**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Another three days passes...

"Dog - nothing but dogs !!" had inquired of W1XYZ:
Can you please confirm exactly when (year) you
achived an actual physical embodiment of a
functioning carbon nanotube antenna with
dimensions corresponding to visible light?
... If you can do that, then I'll award you the
'mythical $50k' and admit defeat. ...
I appreciate your posting and I look forward
to seeing your next.

And:
I'm still awaiting further links that he or his
company actual beat the other team [per
CNN news].

Did I miss a reply? So, now that all the 'barking of the harbour seals' has
died down, we're right back to the starting point - that is that the CNN
news was in fact new news (not old news). All I'm seeking is a firm
conclusion to all the red herrings and (apparently) false leads to prior
art. It's *really* difficult to prove a negative. But I'll inductively
conclude that it has been proven.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

(Inventor) Bob's (W1XYZ) patents on this form a basis for ownership on such
varieties of antennas, within the construct of the claims. That is my opinion.

The fact that later academic groups allegedly claim discovery or invention on
this or other new technologies is irrelevant: the assignee of he patent is
what's important.

It is common for academic groups to be 5-20 years behind the state of the art
in antenna work BTW.

The CNN story is a nice corroboration of Bob's innovation and invention, in my
opinion. Of course, it wouldn't hurt to give the man some well-deserved credit.
Again, this is also a fairly common problem in some academic groups these days,
unfortunately.

Hat's off, Bob.

73,
Chip N1IR

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
(Inventor) Bob's (W1XYZ) patents on this form
a basis for ownership on such varieties of antennas,
within the construct of the claims. That is my opinion.

That's a hollow 'motherhood' statement - no one could disagree with that
because your statement doesn't actually say anything (except to partially
define the word 'patent').

Back to The Question:

As you well know, a patent doesn't necessarily mean that anything functional
has actually been built. This is self-evident by the numerous US patents for
the impossible (or for the presently impossible). I was NOT asking about
patents, I asked (quite clearly I might add) if anyone had actually built
the subject item at the subject scale before the subject CNN news item.

It is a very simple question.

CNN story (they were first) true or false?

...the assignee of the patent is what's important.

That assumes that there is any money to be made from it within the term. I
believe that something like 99.99+% of all patents are money losing
propositions. They're apparently a worse investment on average than lottery
tickets.

...wouldn't hurt to give the man some well-deserved credit.

Of course.

The CNN story claimed that those people were first. All the RRAA 'harbour
seals' starting barking that it was old news - most of them just didn't read
the story carefully. Now W1XYZ drops by with his patent portfolio but didn't
answer the very simple question - who actually made one first (which is
where this long thread started).

It is a very simple question.

Not patents.

Who made one first?

CNN guys or W1XYZ or anyone else?

So far - no one has provided anything to prove the CNN story was incorrect.

Thanks for playing.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The patent is the only thing that matters in such new technology.

That's what makes Bob a 'player'.

He's a real person with a real patent. And, by golly, he has a real e-mail!

BTW, here's today's trivia question.

Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages of things a few thousands of
years old.

Who--invented--it?

a) Isaac Asimov
b) Harold Urey
c) Linus Pauling
d) Louis Leakey

Not a trick question.

Any 'players'?

73,
Chip N1IR

On 01 Oct 2004 12:09:08 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

|The patent is the only thing that matters in such new technology.
|
|That's what makes Bob a 'player'.
|
|He's a real person with a real patent. And, by golly, he has a real e-mail!
|
|BTW, here's today's trivia question.
|
|Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages of things a few thousands of
|years old.
|
|Who--invented--it?
|
|a) Isaac Asimov
|b) Harold Urey
|c) Linus Pauling
|d) Louis Leakey

e) none of the above. http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/libby.html

|
|Not a trick question.

Really?

|
|Not a trick question.

Really?


Really and truly.

73,
Chip N1IR

On 01 Oct 2004 14:40:56 GMT, (Fractenna) wrote:

||
||Not a trick question.
|
|Really?
|
|
|Really and truly.

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

"Fractenna"
The patent is the only thing that matters
in such new technology.

Yawn... Oh sorry...

Look - anyone could 'patent' going into space in a cheap, reusable rocket
like 'this' and like 'that'. What makes the evening news is when someone
actually DOES it. Same thing for 'light antennas' - who did it first
(couldn't care less who happened to apply for a patent if they didn't
actually DO it).

When they changed the definition of 'reduction to practice' from 'send a
working model' to 'just write it down', the whole patent system became a
lawyers' game and a work of fiction in many cases.

BTW, here's today's trivia question.
Carbon 14 dating is a mainstay for setting ages
of things a few thousands of years old.
Who--invented--it?

Perhaps someone patented it in 1920.

The decay of Carbon-14 and it's relationship to cosmic rays, the atmosphere,
life and death is a natural phenomenon. It wasn't really 'invented' (except
by God and/or Nature), it was discovered (or developed) by W.F. Libby.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica 2003 Deluxe CD edition (oh so cool for
$10):
"The carbon-14 method was developed by the American physicist Willard F.
Libby about 1946."
"...he and his students developed the carbon-14 dating technique."
"[He] wrote Radiocarbon Dating (1952)."
"For this development he was honoured with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in
1960."

From the WWW:
"In 1960, Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for leading the
team (namely, post-doc James Arnold and graduate student Ernie Anderson,
with a $5,000 grant) that developed Carbon-14 dating."

"Martin Kamen discovered [Carbon-14] in 1940 in collaboration with the late
Sam Ruben, a University of California, Berkeley chemist, while the two were
working at the 60-inch cyclotron at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory."

Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't?



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.

That is an incorrect statement.

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

Just one that you didn't know the answer to.

"Fractenna"
That is an incorrect statement.

Oh stop grand-standing and spit it out.

Geesh...




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=