| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
radiators
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 a break off from the standard ham statements of bigger is better as well as more wire is better. I have searched and searched for the reason why such a statement is spread around as if it is has a factual or a mathematical statement to back it up. For instance a quad radiator is not straight! Nor is a loop or nor a helical as well as many others. At the same time it is recognized that all is not understood about radiation and never has a radiator been constructed that complies in its entirety with Maxwell. I have untold books on antennas but none (not including ARRL stuff) provide any sort of reason that this could be true. Is anybody aware of a recognized author stating why this should be considered true when current leaning is towards point radiation which obviously seen as a break away statement.. |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
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, I highly doubt he ever said anything of the sort. apparently a break off from the standard ham statements of bigger is better as well as more wire is better. And the physical reality that antenna performance is directly related to size in wavelengths. snip rest -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
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, Hmm. Please provide a reference where this was stated. I doubt that's what was actually the verbiage used. cognized that all is not understood about radiation and never has a radiator been constructed that complies in its entirety with Maxwell. According to only you. I have untold books on antennas but none (not including ARRL stuff) provide any sort of reason that this could be true. Is anybody aware of a recognized author stating why this should be considered true when current leaning is towards point radiation which obviously seen as a break away statement.. Again, please provide a reference that "current leaning is towards point radiation". I sure I won't get a real answer here. As usual. Just like his bailout on providing a description on his antenna earlier this weekend. fraud. tom K0TAR |
radiators
On Aug 30, 5:15*pm, wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: 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, I highly doubt he ever said anything of the sort. As long as you turn a blind eye to what he states then you are in good shape! But then somebody in this group will point you to Tom's statement and you can then respond as to what he really meant which is not what he stated. apparently a break off from the standard ham statements of bigger is better as well as more wire is better. And the physical reality that antenna performance is directly related to size in wavelengths. It depends on your definition of "size". I prefer the term encapsulating volume. All physics laws are based on the presence of equilibrium. Thus you may deform a radiator to the smallest volume as long as you retain a state of equilibrium, regardless of the number of wavelengths at issue. This is why "point radiation" is still discussed. As an aside, the number of wavelengths used has nothing to do with Maxwells equations which accounts for ALL forces presence in the forming of radiation and not the simple radiator coupling and re radiation approach alone. It all comes down to root L.C. in a equilibrium environment as the determinate factor in his equations. So, the bottom line is that you disagree with the statement made by Tom as being incorrect. It will be interesting what the rest of the group have to say as they wade in. snip rest -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
radiators
On Aug 30, 6:29*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: 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, Hmm. *Please provide a reference where this was stated. *I doubt that's what was actually the verbiage used. cognized that all is not understood about radiation and never *has a radiator been constructed that complies in its entirety with Maxwell. According to only you. I have untold books on antennas but none (not including ARRL stuff) provide any sort of reason that this could be true. Is anybody aware of a recognized author stating why this should be considered true when current leaning is towards point radiation which obviously seen as a break away statement.. Again, please provide a reference that "current leaning is towards point radiation". I sure I won't get a real answer here. *As usual. Just like his bailout on providing a description on his antenna earlier this weekend. fraud. tom K0TAR You are correct Tom. I have no interest in exchanging insults with you. My interests are in radio to which you supply nothing. There you go, I have now answered you once and that is it. |
radiators
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote: 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, He might have been talking about small antennas: http://www.w8ji.com/radiation_resistance.htm "Small antennas require extraordinary care to obtain high efficiency." The 2004 Dayton PowerPoint presentation is at: http://www.w8ji.com/Dayton/Limited%20Space%20Antennas.ppt Using Google, I couldn't find any statement resembling the "straight radiators" claim. Ummm... fractal antennas are anything but straight and have the best gain for their size of any antenna. http://www.fractenna.com Also, efficiency isn't everything. For example, the efficiency of the typical mobile HF antenna is fairly lousy because the antenna is a small fraction of a wavelength long. Still, it's the best that can be done on HF without trailing a long wire to a balloon, and dragging a grounding plate. http://www.k0bg.com/eff.html -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
radiators
"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 Art, The only place I have ever read that on Tom's site is related to Beverage antennas- the statement is true, and for obvious (to most of us) reasons. Dale W4OP |
radiators
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:21:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: 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, Using Google, I couldn't find any statement resembling the "straight radiators" claim. Oh wait. Maybe he was referring to the mounting pole: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HC8B4F-AnCQF6I_u0k3MYg -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
On Aug 30, 5:15Â*pm, wrote: Art Unwin wrote: Tom, W8ji Â*apparently is an expert with antennas Â*having lectured at Dayton and has authored many technical articles around antennas, states that radiators must be straight for maximum efficiency, I highly doubt he ever said anything of the sort. As long as you turn a blind eye to what he states then you are in good shape! But then somebody in this group will point you to Tom's statement and you can then respond as to what he really meant which is not what he stated. I highly doubt that will ever happen either. apparently a break off from the standard ham statements of bigger is better as well as more wire is better. And the physical reality that antenna performance is directly related to size in wavelengths. It depends on your definition of "size". I prefer the term encapsulating volume. Yeah, sure. snip rest -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
radiators
On Aug 30, 7:21*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: 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, He might have been talking about small antennas: That may have been at the back of his mind but he did not stipulate that http://www.w8ji.com/radiation_resistance.htm "Small antennas require extraordinary care to obtain high efficiency." Very true for electrically small antennas with emphasis on electrically. The 2004 Dayton PowerPoint presentation is at: http://www.w8ji.com/Dayton/Limited%20Space%20Antennas.ppt Using Google, I couldn't find any statement resembling the "straight radiators" claim. I never said this is a quote from the Dayton lecture. Tom has numorous dissertations with regard to antennas Ummm... fractal antennas are anything but straight and have the best gain for their size of any antenna. http://www.fractenna.com That is what Chip states for his company but I have no idea how a fractal would work on top band. Most on this group deride the claims of Chip with more than a handful of insults Also, efficiency isn't everything. *For example, the efficiency of the typical mobile HF antenna is fairly lousy because the antenna is a small fraction of a wavelength long. Exactly because it takes a WL or multiple there of to attain equilibrium * Still, it's the best that can be done on HF without trailing a long wire to a balloon, and dragging a grounding plate. * No. You are incorrect in my eyes! A multiple of a wavelength does not require a ground plain and can be condensed into any shape or form whilst retaining the required equilibrium. This is per the laws of Maxwell when considering all forces involved in radiation for maximum efficiency. Regards Art http://www.k0bg.com/eff.html -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 |
radiators
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 Art, The only place I have ever read that on Tom's site is related to Beverage antennas- the statement is true, and for obvious (to most of us) reasons. Dale W4OP I know it is considered as obvious to those who resist change. Obvious as you stated means that there is no possible alternative available because all is known. |
radiators
"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 Art, The only place I have ever read that on Tom's site is related to Beverage antennas- the statement is true, and for obvious (to most of us) reasons. Dale W4OP I know it is considered as obvious to those who resist change. Obvious as you stated means that there is no possible alternative available because all is known. Well, suppose you show us for a given length Beverage antenna, how configuring it in any other shape but straight makes it a better Beverage. Dale W4OP |
radiators
On Aug 30, 7:35*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:21:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:54:05 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin wrote: 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, Using Google, I couldn't find any statement resembling the "straight radiators" claim. Oh wait. *Maybe he was referring to the mounting pole: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HC8B4F-AnCQF6I_u0k3MYg -- Jeff Liebermann * * 150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558 No. As I remember it he stated this to somebody on the Double Helix question on QRZ antenna design forum some time back. Last time I looked at that there was several thousand viewers but nobody challenged him! I believe it is some three pages back in the archives. I am sure he has stated same in other places. If you ask him I am sure he will point out the instances to you. Regards |
radiators
On Aug 30, 9:23*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Exactly because it takes a WL or multiple there of to attain equilibrium Art -- how, then, do you account for the fact that a 1/4-wave monopole and r-f ground system used by many AM broadcast stations produces radiated fields that have been measured to be within a few percent of the maximum possible for the applied power? If "equilibrium" takes a WL or multiple thereof, why are such fractional wavelength radiators so efficient? RF |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
Tom, W8ji ... states that radiators must be straight for maximum efficiency, ... Why are short helical antennas less efficient than full-size straight radiators? Is there any way to fold a full-size straight radiator that results in increased efficiency? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
radiators
The Art of misdirection and obfuscation.
|
radiators
On Aug 31, 6:53*am, Richard Fry wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:23*pm, Art Unwin wrote: Exactly because it takes a WL or multiple there of to attain equilibrium Art -- how, then, do you account for the fact that a 1/4-wave monopole and r-f ground system used by many AM broadcast stations produces radiated fields that have been measured to be within a few percent of the maximum possible for the applied power? If "equilibrium" takes a WL or multiple thereof, why are such fractional wavelength radiators so efficient? RF One time response Most hams are aware there are two basic resistances or impedances involved in any antenna. The d.c. wire resistance is a constant whether it is above ground or not. Radiation resistance only occur when radiation is allowed to take place which usually is considered above ground. When the circuit cannot radiate such as in a ground plain or similar then the circuit does not encounter radiation resistance thus the only resistance encountered is the dc resistance which means it draws less power from the source. Thus for a half wave with ground plain it will draw 1/2 the power from the source that a full wave will. So when talking about efficiency per unit of energy supplied the only difference between the two is the wire resistance that is not accompanied by radiation which is extremely small. So overall efficiency changes of a radiator is so small it really is of zero significance. What is important is the ability of an antenna to radiate maximum strength where you want and the ground plain applies a limitation which many can live with. The importance of efficiency is that one is accounting for all forces that impact it where you enter a different mathematical areana which opens up clues to the formation of radiation and possibly other scenarios that can be of benefit in other areas. A case in point. If one has a vertical then the radiation pattern is donut shaped ie it has a hole that is devoid of radiation which is not so good for military servalance. This is because the radiator is oriented opposite to the gravitational force only. If one wants to account for ALL forces involved then one must include with gravity the Corriolis force without which NOTHING can be stable on Earth. One must include it when considering the Earths forces within a arbitrary boundary to achieve equilibrium. Thus to be in equilibrium a radiator must be tipped to include the Coreolis force which then allows for a spherical radiation pattern ala Poynting's vector where the forces within the boundary equals ( and opposite) that outside the boundary and is in a state of equilibrium Thus when a radiator is tipped it now fills up the hole in the donut to obtain radiation that is equal in all directions( equilibrium) which is what a military installation would prefer as possible observation is 100 %. Thus starting with a single radiator that is in equilibrium you are starting from a different point to a planar mode when proceeding with array designs which then becomes educational with respect to possible occurances that are not available to systems outside that of the equilibrium. NUFF SAID |
radiators
"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 |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
Thus to be in equilibrium a radiator must be tipped to include the Coreolis force which then allows for a spherical radiation pattern ala Poynting's vector where the forces within the boundary equals ( and opposite) that outside the boundary and is in a state of equilibrium Thus when a radiator is tipped it now fills up the hole in the donut to obtain radiation that is equal in all directions( equilibrium) which is what a military installation would prefer as possible observation is 100 % ____________ Then by your theory does the radiation launched by a vertical, 1/2- wave, center-fed dipole have a different pattern shape when that dipole is tipped away from the vertical plane? I'm referring to the radiation pattern of the dipole itself, not including any reflections. RF |
radiators
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. |
radiators
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 |
radiators
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... snip a bunch of bafflegab... but now a real GEM! he was mumbling about vertical antenna and the hole in the doughnut when they were vertical... Thus when a radiator is tipped it now fills up the hole in the donut to obtain radiation that is equal in all directions( equilibrium) which is what a military installation would prefer as possible observation is 100 %. so now he has FINALLY defined his concept of "equilibrium"... read it forever as isotropic! so his perfect antenna in equilibrium is isotropic or has a gain of zero... to let him sum it up in his own words: NUFF SAID more than enough i would say! |
radiators
On Aug 31, 7:00*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... snip a bunch of bafflegab... *but now a real GEM! *he was mumbling about vertical antenna and the hole in the doughnut when they were vertical... Thus when a radiator is tipped it now fills up the hole in the donut to obtain radiation that is equal in all directions( equilibrium) which is what a military installation would prefer as possible observation is 100 %. so now he has FINALLY defined his concept of "equilibrium"... read it forever as isotropic! *so his perfect antenna in equilibrium is isotropic or has a gain of zero... to let him sum it up in his own words: NUFF SAID more than enough i would say! Not bad David. I suppose that can be seen as more modern than equilibrium used centuries ago. Actually isotropic is presently used more by cosmopologists when refering to matter transformations and thus include the latent energy transfer Very good, Now you are on the same road as I (I think) at least until the next insult. ( grin) |
radiators
This is because the radiator is
oriented opposite to the gravitational force only. If one wants to account for ALL forces involved then one must include with gravity the Gravity has no measurable effect on electromagnetic radiation. Thus to be in equilibrium a radiator must be tipped to include the Coreolis force The coriolis force does not effect electromagnetic radiation. which then allows for a spherical radiation pattern ala Poynting's vector where the forces within the boundary equals ( and opposite) that outside the boundary and is in a state of equilibrium How is the Poynting vector related to boundary conditions. What boundary are you talking about? |
radiators
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. |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
boundary to achieve equilibrium. Thus to be in equilibrium a radiator must be tipped to include the Coreolis force which then allows for a spherical radiation pattern ala Poynting's vector where the forces within the boundary equals ( and opposite) that outside the boundary and is in a state of equilibrium Thus when a radiator is tipped it now fills up the hole in the donut to obtain radiation that is equal in all directions( equilibrium) which is what a military installation Ok, so this would mean that at every north or south latitude the angle would be different, and at the equator would be zero, since there's no coriolis effect there. Please give a table that shows the tip angle versus latitude. (Bet you won't because it's secret) And at the north or south pole it's not definable so antennas can't work there.. Why haven't you mentioned these facts before? Bet you haven't because you didn't think of it, but you'll claim otherwise or just not respond. tom K0TAR |
radiators
Frank wrote:
This is because the radiator is oriented opposite to the gravitational force only. If one wants to account for ALL forces involved then one must include with gravity the Gravity has no measurable effect on electromagnetic radiation. Actually it does, but it takes something like the gravity of a star to become noticable. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
radiators
wrote in message ... Frank wrote: This is because the radiator is oriented opposite to the gravitational force only. If one wants to account for ALL forces involved then one must include with gravity the Gravity has no measurable effect on electromagnetic radiation. Actually it does, but it takes something like the gravity of a star to become noticable. True, as in the Einstein experiment with a star close to the eclipsed solar disk. |
radiators
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 |
radiators
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 |
radiators
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. |
radiators
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:04:04 +0000 (UTC), "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? The patent application requires references to prior art. How far one goes back is strictly up to the applicant. If one wants to go back to the creation of the universe, it's probably acceptable. G-D? The ether bunnies? No one? Actually, it is possible to patent something that requires randomness. I did some patent searching and found something on the topic. 4 example: "Random antenna array interferometer for radio location" http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=yip4AAAAEBAJ&dq=random+antenna However, my reading of Art's application shows that the proposed antenna is not really random, as it would fail any test for the degree of randomness, mostly because the method of achieving random element lengths is not specified. For example, the range of acceptably random element lengths is missing, as is the effects on the basic parameters (gain, F/B, VSWR, etc). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests In my never humble opinion, the term "arbitrary" would be more appropriate, as it does not require such a test and is not constrained by any real or imaginary limits. Unfortunately, an arbitrary design is not patentable. Is it a karmic joining of the forces of the universe? The work of the devil? I don't know, and don't care. While some of my antennas require divine inspiration during the design phase, and divine intervention during testing, one would hope that Art would supply sufficient information in the patent application to remove any need for such outside assistance. If it is a fixed number (or limited set) of elements placed in position, then it is certainly not random. Substitute arbitrary for random and see if the description works any better. Incidentally, it appears that not everything is random. http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/11-655899.pdf See background [0015] which proclaims: "... where elements 22 through 24 are made of aluminum rods of one inch in diameter." Well, "one inch" doesn't sound particularly random. Does it only work with this diameter? Does it need to be solid rod, or can it be tubing? What's this monster going to weigh on top band? What happened to elements 1 through 21? 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. Yep. 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. Yep. I'll leave the question of how one achieves resonance and randomness simultaneously as an exercise for the reader. 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. There's more than one piece missing. I suggested that Art look at a finished antenna patent for the missing parts and pieces. However, I'm sure the USPTO examiner will supply a shopping list, so there's no need for me to do the same. Although there are no patents with my name attached, I've helped craft about 3 patents. The problems I ran into were excessively broad claims, and insufficiently specific descriptions and claims. It turned out to be a rather difficult exercise, but eventually was accepted. Art's patent application has both these problems. In this case, random is excessively broad, while if they interpret it as arbitrary, it's insufficiently specific. I'll see if I can get the application scanned so that the PDF text is searchable. Then, I'll run a grammar chequer on it. 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. Antennas are best designed under cover of darkness. However, testing should be done when the sun is shining or you might fall off the roof. 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. Yep. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
radiators
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 |
radiators
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 |
radiators
On Sep 1, 1:06*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
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. |
radiators
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 . |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
Guys you are forgeting that it meets the metric of equilibrium thus the arrangements that are random are only acceptable if they meet the uniqueness ( see above) of being in equilibrium. Then I would have said "place in a position of equilibrium" and not used the word random at all. There is a very big difference between random and equilibrium. If something is placed randomly, e.g. dropped on the floor, and moves to a position of equilibrium it is no longer randomly placed. I am glad that others see the difficulty I have been placed even tho the method of equilibrium has been shown that is repeatable for others to follow. That sentence alone disputes your claim of randomness. If a system can be set up in equilibrium in a repeatable method, then there is no randomness in the system. There may be more than one optimal point, but that is not the same as a random one. Are you trying to patent the device, i.e. an antenna consisiting of elements in equilibrium, or a method of placing elements in as seemingly random way to achieve equilibrium? The examiner has supplied some claims that he sees as acceptable but as he is foreign born, his thoughts, as with mine, may not hold up to challenge in the U.S. That's how I found out that choosing a patent agent who charged us $3500 to write patent applications and then $3500 to chalenge a rejection was worthless because in the end we did not get the patents. If we had hired the "best in the country" at $600 an hour, we would of had our patents. Now we have nothing except rejected applications which while they bear our names, they do not have the name of the patent agent we hired on them at all. In all other countries intent is acceptable as law is based on the intent of the lawwhen made. In the US the problem is way different where the intent is established by the words the intent of which depend on the times and the envinment which is why there is a need for more lawyers than any where else. No, that is why there are courts. Almost every country has them. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
radiators
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. |
radiators
Art Unwin wrote:
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. That's were having an expert write your patent matters. Depending upon how the application was written, such a claim could leave operating it without a battery or with a large battery in the public domain (outside the scope of the patent), and so on. Claims like that are best left to advertising and not patents. 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, the inventor is not required to do anything with their patent. You can sit on it for the rest of its life and do nothing. You are assuming that one has to sell something to pay the mantainance fees. The total paid out in parts at 3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years is under $4,000 for a small inventor or company. That's $266 a year over 15 years, the approximate life of a patent that takes 5 years from first invention/publication to approval. I'm sorry that patent bombing is no longer a poor man's game. (filing lots of patent applications and hoping one will pay off). However the rules of the game changed, possibly for the better. If you are quick about it, you can file a provisional patent and shop it around for the money to make a real patent out of it, or sell it to professional investors. Since the filing fee for a small inventor is $110, you can file one for the cost in the US of dinner, a movie and a baby sitter. The downside is if you fail to file, or fail to convert the provisional patent into a real one before the year is out, you loose, as I did with several inventions I wrote provisional patent applications from my blog postings but was unable to file them. 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 . The courts want to get out of it because it is a lose-lose situation for everyone. If there were to be binding arbritation by experts, or just licensing deals, everyone would be happy. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
radiators
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com