Here is a link to a prior art antenna device comprised of carbon nanotubes.


I am surprised so many hams do not distinguish between antennas and devices
like photodiodes.

A nano-antenna can be used without a lens. Groups of nano-antennas can be used
to make gain antennas, directional antennas, and steerable antennas, but you
knew that from the ARRL Antenna Book. Antennas can be connected to junctions
that can then detect, mix, modulate, upconvert, downconvert, and the antenna
elements can be tuned to length so they favor certain wavelengths. Lots of
information can be sent.

Lightwave-scaled antennas can be biased to switch light. They are quite fast!

There is also a shortening effect that hams already know about at radio
wavelengths that is more pronounced at light wavelengths, essentially due to
the inertia of the electron. Even so, practical antennas can be made by
growing them to length on a substrate, such as silicon. I have been working on
this since the mid-90's.

Oh, the links

www.ambitcorp.com

has a list of some prior art patents in that area.

You can also look up W1XYZ in

www.qrz.com and see some more stuff that is related.

IBM's Phil Hobbs may be putting this to work to try to eliminate board to board
or chip to chip interconnects which is a worthy goal. Phil is right as we did
our first demo about a decade ago. How time flies.

Robert J Crowley

w1xyz

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

Ref:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/sci...eut/index.html

"W1XYZ"
I am surprised so many hams do not distinguish between
antennas and devices like photodiodes. snip

Me too. I'm not sure if they've 'lost it', or if they're just playing
troll.

Here is a link to a prior art antenna device...
www.ambitcorp.com
has a list of some prior art patents in that area.
You can also look up W1XYZ in
www.qrz.com and see some more stuff that is related.

(It would be slightly more fair if you had included an advance disclaimer
that the link was to YOUR company. Not a serious issue, but it took me a
minute to realize that you're referencing your own work (or that of your
company). Interesting links just the same...)

By their very nature (especially American) patents are intentionally not
forthcoming about what has actually been accomplished and what might be
claim-stretching brochure-ware. 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? I'm sorry if I seen
to be poo-poo'ing, but I didn't see that precise question answered on the
provided links. I did see mention of larger structures. A more-precise
link would be helpful in this regard.

If you can do that, then I'll award you the 'mythical $50k' and admit
defeat.

Also, the group that was mentioned on the CNN news was from Boston, MA and
you appear to be from that same area. Any relationship between these two
(?) groups. Have you ever had contact with them on this topic?

Phil is right as we did our first demo about a
decade ago. How time flies.

I'm just trying to establish if your links to 'prior art' are strictly valid
(in the 'been there, done that, got the T-shirt' sense) or if they are the
sort of thing (in the sense of 'close, but no cigar' sense) that happens
with ANY new development. There's always a dozen or more groups working on
the same thing at any one time, but usually only one crosses a significant
boundary first and issues press releases to CNN.

I appreciate your posting and I look forward to seeing your next.




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

(It would be slightly more fair if you had included an advance disclaimer
that the link was to YOUR company. Not a serious issue, but it took me a
minute to realize that you're referencing your own work (or that of your
company). Interesting links just the same...)


Huh? So what? I don't get it. Why the need for a disclaimer? What should the
disclaimer be? What's wrong with Bob referring to his own work?

73,
Chip N1IR

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

"Fractenna"
Huh? So what? I don't get it. Why the need for a
disclaimer? What should the disclaimer be? What's
wrong with Bob referring to his own work?


I didn't notice that Ambit was ~his~ company until I got to the 'About Us'
page. I overstated the issue. Apologies to W1XYZ.

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




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

**** 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?

Chip wrote:
"Who invented it (radiocarbon dating)?"

I`d rather date a real live girl.

All living things contain radiocarbon (carbon 14). It`s a radioactive
isotope which appears in small concentration in the atmosphere from
cosmic ray bombardment. After death, former living things no longer
absorb the isotope. The radioactive isotope in the dead thing starts to
decay at an exact and uniform rate. Its radiation half-life is 5,730
years.

Remnant radiation makes it possible to date things formerly living
within the past 50,000 years. approximately.

The radiocarbon dating technique was developed by Dr. Willard F. Libby
(1908-1980) in the late 1940s.

This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI.