On Sep 1, 8:41*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.

Jeff, as a past examiner you surprize me. Present day patent provide
an immense annount of false hood as one cannot judge what works or not
with the exception of perpetual motion.
There fore isnt it just the claims that count as long as information
is provided in the body
to justify it. I could claim in the body that an antenna described
requires only a small battery to work the world and use that in the
claim. Whether it is true or not cannot be determined by the examiner
and the inventor does not now need to present a sample.
It is for the next inventer to claim a better mousetrap for economical
reasons that he sees where others think it has no valueand not worth
the effort. The initial inventor can lose all if he does not commence
with a commercial effort as ordained by the PTO
No wonder the courts want to limit their involvement in patent cases
and why the rules were changes i.e. PTO being challenged by those who
preside over justice in cases that are challenged. It is for this very
reason that laws in other countries establish the intent of the law AT
THAT TIME so a judge presides only with the case at hand and not
challenge the political made laws .