Did they mention where an actual drawing can be found
or if an indepth descriptive article can be found?
Thanks
Art
"Fractenna" wrote in message
...
There were about 80 people at the talk, including a number of hams who
are/were
antenna professionals; academics; and so on. I was there for most of it;
it was
two hours and thus had the time frame for a substantial brief.

I saw and heard nothing that--in my opinion-- constitutes 'new' or
'revolutionary'. Although the statement "97% efficiency " was made for a
shortened, DLM by Mr. Vincent, I saw no data that supported that claim. I
did
not see wide bandwidths in the data. The antennas are small. That claim is
supported.

I did not see any evidence of improvement over the extant art of
distributed
loading. What I saw essentially confirms my earlier comments from June and
July
in this forum. Note: I was not aware of Mr. Vincent's design for the DLM
until
yesterday.

If I missed something, or make a statement here that is factually
inaccurate
regarding the statements of Mr. Vincent, apologies ahead of time; and
please
fill me in on this forum.

As promised earlier relative to the extant prior art: I draw reference to
an
existing, patent pending, commercial antenna by our friends at Astatic
(the
microphone company). It is sold by Omnitronics. It is called the "3K
Antenna".
The antenna is targeted for CB'ers and truckers, but it also works and is
used,
by hams on 10M. It , in appearance, looks identical to some of the DLM
antennas
Mr. Vincent presented. There is an inside cutaway which shows, in part , a
vertically oriented helix (linear load); a "midsection"; a loading coil;
and a
top whip. I have one here. See:

http://www.astatic.com

Mr. Vincent confirmed that he was unaware of the Astatic antenna until I
mentioned it to him yesterday.

I have offered to elaborate on a critique of Mr. Vincent's technology on
the
web, which I will produce, if needed. It may not be necessary for me to
educate
this way, as a number of people were/are capable of such assessments based
on
the info provided, and Mr. Vincent stated that he will post the PPT of the
talk
on the web. Doubtless there will be further independent discussion.

Just as a matter of protocol, in a public talk that has benefited from
many
years of guidance under an academic physics department, may I make the
following brief (albeit not complete) suggestions:

1) Understand that a widely spaced helix has air cooling such that the
cooling
rate can substantially exceed the heating rate. Therefore the helix may
dissipate heat and does not heat up much. That does not mean the system is
lossless, nor that the efficiency through the helix is high.

2) Never claim that the efficiency of any electronic component as 100%
("lossless through the helix") just because the current profile stays
relatively flat across it, and it doesn't burn up.

3) We have all used chicken wire(as ground screens), but may it strongly
be
discouraged. The losses are frequency dependent and often high;

4) Do not discount any ground counterpoise--especially one with 1/8 wave
radials as being --in considering monopoles. It is an antenna system. This
is
part of the system;

5) Avoid PVC in monopole construction. At some frequencies the losses are
reasonable, at others it is high. It varies from manufacturer; thickness;
and
so on.

6) Do not compare gains on a thin-wire type 1/4 wave monopole to a thick
(diameter) helix-based antenna with a far larger electrical length, over
a
lossy, small counterpoise, and infer the efficiency.

7) Do not use wood in the near field when using MF/HF for probe
measurements.

My brief thoughts at moment. More later if needed.

73,
Chip N1IR

I've often wondered at exactly what crossover point a helical coil
turns into a loading coil. If one adds a one inch stinger to a helical
coil, does that turn it into a loading coil? How about a one foot stinger?
Is a one foot long loading coil not a helical coil? Does a one foot long
loading coil really have less phase shift than a one foot long piece of
wire? On a center-loaded mobile antenna, how can the ARCCOS of the current
at the feedpoint be zero degrees and the ARCCOS of the current at the tip
be 90 degrees without there being 90 degrees between the feedpoint and the
tip? (When are you going to invite everyone over to Bar-B-Q that sacred cow?)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


We have to wait for the patent 'splaining the "miracle".
One thing I "discovered" that winding the wire either as a coil or simply
taping it to the wood or plastic dielectric detunes the heck of it (losses,
making it look more "broadband"). I taped the wire of quarter wave vertical to
the bamboo pole, and it was way off resonance. When I put plexiglass spacers,
insulators, bingo, right on frequency.
Coil is a coil and in the antenna circuit it behaves that way.
One thing is comapring quarter wave electrical length (loaded) radiator to
quarter wave monopole, another thing is making it electrically longer, loading
it and then comparing to quarter wave radiator. From presentation it was hard
to judge what exactly was DLM electrically equivalet to.

We might have clinic on verticals over "perfect" salty water soon, we are
closing on waterfront property near the Ocean Gate old AT&T huge Rhombic
antenna farm and looking for some juicy coiled sausage to BBQ.

I think that hanging cow bell and flourescent light on the DLM would make it
one class better, maybe 120% efficient antenna :-)

What will they think of next?

73 Yuri, K3BU.us

Did they mention where an actual drawing can be found
or if an indepth descriptive article can be found?
Thanks
Art

What I described, says it all. The variation from the helically wound coil at
the bottom half of the radiator is the trombone like "coil" or loading stubs.
Looks like one or two turn trombone loading stubs along the radiator. This
should model in EZnec and show how the current decreases. Not much different
from the loading coil at the base, which any mobile aficionado knows is the
worst place to put the loading coil at.
Again. It is vertical, working against radials, or screen, loaded at the base
with helical coil or trombone, then piece of tubing, then loading coil, than
piece of tubing (stinger) or top hat. You can play with any sizes you like, it
will not beat "classic" whip with loading coil about 2/3 up the radiator.

When the patent is issued and published, you will be able to see where the
"secret" is. He promised to have something on the web site, but I did not
bother to take a note of it.

73 Yuri, K3BU.us
www.computeradio.us home of Dream Radio One

Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...
Did they mention where an actual drawing can be found
or if an indepth descriptive article can be found?
Thanks
Art

What I described, says it all. The variation from the helically wound coil
at
the bottom half of the radiator is the trombone like "coil" or loading
stubs.
Looks like one or two turn trombone loading stubs along the radiator. This
should model in EZnec and show how the current decreases. Not much
different
from the loading coil at the base, which any mobile aficionado knows is
the
worst place to put the loading coil at.
Again. It is vertical, working against radials, or screen, loaded at the
base
with helical coil or trombone, then piece of tubing, then loading coil,
than
piece of tubing (stinger) or top hat. You can play with any sizes you
like, it
will not beat "classic" whip with loading coil about 2/3 up the radiator.

When the patent is issued and published, you will be able to see where the
"secret" is. He promised to have something on the web site, but I did not
bother to take a note of it.

73 Yuri, K3BU.us
www.computeradio.us home of Dream Radio One

Institution or magazine is only as good as people in it. Obviously UofRI does
not have RF department, otherwise the technician would not be the star
"inventor", if they had even dummy like me, that would not fly out into the
press release and patent office. (Well, you can patent anything now a days, but
why waste money, unless you expect to fool some clueless buyers.)

ARRL and QST is slipping in quality and reviewing what goes out. See the wrong
"wisdom" of distribution of current in the loading coils that was started by
Belrose in the 50ies and propagated through Compendia and ARRL Antenna book and
defended by W8JI till this modern times. There are more half baked articles
showing up with time. Internet helps to discuss and correct some stuff, but
seems that with time, we are getting more "experts" discovering perpetuum
mobile and getting away with it.

Good thing it is only a hobby and some bright minds are still around at this NG
:-)

73 Yuri



Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

You make some good points
Regards
Art
"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

Institution or magazine is only as good as people in it. Obviously UofRI
does
not have RF department, otherwise the technician would not be the star
"inventor", if they had even dummy like me, that would not fly out into
the
press release and patent office. (Well, you can patent anything now a
days, but
why waste money, unless you expect to fool some clueless buyers.)

ARRL and QST is slipping in quality and reviewing what goes out. See the
wrong
"wisdom" of distribution of current in the loading coils that was started
by
Belrose in the 50ies and propagated through Compendia and ARRL Antenna
book and
defended by W8JI till this modern times. There are more half baked
articles
showing up with time. Internet helps to discuss and correct some stuff,
but
seems that with time, we are getting more "experts" discovering perpetuum
mobile and getting away with it.

Good thing it is only a hobby and some bright minds are still around at
this NG
:-)

73 Yuri



Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly
with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was
missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to
make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

Yuri

Does this antenna have an upper limit on the frequency it'll operate at?
I'd think some real life data on efficiency could be derived from enclosing
anantenna in a 'big enough' styrofoam cooler type enclosure. If the parts
that *I* suspect to be lossy might cause a significant temperature rise with
several hundred watts fed to the antenna.

Jerry


"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

Institution or magazine is only as good as people in it. Obviously UofRI
does
not have RF department, otherwise the technician would not be the star
"inventor", if they had even dummy like me, that would not fly out into
the
press release and patent office. (Well, you can patent anything now a
days, but
why waste money, unless you expect to fool some clueless buyers.)

ARRL and QST is slipping in quality and reviewing what goes out. See the
wrong
"wisdom" of distribution of current in the loading coils that was started
by
Belrose in the 50ies and propagated through Compendia and ARRL Antenna
book and
defended by W8JI till this modern times. There are more half baked
articles
showing up with time. Internet helps to discuss and correct some stuff,
but
seems that with time, we are getting more "experts" discovering perpetuum
mobile and getting away with it.

Good thing it is only a hobby and some bright minds are still around at
this NG
:-)

73 Yuri



Yuri
What I find hard to understand is that the University has placed its name
behind it.!
The professors at the university had years to review the design and I
presume stood behing it.
I also understand that actual measurements were taken albiet possibly
with
misuse of equipment..
I also find it odd that the ARRL did not get a jump on it before today as
the inventor has connections with them.
and wide spread notice that he also was a ham. FCC is probably snickering
now about ham operator statments
including those of the ARRL comments regarding use of power lines
Its a shame that the ARRL will take a laid back aproach on this antenna
until they have had a chance
to review comments from elswhere. There must be something that was
missed
at the show possibly because of
a prior belief that it was a fake regardless of what he said. In the mean
time I accept your analysis sinc eyou were there as was Chip.
Hopefully Tom W8TI was there and jotted down drawings from the' how to
make'
session so that he can point
out errors and falacies in the analysis from the first session where many
graphs were presented of the findings
and possibly the technology behind it
Regards
Art

Does this antenna have an upper limit on the frequency it'll operate at?
I'd think some real life data on efficiency could be derived from enclosing
anantenna in a 'big enough' styrofoam cooler type enclosure. If the parts
that *I* suspect to be lossy might cause a significant temperature rise with
several hundred watts fed to the antenna.

Jerry


There is no limit on the operating frequency of any antenna. If you can feed RF
into it, it will radiate. Question is where, pattern is determined by the
electrical length of the radiator.
The real efficiency of shortened antenna should be indicated by the comparison
with full size equivalent (or any other known type) and measured field
strength, like it is done in mobile antenna shootouts.
Any RF energy lost in heat is not radiated and will show up in lower signal
levels. It is important to compare antennas with the same radiation pattern and
ground system.

Yuri, K3BU.us

Does this antenna have an upper limit on the frequency it'll operate at?
I'd think some real life data on efficiency could be derived from enclosing
anantenna in a 'big enough' styrofoam cooler type enclosure. If the parts
that *I* suspect to be lossy might cause a significant temperature rise with
several hundred watts fed to the antenna.

Jerry


No report , that I am aware, of Wheeler cap measurements. Antenna is
monochromatic and moderate/hi Q.

73,
Chip N1IR

"Yuri Blanarovich" wrote in message
...

Does this antenna have an upper limit on the frequency it'll operate
at?
I'd think some real life data on efficiency could be derived from
enclosing
anantenna in a 'big enough' styrofoam cooler type enclosure. If the
parts
that *I* suspect to be lossy might cause a significant temperature rise
with
several hundred watts fed to the antenna.

Jerry


There is no limit on the operating frequency of any antenna. If you can
feed RF
into it, it will radiate. Question is where, pattern is determined by the
electrical length of the radiator.
The real efficiency of shortened antenna should be indicated by the
comparison
with full size equivalent (or any other known type) and measured field
strength, like it is done in mobile antenna shootouts.
Any RF energy lost in heat is not radiated and will show up in lower
signal
levels. It is important to compare antennas with the same radiation
pattern and
ground system.

Yuri, K3BU.us

Yuri

Youve gotten too refined. I mostly know about basic antenna theory and
modeling. But building a VHF model of a 40 meter antenna with #12 copper
wire wound around a 4 inch mandril might be impractical.
But, if the "wonder antenna" is small enough to be enclosed (mostly) in
something transparent to the RF but not to the thermal thats generated by
any I^2* R losses, wouldnt the temperture rise inside the enclosure give a
decent indication of efficiency?

If this "wonder antenna" designer claims to be able to shape the radiation
pattern with an antenna significantly shorter that a 1/4 wave stub, He
really has something. I suspect that the something he has is mental
illness.

I've been following this info on the RI antenna and have considered it to
be so 'snake oilish' that it would never see the light of an auditorium.

Your post about attending the lecture made me wonder if anyone asked about
*any* simple (approximations) measurements like the styrofoam radome to get
some idea of the I^2*R power lost in the antenna. If he has an antenna, and
a transmitter and enough room to build a foam igloo it seems that alot of
data on efficiency could be obtained.
If I had any interest in describing an antenna I'd built, I'd at least use
an infared thermometer on the section of the antenna suspected as being the
most lossy.

Jerry