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