On Aug 31, 12:40*pm, "Dale Parfitt" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...
On Aug 30, 7:27 pm, "Dale Parfitt" wrote: "Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

Tom, W8ji apparently is an expert with antennas having lectured
at Dayton and has authored many technical articles around antennas,
states that radiators must be straight for maximum efficiency,
apparently

It would assist us if you would cut and paste the quote from Tom' site.
As I said before, the only place I ever saw this was with reference to
Beverages- the statement is true and obvious to everyone except perhaps you
Art.
The onus *is upon you to prove that a Beverage in any other deployment
except straight would be better. I don't want to hear about your theories
that only you embrace- a simple EZNEC model will be sufficient.

Dale W4OP

Dale I am happy with the responses of the group. Seems like they are
united against the idea that radiators must be straight for maximum
efficiency. I never mentioned anything about Beverages, that was
somebody else. As far as Eznec is concerned I am not familiar with it
as I use a program equiped with an optimiser that tries to bring your
inputs in line with Maxwells equations. For instance, Eznec is only a
calculator devised to provide answers to that supplied with additions
to handle planar forms that are not in compliance. When you have an
optimiser and your input is not pre guided ,such as a planar input,
the optimiser will respond with a non planar design that includes
the
Coriolis force such that Maxwells equations are enforced , and that
requires equilibrium.
That also means the programs costs more but all antenna design
companies use them as they recognise the true value of adherence to
Maxwell's laws.
The above justifies my position on radiators unless you want to
declare "garbage in garbage out". I have a simple sample printed of a
computerized array that shows the above in the patent request that is
presently due for extinction. The military uses tipped radiators in
many places to gain coverage of the donut hole as I have shown, but
you will not see printed matter on the subject except from me. The WWW
changes a lot of things regarding secrecy. Remember, when Tesla died
he was working on a cheap energy system. The FBI raided his lab and
took every thing which even now has not seen the light of day!
I know. YOU now want me to provide a copy of the statement to you but
then,. you can choose to believe or not to believe and use free speech
to demand any thing. But I am not in your employ.

Hi Art,
I just want to make sure what you are quoting from ToW8JI.
So, if you have the time and inclination, please cut and paste Tom's
comments about straight radiators so we can all be on the same page.
I was the one who initially mentioned Beverages- because, although I am not
an expert on Tom's site, that is the only referecne I recall about straight
wires on his site.

Dale W4OP

On Aug 31, 1:31*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above justifies my position on radiators unless you want to
declare "garbage in garbage out".

I declare.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:31:30 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

The above justifies my position on radiators unless you want to
declare "garbage in garbage out".

Close. It's like Kirchoff's Current Law. The sum of all comments
over a point on Usenet is zero.

http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf
Figure 3B on your patent application indicates:
Computer Derived Performance
(Use NEC, Mininec, or Mathcad style program)
along with some gain, F/B, and Z computation results. Above that is
part of a coordinate input table, showing wires 21 thru 23, used to
define antennas in a variety of NEC2 modeling programs. That suggests
that you have created an NEC2 (or NEC4) model for your Gaussian
Radiative Cluster (Antenna). This would be a big help in
understanding your antenna. I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it? G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?
Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

You could observe, measure or calculate that if you randomly place
elements, one or more of the resulting patterns, layouts, etc will
produce specific results and patent that specific pattern. There is no
requirment that you invent something by any means more scientific than
just throwning sticks on the floor randomly.

However if you can not identify that pattern, you can't patent it. If
you do identify that pattern, you can patent an Unwin antenna, or a
Liebermann-Unwin antenna, if Jeff were to find that critical piece you
were missing.

I did not read the entire patent application, Jeff posted it what was very
late last night for me, but I did browse it. If the antenna is a modified
Yagi-Uda design, then it is a design and not random. If it just happens to
work better than one, I'm not sure that is relevant to the patent.

I think that what you are trying to patent is randomly tossing metal
sticks on the ground and connecting wires to some of them in some random
fashion. I don't think this is what you had intended to do at all.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On Sep 1, 4:04*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it? G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?
Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

You could observe, measure or calculate that if you randomly place
elements, one or more of the resulting patterns, layouts, etc will
produce specific results and patent that specific pattern. There is no
requirment that you invent something by any means more scientific than
just throwning sticks on the floor randomly.

However if you can not identify that pattern, you can't patent it. If
you do identify that pattern, you can patent an Unwin antenna, or a
Liebermann-Unwin antenna, if Jeff were to find that critical piece you
were missing.

I did not read the entire patent application, Jeff posted it what was very
late last night for me, but I did browse it. If the antenna is a modified
Yagi-Uda design, then it is a design and not random. If it just happens to
work better than one, I'm not sure that is relevant to the patent.

I think that what you are trying to patent is randomly tossing metal
sticks on the ground and connecting wires to some of them in some random
fashion. I don't think this is what you had intended to do at all.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

The first object is to establish equilibrium by using a WL radiator.
Anything less breaks away from equilibrium.Adding a second radiator
affects the electrical length of both radiators together with their
angle with respect to each other i.e. not planar.
The question then becomes what is the reference line to determine the
exact position?
Now you can deviate from such a equilibrium by adding a radiator that
is not a WL which then pressures the arbitrary boundary close to
rupture and so on. Thus the available number and electrical WL
escalate each without a reference point expands because it will change
as you move it on the surface of the Earth. Thus "random" is a hard
word to use when it is any arrangement that satisfies the term of
equilibrium. If the radiators were magnetic in nature and was thrown
on the floor they could combine in a arrangement via repell and
attract that would be maintained or jarred to another cluster position
while still retaining equilibrium. Thus one should see how difficult
it is quantasize an arrangement when equilibrium has no measurable
point of reference that meets PTO requirements. But I would be
interested if a solution could be presented that provided the metrics
of such a arrangement such that a drawing could be made that is a
picture of any final arrangement of the cluster that would occur for
all to duplicate. It was for the above reasons why I included a
typical computerized arrangement which by itself is not required in a
patent request. As always the difficulty is in the details thus the
need to establish a datum line which I can use for the remaining
disclosures is required such that it is not rejected on technicalities
while providing all details in advance to the World. Thus we have what
Jeff said, The sum of all comments on this new group amount to zero"
duplicate under any circumstances.

On Sep 1, 9:41*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 1, 4:04*am, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:



Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I especially want to see how the elements
can be random and resonant at the same time, and what degree of
randomness is required.

Jeff, Art,

What bothered me is that if an antenna is really made from random elements,
I can't quite figure out who designed it? G-D? The ether bunnies? No one?
Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil?

If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position,
then it is certainly not random.

I am not an expert on patents, but from what I do know, if you can't patent
randomly placing elements in no pattern. If you place them in a pattern, it
is no longer random and can be patented if you can define that pattern.

You could observe, measure or calculate that if you randomly place
elements, one or more of the resulting patterns, layouts, etc will
produce specific results and patent that specific pattern. There is no
requirment that you invent something by any means more scientific than
just throwning sticks on the floor randomly.

However if you can not identify that pattern, you can't patent it. If
you do identify that pattern, you can patent an Unwin antenna, or a
Liebermann-Unwin antenna, if Jeff were to find that critical piece you
were missing.

I did not read the entire patent application, Jeff posted it what was very
late last night for me, but I did browse it. If the antenna is a modified
Yagi-Uda design, then it is a design and not random. If it just happens to
work better than one, I'm not sure that is relevant to the patent.

I think that what you are trying to patent is randomly tossing metal
sticks on the ground and connecting wires to some of them in some random
fashion. I don't think this is what you had intended to do at all.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

The first object is to establish equilibrium by using a WL radiator.
Anything less breaks away from equilibrium.Adding a second radiator
affects the electrical length of both radiators together with their
angle with respect to each other i.e. not planar.
The question then becomes what is the reference line to determine the
exact position?
Now you can deviate from such a equilibrium by adding a radiator that
is not a WL which then pressures the arbitrary boundary close to
rupture and so on. Thus the available number and electrical WL
escalate each without a reference point expands because it will change
as you move it on the surface of the Earth. Thus "random" is a hard
word to use when it is any arrangement that satisfies the term of
equilibrium. If the radiators were magnetic in nature and was thrown
on the floor they could combine in a arrangement via repell and
attract that would be maintained or jarred to another cluster position
while still retaining equilibrium. Thus one should see how difficult
it is quantasize an arrangement when equilibrium has no measurable
point of reference that meets PTO requirements. But I would be
interested if a solution could be presented that provided the metrics
of such a arrangement such that a drawing could be made that is a
picture of any final arrangement of the cluster that would occur for
all to duplicate. It was for the above reasons why I included a
typical computerized arrangement which by itself is not required in a
patent request. As always the difficulty is in the details thus the
need to establish a datum line which I can use for the remaining
disclosures is required such that it is not rejected on technicalities
while providing all details in advance to the World. Thus we have what
Jeff said, *The sum of all comments on this new group amount to zero"
duplicate under any circumstances.

Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

Jimmie

JIMMIE wrote:
Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

I disgree. If you place element(s) deliberately, they are not placed
randomly. It may appear random, for example a discone made of wire elements
for both the disk and the cone, but I assure you they were not placed randomly.
Maybe not with much forethought, or any accuracy, but that is still not
random.

Even if I were to toss a wire out of my window and let it fall where it may,
that is not random. There are some random elements of it's placement (where
is Ian Malcom when you need him), but the size, length and type of wire were
chosen by me, the window was chosen by me, and I had some control of the
direction and force.

Seemingly random, arbitrary, etc seem more appropriate than random.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On Sep 1, 1:24*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:
Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

I disgree. If you place element(s) deliberately, they are not placed
randomly. It may appear random, for example a discone made of wire elements
for both the disk and the cone, but I assure you they were not placed randomly.
Maybe not with much forethought, or any accuracy, but that is still not
random.

Even if I were to toss a wire out of my window and let it fall where it may,
that is not random. There are some random elements of it's placement (where
is Ian Malcom when you need him), but the size, length and type of wire were
chosen by me, the window was chosen by me, and I had some control of the
direction and force.

Seemingly random, arbitrary, etc seem more appropriate than random.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

Could be, but in this case there are three degrees of freedom for
placement where only the
cluster as a whole meets equilibrium are those that are acceptable
under the claims.
For descriptive purposes those familiar with the art or even physics
would accept almost anything as long as the entirety is considered in
equilibrium. Remember that after one element is placed in position at
any random place or angle then other added must follow in kind
dependent on how many elements are added even tho the first two
element placed meets all the requirement for commercials. Never the
less, one can choose to include any number of element to be used where
the addition of one immediately changes the position of others
including length to remain in equilibrium. So as I stated before there
is no datum to fix upon so that metrics can be applied. In any othe
Country a cluster of elements which in their entirety are in a state
of equilibrium is acceptable. As seen by prior posts on this newsgroup
"equilibrium" provides confusion in the U.S. and was the subject of
many years of auguement But for those familiar with the state of the
art would see no problem.
and it is they that all patents are addressed to.

On Sep 1, 2:24*pm, "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:
Nothing wrong with this patent application except that granting it
would give Art rights to every antenna made. An antenna with randomly
placed elements could be defined as almost anything. In other words
the patent application lacks UNIQUENESS.

I disgree. If you place element(s) deliberately, they are not placed
randomly. It may appear random, for example a discone made of wire elements
for both the disk and the cone, but I assure you they were not placed randomly.
Maybe not with much forethought, or any accuracy, but that is still not
random.

Even if I were to toss a wire out of my window and let it fall where it may,
that is not random. There are some random elements of it's placement (where
is Ian Malcom when you need him), but the size, length and type of wire were
chosen by me, the window was chosen by me, and I had some control of the
direction and force.

Seemingly random, arbitrary, etc seem more appropriate than random.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel *N3OWJ/4X1GM

Lets say you toss a bunch of metal rods up in the air and let them
fall randomly, the odds of them falling in the shape of a yagi is the
same as falling in any other position. While it is extremely unlikely
they will take the pattern of a useful Yagi antenna it is also just as
extremely unlikely that they will take any other pattern.

In your case there are a number of variables with that could be
predetermined, however all it takes is one variable chosen by chance
to make it random.

Arthur could help by defining randomness limiting it to positions
within a certain set as is done with gaming equipment. There are also
a few other words he also needs to define as they appear to have a
rather unique usage.





Jimmie