**** 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.

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.

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 11:51:24 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:
This comes from "The Handy Science Answer Book" of the Carnegie Library
of Pittsburg.


Hi Richard,

Yes, an answer for the itinerant questioner.

But now for something completely different but wholly within the
purview of light (let's see if they can get this one):

In an infinite universe filled with stars, every line of sight should
eventually meet the surface of a star. The dimming of starlight with
distance should be exactly canceled out by the increase in the number
of stars you see as you look farther out, so the night sky should
appear as bright as the surface of the sun - but it is not.

This paradox, was solved by:
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow

Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:


This paradox, was solved by:
Erle Stanley Gardner
Edgar Allen Poe
Edwin Powell Hubble
Edward Roscoe Murrow

Name the one who coined the paradox for extra credit.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hubble

Olber

tom
K0TAR