no one would get the results you did. That's a two edged sword, they may be better at it. :-) Note that this is just an example, I really have no idea of who invented the toroid transformer. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
New antenna design
On Aug 31, 9:30*am, wrote:
Ralph E Lindberg wrote: In article , wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:19:32 -0700, "Sal M. Onella" wrote: I ask because the phrase "military patent attorney" produced no results at Google. *The phrase "patent attorney for the military " produces exactly one result: *your post using the phrase. Last time I checked, we don't have a single "military". *We have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and some other organizations, all under the Dept of Defense. *Each have their own policies for handling patents. *For example: *Office of the Judge Advocate General *Department of the Army *Intellectual Property Office *Regulatory Law and Intellectual Property Division *901 North Stuart *Street, Arlington, VA 22203-1837. Basically a patent attorney. *It's possible that Art talked to one of them. Not unless it was at a bar and Art was buying. A military attorney is not going to be talking to a civilian off the street. I know the one where I work does talk with an employees about a personal patent. But not help/work with the actually application To be expected and employees aren't coming in off the street. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Many Universities have near to them a quasi military funded work group that employ some of the graduates of Universities especially in the computer area. The funding by the military is for different projects that they have. These units are monitored by patent personnel a couple of times a year where information is gathered for patent potential.Usually they do mundane computer work but there are exceptions and there is some turn over as the graduates leave for new found jobs. There are at least two such units that are in driving distance from me that I know of and there may be more as there are many Universities close to me. I never said I consulted him or asked for assistance. In these sort of discussions in this group small things grow so large that they have a life of their own that often stray from the truth. |
New antenna design
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:45:06 -0700, Ralph E Lindberg
wrote: In article , Jeff Liebermann wrote: As for your difficulties with the USPTO, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you need help obtaining a patent, the very last place I would ask is the military. All their patents tend to become classified, even if they're trivial. I can't think of a single patent where I work has applied for that was classified (hint, US Navy R&E). I strongly doubt that anyone would seek any patent that had classified details. I beg to differ. There are over 4000 classified patents, 88 of which are by the US Navy: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/stats.html (Note the classification of patents of private inventors). In FY08, the Navy apparently applied for 8 classified patents. Obvious, I have no clue what they were for. Mo http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_5_1.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act Drivel: I sorta blundered across this one. The patent is fully disclosed, but the title is "classified": http://www.google.com/patents?id=kG-oAAAAEBAJ&dq=2008/0047450 Oops. Unless your patent has some obvious military significance, Or has some impact on any military related industrial application Some horror stories where key commercial technologies somehow get classified. From 2002: http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/vesprman.htm "As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number of 'secretized' patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They [applicants] never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention." -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/vesprman.htm "As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number of 'secretized' patents in the vault at the Patent Office (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They [applicants] never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, if ever, compensated by the government for use of the invention." That's an interesting question. Normally an inventor is not compensated for the use of their invention, as it were, by an employer. In most cases the employer owns the research it funded and the results (including patents) of that research. Quite often the payment for a patent was one dollar. The late father of a late friend of mine was one of the inventors on 18 patents filed by RCA, 9 of which he was the principal inventor. From what I remember he received besides his regular salary, an offical payment of $1 for the rights to each of them, and a nice little plaque for his wall. In some exceptional cases, usually where the inventor is a noted expert in the field before employment they negotiated different terms. There were also independent inventors who filed "invention disclosures" and then attempted to sell the invention to investors or companies in the field. This has pretty much disapeared in the US as people now file provisional patent applications and market those. The problem of this system is that abandoned provisional patent applications become public domain when they expire (one year after first publication or filing, whichever is earlier) and invention disclosures, never being publicised could go on forever. The other question I have is if a patent is filled and never publicised, how does one know it exists? If someone else invents the idea (actually very common) and files a patent are they refused? Are they sued for infringment? Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
New antenna design
On Aug 31, 12:09*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote: Jeff Liebermann wrote: http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/vesprman.htm * "As a former Patent Examiner, I can tell you that the number * of 'secretized' patents in the vault at the Patent Office * (Park 5 Bldg.) is closer to 4000 or more. They [applicants] * never receive a patent number, and the inventor is rarely, * if ever, compensated by the government for use of the * invention." That's an interesting question. Normally an inventor is not compensated for the use of their invention, as it were, by an employer. In most cases the employer owns the research it funded and the results (including patents) of that research. Quite often the payment for a patent was one dollar. The late father of a late friend of mine was one of the inventors on 18 patents filed by RCA, 9 of which he was the principal inventor. From what I remember he received besides his regular salary, an offical payment of $1 for the rights to each of them, and a nice little plaque for his wall. In some exceptional cases, usually where the inventor is a noted expert in the field before employment they negotiated different terms. There were also independent inventors who filed "invention disclosures" and then attempted to sell the invention to investors or companies in the field. This has pretty much disapeared in the US as people now file provisional patent applications and market those. The problem of this system is that abandoned provisional patent applications become public domain when they expire (one year after first publication or filing, whichever is earlier) and invention disclosures, never being publicised could go on forever. The other question I have is if a patent is filled and never publicised, how does one know it exists? If someone else invents the idea (actually very common) and files a patent are they refused? Are they sued for infringment? Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM Wow ! You are way out of date with respect to PTO procedures on so many things. The main thing is patents have stopped going on for ever. The primary change you have that affects patents today is that patent request are pre printed for the public before they ever reach an examiner. If I understand correctly not receiving a patent leaves your request as a free for all in terms of use. The courts have now put more power in the examiners hands and are less interested in cases challenging the aproved claims. For your interest antennas have come to the fore because Chip has sued many cell phone manufacturers for knowingly using Fractal patents. It will be interesting to see how the courts handle this in the light of the many patent changes. You are now seeing more generic drugs over the counter as drug patents are not being extended for minor changes. Thus drug companies are using other methods to preserve their interests via import rules to stop generic drugs coming in from other Countries covered by the world patent office org of which the U.S. is part. This does not include Peurto Rico where many U.S. drugs are manufactured today |
New antenna design
Art Unwin wrote:
Wow ! You are way out of date with respect to PTO procedures on so many things. The main thing is patents have stopped going on for ever. The primary change you have that affects patents today is that patent request are pre printed for the public before they ever reach an examiner. Well not really. First of all an invention disclosure could go on forever as I said because it all is based upon date of filing, or if nothing is filed, date of first publication. If a person submits an invention disclosure to an investor or prospective purchaser that is done with an agreement of confidentiality, not publication. Therefore an invention disclosure not being filed with the USPTO, or publicized is not limited by the one year limitiation. In the US, patent applications are published immediately. The USPTO has a short period to reject applciations out of hand, and if they do not they can be published as soon as the USPTO can, which I know is kind of vague. However, you may request that the application is kept confidental until 18 months from date of application. In the current environment, applications will be seen by an examiner in around 18 months, so it may or may not be the case. It depends upon the queue. If I understand correctly not receiving a patent leaves your request as a free for all in terms of use. Yes. However you have a year to appeal a final rejection. The courts have now put more power in the examiners hands and are less interested in cases challenging the aproved claims. I can't say anything about that, I have never dealt with the courts. For your interest antennas have come to the fore because Chip has sued many cell phone manufacturers for knowingly using Fractal patents. It will be interesting to see how the courts handle this in the light of the many patent changes. Yes. In this case it may depend more upon the quality of legal representation and the authors of the original patent applications. If Chip's patent applications were written well, he may be able to prove infringment. If they were not, then the likelyhood of him getting anything is small. It would depend, IMHO on Chip's lawyers making them feel he is being vicitimized by the big bad cellular companies, or the companies making them feel he is a crackpot inventor who patented something similar, but not the close enough for them to pay him. I've read an article foisted upon me about software patents that claimed they were bad because judges were unable to understand them. IMHO bad judges do not mean the whole system should be thrown out. I also expect that if the case were to go before a jury, it would be next to impossible to convince them of anything on a technical basis. I was then told that I should read the paper's authors book, but to me it seemed ironic (and stupid) to pay $22.50 and postage to be told that my ideas should be free, while theirs were not. You are now seeing more generic drugs over the counter as drug patents are not being extended for minor changes. Thus drug companies are using other methods to preserve their interests via import rules to stop generic drugs coming in from other Countries covered by the world patent office org of which the U.S. is part. This does not include Peurto Rico where many U.S. drugs are manufactured today That's a special case. Most generic drugs come from Israel, which follows FDA regulations and respects international patents, and India which does not. Indira Gandi was presented the case that drug patents were racist, because they prevented brown (Indian) people from buying drugs sold by price-gouging white people (ICL in specific). She allowed that the process could be patented, but not the product itself, allowing Indian manufacturers to make generic drugs without using the approved processes, and not subject to any quality control or testing. WIRED did an excelent article about it a few years ago. If you want more information, I suggest you look it up. As for Puerto Rico, it is part of the US, and since the 1970's has become a haven for drug manufacturers because of the low taxes. The FDA was (is?) loath to approve drugs which they can not supervise the manufacture of, which they can do in Peurto Rico, but not in other countries. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
New antenna design
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:44:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. Probably my fault (or Quicktime). Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:44:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: For some odd reason, I can't see the five attached figures. *Probably my fault (or Quicktime). Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 PTO states they will review all again. As I am a private entity w/o attorney they are committed to supplying assistance. Have about 25 days to resolve, so all is not lost. |
New antenna design
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf PTO states they will review all again. As I am a private entity w/o attorney they are committed to supplying assistance. Have about 25 days to resolve, so all is not lost. Good luck. As I previously ranted, the obvious stumbling block is the user of the term "random" array of elements. If the examiner interprets that as "arbitrary", then your patent is too general to be considered passable. You might what to look at other patents for antennas at: http://www.google.com/patents/ Ignore the applications and concentrate on the patents that have been issued. Compare these patents with your application. You should see fairly quickly what you're missing. (Hint: References and Citations). -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
On Aug 31, 5:43*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: On Aug 31, 3:10*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote: Here's a copy of the patent application, with the figures included: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf PTO states they will review all again. As I am a private entity w/o attorney they are committed to supplying assistance. Have about 25 days to resolve, so all is not lost. Good luck. *As I previously ranted, the obvious stumbling block is the user of the term "random" array of elements. *If the examiner interprets that as "arbitrary", then your patent is too general to be considered passable. *You might what to look at other patents for antennas at: http://www.google.com/patents/ Ignore the applications and concentrate on the patents that have been issued. *Compare these patents with your application. *You should see fairly quickly what you're missing. *(Hint: References and Citations). -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 Oddly enough they ( PTO)have offered claims with "arbitrary" involved I say that is not bad since the positions are arbitrary but dependent solely on equilibrium where all are resonant, as is the enclosure, and can be chosen as the feed.. all of which is determined on weighting applied which provide multiple arrangements. It is possible that if more radiators are added then one may not be resonant and the boundary close to fracture. It is important to note however that tho the majority will be resonant some will have a impedance that is too low to feed. As can be seen from the above, for equilibrium there are no compelling reasons for the elements to be straight We have to wait to what the supervisor has to say and what options are available Accept or role it in to the followi up application which is in the same antenna catagory, the latter I am hoping for as it cuts down on maintenance fees. Regards |
New antenna design
"tom" wrote in message . net... Art Unwin wrote: snip The bottom line is that the PTO does not recognize the term equilibrium the same as most of this group. I wonder why that is? Maybe something to do with reality? tom K0TAR reality has never stopped a patent in the past... search for the faster than light antenna that also makes plants grow faster. |
New antenna design
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about 2008 when I applied for the subject antenna Foundit. It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason. See: Application Number 11/655899 or 20080231540 at: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2 FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=655899&OS=655899&R S=655899 Sorry about the giant URL. If that wraps or doesn't work, try: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html and type in either application number. If you're going to refer to your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix. wow! exciting to finally see it in print! i already have the perfect name for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian fortune telling stick thing... google to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cim the "Kau cim antenna" gives it a more authoritative sound, maybe that would be better... throw some sticks in a can and design a new antenna! |
New antenna design
On Aug 31, 7:16*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: Yes, they are mine in this country but I am talking about 2008 when I applied for the subject antenna Foundit. *It's not on Google Patents for some odd reason. See: *Application Number 11/655899 *or *20080231540 *at: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1... Sorry about the giant URL. *If that wraps or doesn't work, try: http://appft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html and type in either application number. *If you're going to refer to your patent application by number, don't forget the 11/ prefix. wow! *exciting to finally see it in print! *i already have the perfect name for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian fortune telling stick thing... google to the rescue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cimthe "Kau cim antenna" *gives it a more authoritative sound, *maybe that would be better... throw some sticks in a can and design a new antenna! Too late David But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws dropped in ignorance when the term was used. |
New antenna design
Dave wrote:
wow! exciting to finally see it in print! i already have the perfect name for it... the "pickup stick antenna"... or what is that asian fortune telling stick thing... google to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kau_cim the "Kau cim antenna" gives it a more authoritative sound, maybe that would be better... throw some sticks in a can and design a new antenna! Interesting! And from the verbiage - "The Yagi antenna has a plethora of detuned elements compared to the driven element which is always resonant". Funny, every yagi I've designed and built has a driven element which is NOT resonant. It has a non-resonant element and a matching network of one sort or other, which is entirely different than being resonant. And strangely enough, is high 90's efficient. Which Art claims isn't possible. tom K0TAR |
New antenna design
On Aug 31, 8:44*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Too late David Yes Dave, you are too late. I already named this antenna months ago. "The Cluster@#$%". I see he has adapted part of my suggestion, but dumped the most descriptive part of the name.. :/ It kills me that he actually sent this package of mumbo jumbo to the patent office with a straight face. And just think, all this was inspired due to delusions of grandeur brought on by improper use of a modeling program. :/ But what really kills me is it's already been shown that a properly designed yagi with a number of elements equal to the Cluster@#$% is actually the superior antenna of the two. |
New antenna design
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:43:02 -0500, tom wrote:
Funny, every yagi I've designed and built has a driven element which is NOT resonant. It has a non-resonant element and a matching network of one sort or other, which is entirely different than being resonant. And strangely enough, is high 90's efficient. Which Art claims isn't possible. tom K0TAR Huh? I can tune across the frequency range of a Yagi-Uda antenna, measure the VSWR, and most certainly see a resonance dip at the design center frequency. I can also attach a grid dip meter to the feed, through a coupling loop, and see the resonance. Take away the reflector and directors, and we're left with an ordinary dipole, which is most certainly a resonant antenna. If the driven element is not resonant, what is producing the dip in VSWR at the design frequency? Goggling for added support: http://www.hamuniverse.com/yagibasics.html "The Yagi antenna's overall basic design consists of a "resonant" fed dipole..." "Resonance phenomena on Yagi arrays" http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1981CEEJ....6....9T http://books.google.com/books?id=ujr0WOkx_nkC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=yagi+r esonant&source=bl&ots=VLXGYNabey&sig=6r-TqPQHdMNb9Zg9sV8olViIeTc&hl=en&ei=7LWcSszEG4ayswPc wK2TDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12#v=o nepage&q=yagi%20resonant&f=false "Resonant with directivity...yagi..." -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
New antenna design
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Huh? I can tune across the frequency range of a Yagi-Uda antenna, measure the VSWR, and most certainly see a resonance dip at the design center frequency. I can also attach a grid dip meter to the feed, through a coupling loop, and see the resonance. Take away the That's not resonance, it's matched at that frequency. reflector and directors, and we're left with an ordinary dipole, which is most certainly a resonant antenna. If the driven element is not resonant, what is producing the dip in VSWR at the design frequency? The match. It's normally not a resonant element when in the middle of a Yagi-Uda array, although it's _near_ resonance when the rest of the elements are removed. It is possible to have a resonance at the match frequency, but unusual. Run a couple yagis through Eznec and check the driven element impedence. For instance, the NBS yagi that comes with Eznec. At 50.125 it's 11.7+j5.9, not very resonant. I have a 222 yagi that has a DE longer than the reflector, also unusual, but it works fine. tom K0TAR |
New antenna design
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Too late David But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws dropped in ignorance when the term was used. there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my collection that i can find. 'steady state' is the closest, but that is normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient response has died out. 'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no radiation. 'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation. |
New antenna design
On Sep 1, 4:04*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Too late David But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing *is a intrusion of new math into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws dropped in ignorance when the term was used. there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my collection that i can find. *'steady state' is the closest, but that is normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient response has died out. *'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no radiation. *'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation. Thanks for the response David. I will have to look at my books regarding basic laws which are all connected to Maxwell's laws. A case in point is the tank circuit which is seen as being in equilibrium and where there is current flow and which I state is the electrical circuit for radiation that is totally in accordance with the laws of Maxwell. If you agree it can be used for a electrostatic field then you are agreeing to any circuit which contains a capacitor with its own contained electrostatic field. I agree that the term is not presently in the books which is why progress has been stunted and the reason for my disclosure but I assure you that this is an error of the education system since equilibrium is the basic datum line for all laws including electrical. As an over check on my position antenna programs will always point to a non planar form in equilibrium per Maxwells laws so with the assumption that programmers did use Maxwell's equations correctly then my findings have been confirmed Hang on for a while and I will report back on my findings as well as Wilkedia type of definitions. Since the Universe is considered to have an electrical foundation which includes the four forces of the standard model then without the Universe achieving a point of equilibrium we can all be seen as traveling thru the Universe at the speed of light with no end to motion to place us in a state of balance, a terrible thought if we cannot rely on seeing the sunrise every day. Regards Art |
New antenna design
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
"Resonance phenomena on Yagi arrays" http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/1981CEEJ....6....9T BTW, this link has to do with resonance of the yagi in a narrowband range just below the director array cutoff frequency, and nothing to do with the driven element. Google can be your friend, but when used without vetting the results can sometimes lead to embarrassment. In this group, it's nothing like the nonsense spouted by Art and some others however, so no worries. tom K0TAR |
New antenna design
On Sep 1, 7:09*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:04*pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message .... Too late David But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing *is a intrusion of new math into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws dropped in ignorance when the term was used. there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my collection that i can find. *'steady state' is the closest, but that is normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient response has died out. *'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no radiation. *'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation. Thanks for the response David. I will have to look at my books regarding basic laws which are all connected to Maxwell's laws. A case in point is the tank circuit which is seen as being in equilibrium and where there is current flow and which I state is the electrical circuit for radiation that is totally in accordance with the laws of Maxwell. If you agree it can be used for a electrostatic field then you are agreeing to any circuit which contains a capacitor with its own contained electrostatic field. I agree that the term is not presently in the books which is why progress has been stunted and the reason for my disclosure but I assure you that this is an error of the education system since equilibrium is the basic datum line for all laws including electrical. As an over check on my position antenna programs will always point to a non planar form in equilibrium per Maxwells laws so with the assumption that programmers did use Maxwell's equations correctly then my findings have been confirmed Hang on for a while and I will report back on my findings as well as Wilkedia type of definitions. Since the Universe is considered to have an electrical foundation which includes the four forces of the standard model then without the Universe *achieving a point of equilibrium we can all be seen as traveling thru the Universe at the speed of light with no end to motion to place us in a state of balance, a terrible thought if we cannot rely on seeing the sunrise every day. Regards Art On a quick google on Newton equilibrium there does appear that equilibrium is not liked say as much as "balanced" Thus science is essentially changing laws to today's intent and at the same time describing the laws with respect to Earth and not the Universe. I can see now where so much reference is to gravity and not the combination of Gravity accompanied by the spin action of Corriolis, where neither can exist without the other in cosmic terms. Thus every action and opposite action considers the Corriolis as non existant such that Gravity alone should be part of the Standard Model. It now can be seen that the "intent" of the laws has changed over the years without emphasising the "core" of the laws as intended by the providers. Fortunately NASA does not have to discover new laws for each and every part of the Universe since the laws we use are Universal and not just confined to Earth as we know it. Thus I, coming from the Olde World, still adheres to the intent of the law in macro style where others understand it as decifered by the new World in micro form for a more understandable relationship in todays education. In other words first principles in education has given way to continuos plagurism or learning by rote. |
New antenna design
Corriolis deals with mass, so it is incorporated with the same core Math
that deals with Gravity, Inertia, Acceleration. Corriolis really isn't a "force". However, since you bring up the idea of "spin", it seems to have become more important than the laws of Physics in some classrooms. "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... On Sep 1, 7:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote: On Sep 1, 4:04 pm, "Dave" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Too late David But I have a question for you, Does the New World ( Rumsfield) use the term "equilibrium" in any of the engineering curriculums or are you quoting what appears to be American English and not that of the Olde World? Personaly if I was dealing with entropy or those wonderful graphic steam tables +equilibrium" would be discarded in favor of yours. But to explain all that stuff would be impossible with this group so I opted for the Universal term that was current in Newton and Maxwell time. Maybe what we are seeing is a intrusion of new math into physics! Either way it does explain to me why american jaws dropped in ignorance when the term was used. there is no 'equilibrium' used in the electromagnetics texts in my collection that i can find. 'steady state' is the closest, but that is normally used to refer to the response of a system after the transient response has died out. 'equilibrium' is often used in thermodynamics, but any analogy to that in electromagnetics is useless as it refers to a state where there is no energy flow, and if energy isn't flowing then you have no radiation. 'equilibrium' could also refer to a mechanical system that has reached 'steady state' or a stable state, but again similar to the thermodynamic use it is useless for electromagnetics... maybe for electrostatic or static magnetic fields, but not for radiation. Thanks for the response David. I will have to look at my books regarding basic laws which are all connected to Maxwell's laws. A case in point is the tank circuit which is seen as being in equilibrium and where there is current flow and which I state is the electrical circuit for radiation that is totally in accordance with the laws of Maxwell. If you agree it can be used for a electrostatic field then you are agreeing to any circuit which contains a capacitor with its own contained electrostatic field. I agree that the term is not presently in the books which is why progress has been stunted and the reason for my disclosure but I assure you that this is an error of the education system since equilibrium is the basic datum line for all laws including electrical. As an over check on my position antenna programs will always point to a non planar form in equilibrium per Maxwells laws so with the assumption that programmers did use Maxwell's equations correctly then my findings have been confirmed Hang on for a while and I will report back on my findings as well as Wilkedia type of definitions. Since the Universe is considered to have an electrical foundation which includes the four forces of the standard model then without the Universe achieving a point of equilibrium we can all be seen as traveling thru the Universe at the speed of light with no end to motion to place us in a state of balance, a terrible thought if we cannot rely on seeing the sunrise every day. Regards Art On a quick google on Newton equilibrium there does appear that equilibrium is not liked say as much as "balanced" Thus science is essentially changing laws to today's intent and at the same time describing the laws with respect to Earth and not the Universe. I can see now where so much reference is to gravity and not the combination of Gravity accompanied by the spin action of Corriolis, where neither can exist without the other in cosmic terms. Thus every action and opposite action considers the Corriolis as non existant such that Gravity alone should be part of the Standard Model. It now can be seen that the "intent" of the laws has changed over the years without emphasising the "core" of the laws as intended by the providers. Fortunately NASA does not have to discover new laws for each and every part of the Universe since the laws we use are Universal and not just confined to Earth as we know it. Thus I, coming from the Olde World, still adheres to the intent of the law in macro style where others understand it as decifered by the new World in micro form for a more understandable relationship in todays education. In other words first principles in education has given way to continuos plagurism or learning by rote. |
New antenna design
JB wrote:
Corriolis deals with mass, so it is incorporated with the same core Math that deals with Gravity, Inertia, Acceleration. Corriolis really isn't a "force". However, since you bring up the idea of "spin", it seems to have become more important than the laws of Physics in some classrooms. Given that Coriolis is an effect, what would be the cause of the supposed spin? Do the spun up particles that accelerate at the speed of light and are replaced by other particles follow a curved trajectory through the universe? Do the particles that replace them have identical spin? - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
New antenna design
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:14:06 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Given that Coriolis is an effect, what would be the cause of the supposed spin? Not an effect, not a cause, not a force, not an energy, not a power, not even a spin: Coriolis is a twisted perception. If Art were to stumble in the woods and saw you flip simply because his frame of reference swished, would you feel it? Were you pushed in - or knocked up? Did you trip on the wall - or did the floor fall on you? Would you fall clockwise, or counter-clockwise depending on which hemisphere you are in? Most of the last few days posts read like a bad LSD trip for a patent examiner. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com