| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
EH-antenna: sensation or fraude?
EH-antenna: sensation or fraude?
I have been reading about the EH-antenna on many web sites and in magazines, but they were only "kitchen recipies" of how to build it - without any theoretical explanation. Practical result reports were mostly contradictory - from being equal to a full size dipole, to statements that the antenna does not radiate at all, but the coaxial lead does. The other day I ran across the EH-antenna home web site (http://EH-antenna.com) where finally I could find the expected theory - which left me embarassed. It comes out that the EH antenna uses an until now unknown kind of magnetic field - completely different from the usual H-field. "The EH-antenna is a revolutionary concept because it does not fit the classical theory" - I can read on that Web-site. In a classical dipole the phase-shift between the E and the H field is 90 degrees. In the EH-antenna it is 0 (zero) degrees! A certain Russian phisicist Vladmir Korobeynikov reworked the famous Maxwell's four equations and they are now called "enhanced ones". Possibly he will be candidated for the Nobel prize in physics (!?). Since magnetic force-lines are closed and cannot be cut apart, underwater EH-antennas allegedly work equally well - a bonanza for submarines! It also seems that those force-lines spread across the whole Universe in zero time - which challenges the Einstein's theory of the limited speed of light to 300 000 km/sec. If all this is only partly true, this will be the greatest discovery after Heinrich Herz discovered radio waves 130 years ago. They also say that the best communication is made between the two EH-antennas. Has anybody tried that already? I do not wish to be a primitive Earthian who does not accept progress in science; however, life has taught me to be cautious. I would like to read an official report about the EH-antenna phenomenon from a competent scientific institution, a University, a research laboratory, or similar. Any comments? Bozidar, 9a2hl |
"Bozidar Pasaric" wrote in message et.hr... EH-antenna: sensation or fraude? I have been reading about the EH-antenna on many web sites and in magazines, but they were only "kitchen recipies" of how to build it - without any theoretical explanation. Practical result reports were mostly contradictory - from being equal to a full size dipole, to statements that the antenna does not radiate at all, but the coaxial lead does. The other day I ran across the EH-antenna home web site (http://EH-antenna.com) where finally I could find the expected theory - which left me embarassed. It comes out that the EH antenna uses an until now unknown kind of magnetic field - completely different from the usual H-field. And the crap begins to flow, now that classical physics has been slain. Ed wb6wsn |
|
"Bozidar Pasaric" wrote in message et.hr... EH-antenna: sensation or fraude? Neither. Joke. The three great unatainable holy grails.... Perpetual motion A new revolutionary type of antenna (much smaller and more efficent and whatever else you want) A better way to drive to work. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
i found the better way to drive to work... fuzzy slippers from bedroom to
office. "Steve Nosko" wrote in message ... "Bozidar Pasaric" wrote in message et.hr... EH-antenna: sensation or fraude? Neither. Joke. The three great unatainable holy grails.... Perpetual motion A new revolutionary type of antenna (much smaller and more efficent and whatever else you want) A better way to drive to work. -- Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's. |
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:24:04 -0000, "Dave" wrote:
i found the better way to drive to work... fuzzy slippers from bedroom to office. Hi Dave, I couldn't let that pass without recalling one of Scott Adams' Dilbert home pages from years ago. He took a picture of his bedroom door from bed and commented: "This is my commute, when I go through that door I am at work." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:24:04 -0000, "Dave" wrote: i found the better way to drive to work... fuzzy slippers from bedroom to office. Hi Dave, I couldn't let that pass without recalling one of Scott Adams' Dilbert home pages from years ago. He took a picture of his bedroom door from bed and commented: "This is my commute, when I go through that door I am at work." That's the good news here, too. It's also the bad news. -- 73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Bozidar,
Established physics is "old primitive Earthian". The 'EH' antenna is classified as "concave futuristic Earthian". Apply that label with an erasable marker... 'Doc PS - Erecting an 'EH' antenna over your garden will allow you to skip fertilizing for at least two years. As an added bonus, it cures male pattern baldness... |
And the crap begins to flow, now that classical physics has been slain. Ed wb6wsn Physics? You want physics? I'll show you physics :-) "The voltage and current applied to a Hertz antenna are in phase, therefore the E and H fields are not in phase, thus radiation does not occur until a great distance from the antenna. A proper phase shift network allows the Hertz antenna to become an EH Antenna where a 90 degree phase delay between the current and voltage applied to the antenna cause the E and H fields to be in phase, therefore the EH antenna is able to transfer power from the transmitter directly to radiation. This is the basis of the EH Antenna patent." http://www.eh-antenna.com/library/EH...DEFINITION.pdf |
Walter Maxwell wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 08:46:50 -0700, (k4wge) wrote: And the crap begins to flow, now that classical physics has been slain. Ed wb6wsn Physics? You want physics? I'll show you physics :-) "The voltage and current applied to a Hertz antenna are in phase, therefore the E and H fields are not in phase, thus radiation does not occur until a great distance from the antenna. A proper phase shift network allows the Hertz antenna to become an EH Antenna where a 90 degree phase delay between the current and voltage applied to the antenna cause the E and H fields to be in phase, therefore the EH antenna is able to transfer power from the transmitter directly to radiation. This is the basis of the EH Antenna patent." http://www.eh-antenna.com/library/EH...DEFINITION.pdf I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU About the only thing the Patent Office will deny a patent on based on science is perpetual motion mechines; all bets are off on anything else. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU Who was the examiner? They have some really great seasoned guys there in that department, and a rolling list of rookies. 73, Chip N1IR |
Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even
years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in
my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
"k4wge" wrote in message om... And the crap begins to flow, now that classical physics has been slain. Ed wb6wsn Physics? You want physics? I'll show you physics :-) I prefer one of these: Physics? Physics?!? we don't need no stinking Physics! or The Physics? You want the Physics? You can't handle the Physics! |
Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland.
The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" ..This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message ... Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt
with at the present time. Art Art, I spend a non-trivial fraction of any given week on patents. I can't say this view of yours duplicates my 15 years in the patent(ing) experience. 73, Chip N1IR |
Chip, I have no problem with that, but the PTO has changed in the last few
years in how it does things I read an article a few days ago where companies have gone into their basements to review old and forgotten patents as litigation between various companies has proved to be a cash cow for some when reviewing the grammer of patents (claims) and activities of other companies in a grammatical sense. You should also note that the Justice Department.has added elevated importance( strength) to grammer of claims in a attempt to curb increasing litigation against the P.T.O......... So things are a changing. I believe this to be a consequence of the PTO increasing dependence upon the grammer of the claims rather than the contents as a whole. Remember, lawyers and other reptiles can debate for hours as to what the definition of "is:":... is, in a grammatical sense. where-as old english law established the original INTENT as the primary definition . This difference is why the U,S. has a huge playground for its increasing lawyer population as its politicians do not seek prior legal aid regarding the blend of ":grammer" and "intent" when making laws. which the rest of the World does Art "Fractenna" wrote in message ... Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art Art, I spend a non-trivial fraction of any given week on patents. I can't say this view of yours duplicates my 15 years in the patent(ing) experience. 73, Chip N1IR |
Art, you seem to know a lot of what's happening in the US Patent Office. How do
you know this? Do you work there? Your 'insider-type' statements seem to say so. If what you said is happening there is true there has been a complete turn around in policy since I was knowledgeable in that area. You've described what seems to me to be fraudulent activity in the issuance of patents that have no value, and to use them in a court of law in an attempt for the patentee to obtain money is a mockery of the Patent System. I know there is nothing I can do about the situation, but I'm shocked to learn about it. Apparently this is what Roy was talking about in his previous post that answered mine. Walt, W2DU On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:53 GMT, " wrote: Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland. The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" .This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
"Walter Maxwell" wrote in message ... Art, you seem to know a lot of what's happening in the US Patent Office. How do you know this? Do you work there? Your 'insider-type' statements seem to say so. No I do not work there I am just stating how I see things in Crystal City. After I retired I did go thru the machinations of patent requests on a personal basis where I did everything by myself . This allowed me to discuss things directly with the PTO which is something you cannot do if you hire a representitive ( attorney ) or a part of a companyBy doing things this way you get a keener sense of what is going on and where the difference between a parallel circuit and a series circuit can be lost on the examiner. I have also been invited to PTO seminars where excuses have been made for irregular procedures because of money grabs by the government. I also had a meeting with a military patent attorney where he lamented about the lessening quality of examiners that took the easy way out of denying patent requests presumably because of efficiency drives and where the military attorney was forced to follow the costly appeal route with a more than 80% reversal success rate. You also now have the U.S. patent office dealing with World Patents so that even a simple "7" on a drawing with a slash on it (European style) can throw a patent into a unknown loop of uncertaincy. Ofcourse if you are a patent attorney you may well see things differently as it is your bread and butter and you recognise hitches ahead of time by knowing the ropes thru experience plus personal conversations with the PTO.as to obtaining a patent per present day aproaches which are very different from yesteryear.. This is how I personaly view things and it would appear from the media that many see the Patent Office as being in a hole from which it cannot extricate itself from given the present day litigation system. Mac is a professional in this field and may well provide insights that totally contradict my perceptions if he was so inclined. Art If what you said is happening there is true there has been a complete turn around in policy since I was knowledgeable in that area. You've described what seems to me to be fraudulent activity in the issuance of patents that have no value, and to use them in a court of law in an attempt for the patentee to obtain money is a mockery of the Patent System. I know there is nothing I can do about the situation, but I'm shocked to learn about it. Apparently this is what Roy was talking about in his previous post that answered mine. Walt, W2DU On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:53 GMT, " wrote: Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland. The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" .This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
I have several patents issued to my name with US PTO. For Antennas. They are
not mine, technically. I made the innovations being a consultant to the company, the company decided to patent it. My name is there but the patents are theirs. One patent is total nonsense. The design was original and practical, the result went into production. Then I wrote a description, drew a diagram. I discussed it with examiner who came over for that very purpose. The examiner was an American, his English better then mine. I did not do the follow up - left the company by that time. The resulting text has very little resemblance to what I tried to say. It is clearly not what I made. It does not make any sense to me. Moreover, I am not sure the described 'device' is possible at all. It was patented all right - anyone can see it on the Web now. I show it to my friends sometimes, as object of curiosity. Andrey "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message ... Art, you seem to know a lot of what's happening in the US Patent Office. How do you know this? Do you work there? Your 'insider-type' statements seem to say so. If what you said is happening there is true there has been a complete turn around in policy since I was knowledgeable in that area. You've described what seems to me to be fraudulent activity in the issuance of patents that have no value, and to use them in a court of law in an attempt for the patentee to obtain money is a mockery of the Patent System. I know there is nothing I can do about the situation, but I'm shocked to learn about it. Apparently this is what Roy was talking about in his previous post that answered mine. Walt, W2DU On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:53 GMT, " wrote: Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland. The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" .This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
Thanks, Art, for the sad commentary.
Walt On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 04:39:43 GMT, " wrote: "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Art, you seem to know a lot of what's happening in the US Patent Office. How do you know this? Do you work there? Your 'insider-type' statements seem to say so. No I do not work there I am just stating how I see things in Crystal City. After I retired I did go thru the machinations of patent requests on a personal basis where I did everything by myself . This allowed me to discuss things directly with the PTO which is something you cannot do if you hire a representitive ( attorney ) or a part of a companyBy doing things this way you get a keener sense of what is going on and where the difference between a parallel circuit and a series circuit can be lost on the examiner. I have also been invited to PTO seminars where excuses have been made for irregular procedures because of money grabs by the government. I also had a meeting with a military patent attorney where he lamented about the lessening quality of examiners that took the easy way out of denying patent requests presumably because of efficiency drives and where the military attorney was forced to follow the costly appeal route with a more than 80% reversal success rate. You also now have the U.S. patent office dealing with World Patents so that even a simple "7" on a drawing with a slash on it (European style) can throw a patent into a unknown loop of uncertaincy. Ofcourse if you are a patent attorney you may well see things differently as it is your bread and butter and you recognise hitches ahead of time by knowing the ropes thru experience plus personal conversations with the PTO.as to obtaining a patent per present day aproaches which are very different from yesteryear.. This is how I personaly view things and it would appear from the media that many see the Patent Office as being in a hole from which it cannot extricate itself from given the present day litigation system. Mac is a professional in this field and may well provide insights that totally contradict my perceptions if he was so inclined. Art If what you said is happening there is true there has been a complete turn around in policy since I was knowledgeable in that area. You've described what seems to me to be fraudulent activity in the issuance of patents that have no value, and to use them in a court of law in an attempt for the patentee to obtain money is a mockery of the Patent System. I know there is nothing I can do about the situation, but I'm shocked to learn about it. Apparently this is what Roy was talking about in his previous post that answered mine. Walt, W2DU On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:21:53 GMT, " wrote: Examiners get a salary of $43,000 PER YEAR which is not much in Maryland. The majority of examiners have English as a second language and most have Asian or Vietnamese heritage. ( A look at the telephone directory of the department is quite an eye opener). They are also on a time schedule on how many patents that they must move along per hour. Since the Patent Office is a "cash cow" patents or "'prior art" have been put on computor record so that examiners can feed in a few salient words from the application and then forward the resulting computor patent matches to the new applicant so that he can defend against the grammar of"prior art" .This now means that the new applicant cannot "plagerise" a pre awarded patent grammatically. Since the patent office does not spend time researching physics or reviewing workability it does not matter if the patent works or not. Since the Government TAKES cash from the patent office where normally it gives money to various government offices it is encumbent on the patent office to move along patent requests as fast as possible and with as little work as possible to maintain the establishment and senior examiners salaries, of the latter there is very few., so that the department stays in business So to sum up, the patent office now review patent requests for grammatical duplication of "prior art" plus ensuring that the format of any new application meets regulations and to ensure that said application is placed in the correct pre-assigned grouping depending on its physics or intended use. Now some may argue against the above but this is how I see patents are dealt with at the present time. Art "Walter Maxwell" wrote in message .. . Sorry to hear that, Roy. I was very much involved with the RCA Patent Dept in my early years with RCA, 1949 to 1957. During that time the US Patent Office examiners were smart and tough. A patent used to be worth something. Walt On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:54:49 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU |
"k4wge" wrote in message om... And the crap begins to flow, now that classical physics has been slain. Ed wb6wsn Physics? You want physics? I'll show you physics :-) "The voltage and current applied to a Hertz antenna are in phase, therefore the E and H fields are not in phase, thus radiation does not occur until a great distance from the antenna. Now that explanation is worth a patent all by itself! If "radiation does not occur until a great distance from the antenna", just how does the energy sneak out that great distance and suddenly manifest itself? Don't know about your world, but I've been in the near field of a lot of antennas, and tissue heating easily proved that they were radiating. I believe the quote is: "You want physics?" "I think I'm entitled..." "You want physics?!" "I want the truth!" "You can't handle physics!" Anyway, patents and glib text are cheap (well, maybe not patents), but far-field performance is the ultimate judge. Build me a couple of EH's, and compare them to dipoles, say, mountain-top to mountain-top. Get 3rd party witnessing, and publish. You know, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Ed wb6wsn Ed wb6wsn |
Art has invoked my name so the genie comes forth to tell a (short) story
somewhat simplified: A client invented a useful device. Application was made. A long time passed. Application was rejected in a communication that contained only English words, but that was unintelligible. Efforts were made for clarification. "Clarifications" were unintelligible. Client fell on hard times and could no longer pay more than court fees. Another patent attorney and I filed an appeal a significant part of which consisted of quotations from PTO communications. (As in engineering, when doing really serious stuff one wants a second opinion.) A panel of three of the most senior judges held in our favor with a chastisement (to us) for a non-traditional presentment. Examiner appealed. Another three judge panel again held for our side and ordered the patent to be issued. Patent was issued some five or six years after the start of this process. Someday, the client might pay, but is under no obligation to do so and we have the satisfaction of having done the right thing. I do not think that things like this happened in the PTO in the "old" days. All of those examiners could read and write in the English language. Many, perhaps most, saw their time in the PTO as part of an apprenticeship not as a job. As an aside: I admonish you not to believe the characterizations you see on TV. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: |
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Hate to break the news, Walt, but it happens very, very often. Even years ago, when I was doing some consulting work on a patent case and read a couple of hundred antenna patents, there was a great deal of pseudo- and voodoo-science in issued patents. These days, it's rampant. My favorite example is US patent #6,025,810, "Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna", but I'm sure even this is far from the most egregious. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Walter Maxwell wrote: I f there really is an issued patent on the EH antenna, the paragraph above is proof that the Patent Office examiner who approved the patent application for issuance was completely snowed by the applicant's patent attorney who wrote the application. This doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Unless the patent examiner is extremely well versed in electromagnetic theory he could easily be persuaded that the EH principle is valid, while it is not. Walt Maxwell, W2DU Firstly, sorry for the 'e' in 'fraud' which does not belong there. In fact, I asked for help from the hams' fraternity ('all the people know all' ) - and in connection with the US PTO patent No. 6,486,846 B1, issued on November 26, 2002 to Robert T. Hart. I live on the fifth floor of a condominium building, and like many hams, I have no space on the roof for a proper antenna. So, an EH-antenna would be ideal - if it worked. I have not tried to build it yet, but I am trying to learn about it as much as possible before that. Obviously, my question has two aspects: a practical and a theoretical one. The practical one: "The proof of a pie is in eating it." Has anyone built it and can testify it is successful at least as much as a standard dipole - according to the inventor's statements? I have not found such an answer yet. The theoretical one: My theoretical education in that field is rather amateurish, but still I think I can put some questions: On the EH-antenna homepage (http://EH-antenna.com) I found a statement that in the classical dipole the E and the H fields are a result of a LINEAR movement of electric charges, while those fields in the EH-antenna are a result of the ROTATION of those charges - a feature unknown until now. Nowhere in textbooks could I find any word about this possible phenomenon. In science discoveries must be double confirmed at least, but here this is not the case. By the way, it was interesting to read that once an issued US Patent was a guarantee that the patent at least worked, but today it seems it is only a certificate that someone was the first to register his idea or wouldbe invention. If so, I could even understand that, because today the USPTO should have armies of different experts and endless laboratories to test all the applications. However, it would be fair to openly proclaim such a principle. In my country (Croatia) the situation is similar. (The other day I read in the newspapers that someone got a patent for superconductivity at normal temperatures (through some alloys), although, to my knowledge, nobody saw it work.) Imagine a coil without ohmic resistance, or long distance lines without any losses! I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow. Bozidar, 9a2hl |
I am still dreaming about an ideal antenna having not more than 10% of
wavelength and 100% efficiency. Thanks for all the posts, anyhow. Bozidar, 9a2 Moderate/high efficiency with a 10% physical height is pretty easy to attain. That's not an e/h antenna, as far as I am aware. The e/h antenna appears to ignore the main point about Maxwell's equations: changing fields generate changing fields. E' make B's and so on. You can't separate a changing E field from its B field, and so on. Thus the premise is wrong. In a --very-- small volume (fraction of a radiansphere), any single current max radiator is very inefficient. Similarly, any multiple current max radiator does not exhibit constructive interference in the far field. That's the physics. Antennas as a pure science are now an exhausted field. 73, Chip N1IR |
There is an antenna with dimensions as small as 1 / 70th ( 1.43 percent) of a wavelength which has a radiating efficiency as high as 98.0 percent. It is a vertical copper tube, 1 metre high (39.4 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch) in diameter, operating at 7 MHz. It is only 0.86 dB worse than absolute perfection, equivalent to a loss of only 1 / 70th of an S-unit. It is more efficient than a very high half-wave resonant dipole, using 14 awg wire, at the same frequency. And uses a far smaller amount of expensive copper. Has anybody ever applied for a patent for such an antenna which has such an outstanding performance? And did the Patent Examiner raise his eyebrows at the claim? ---- Reg. |
Reg Edwards wrote:
There is an antenna with dimensions as small as 1 / 70th ( 1.43 percent) of a wavelength which has a radiating efficiency as high as 98.0 percent. It is a vertical copper tube, 1 metre high (39.4 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch) in diameter, operating at 7 MHz. It is only 0.86 dB worse than absolute perfection, equivalent to a loss of only 1 / 70th of an S-unit. It is more efficient than a very high half-wave resonant dipole, using 14 awg wire, at the same frequency. And uses a far smaller amount of expensive copper. Has anybody ever applied for a patent for such an antenna which has such an outstanding performance? And did the Patent Examiner raise his eyebrows at the claim? ---- Reg. I don't know of any patents, but these "wonder antennas" are so "efficient" because they use the feedline as a radiator. The feedline is just terminated with a huge capacity. There is no magic to this - it is just bad engineering. Good morning RFI! Kind regards, Eike |
they use the feedline as a radiator. The feedline
is just terminated with a huge capacity. There is no magic to this - it is just bad engineering. Good morning RFI! ...and yet hams think the G5RV is a wonder antenna:-) Radiating feedline is not bad engineering. Its one of many design options, applicable in some circumstances. 73, Chip N1IR |
|
Walt, W2DU PS--don't you find it ironic that when radiation measurements are taken in the far field the measured power already relates directly to the power delivered to the radiator? Then if Hart's version radiates more power than the standard radiator, where does his extra power come from. Looks like he's invented a new version of the perpetual motion machine. After all, it's patented, isn't it? So it's gotta' work. That's nothing, have you seen : "Antenna faster than light?" Saddly, patent laws were screwed up few years back, looks like patent office is rubber stamping applications as they come. Then there is a bunch of "ham extremists" trying to apply DC laws to loading coils, ingnoring reality, parroting what they learned in the DC class. Good thing itsa ju's a hobby. Yuri, K3BU.us |
Eike Lantzsch, ZP6CGE wrote:
Reg Edwards wrote: There is an antenna with dimensions as small as 1 / 70th ( 1.43 percent) of a wavelength which has a radiating efficiency as high as 98.0 percent. It is a vertical copper tube, 1 metre high (39.4 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch) in diameter, operating at 7 MHz. It is only 0.86 dB worse than absolute perfection, equivalent to a loss of only 1 / 70th of an S-unit. It is more efficient than a very high half-wave resonant dipole, using 14 awg wire, at the same frequency. And uses a far smaller amount of expensive copper. Has anybody ever applied for a patent for such an antenna which has such an outstanding performance? And did the Patent Examiner raise his eyebrows at the claim? ---- Reg. I don't know of any patents, but these "wonder antennas" are so "efficient" because they use the feedline as a radiator. The feedline is just terminated with a huge capacity. There is no magic to this - it is just bad engineering. Good morning RFI! Kind regards, Eike It's theoretically possible to make small, highly efficient antennas, but since the radiation resistance of such antennas is low as well as the loss resistance, the Q is high and the bandwidth stinks. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Tom Donaly wrote:
It's theoretically possible to make small, highly efficient antennas, but since the radiation resistance of such antennas is low as well as the loss resistance, the Q is high and the bandwidth stinks. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH It also becomes difficult to transfer power to them without incurring signficant loss in the matching network components. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Fractenna"
Radiating feedline is not bad engineering. Its one of many design options, applicable in some circumstances. Yeah, like BPL !!!!! ROTFLMAO. Gotcha! |
|
There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words they use to disguise the fraud. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, who called my attention to the following two sotes, I got the answer I was looking for. The sites a http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt_2.pdf |
R
There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words they use to disguise the fraud. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, I finally got the answers I was looking for: Visit these sites: 1) http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt.pdf 2) http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt_2.pdf Thanks everybody for taking part in the discussion. My dilemmas have been solved: - practically: I am not going to build the EH antenna. - theoretically: The EH antenna behaves exactly according to the existing classical antenna theory. Bozidar, 9a2hl |
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:20:08 +0200,
(Bozidar Pasaric) wrote: Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, who called my attention to the following two sotes, I got the answer I was looking for. The sites a http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt_2.pdf Hi Bozidar, Looks OK until you ask yourself just what does line of sight calibration have to do with useful DX communication? Their comparison of AM antennas and their replacement eh model was tellingly abysmal when it came to a practical sized service area (in other words, beyond line of sight communications). I notice they either suppress their FCC antenna report, or otherwise hide their citations that offer signal reports that dive 30 dB below the standard AM signal for their ramshackle AM replacement antenna. A tractor couldn't bury their signal deeper. Do you need a copy of that? I kept one in anticipation of its embarrassing numbers (obviously misunderstood by the clients of this test) suddenly disappearing (obviously when they finally got a clue). 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words they use to disguise the fraud. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Sorry, the previous message went out only partially. Here is the whole: Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE I finally got the answers I was looking for. Visit these two sites: 1) http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt.pdf 2) http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt_2.pdf That means: - practically: I am not going to build the EH antenna; - theoreticallay: The EH antenna behaves exactly according to the classical antenna theory. Thanks everyone for taking part in the discusson. Bozidar, 9a2hl |
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:22:02 +0200, (Bozidar
Pasaric) wrote: Richard Clark wrote: There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words they use to disguise the fraud. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC Sorry, the previous message went out only partially. Here is the whole: Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE I finally got the answers I was looking for. Visit these two sites: 1) http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt.pdf 2) http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo rt_2.pdf That means: - practically: I am not going to build the EH antenna; - theoreticallay: The EH antenna behaves exactly according to the classical antenna theory. Thanks everyone for taking part in the discusson. Bozidar, 9a2hl Hello, Bozidar, There seems to be a problem with the URL you posed above. I get the error msg 'page not available'. Can you fix the URL so we can see the quote? Walt, W2DU |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:16 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com