On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:21:29 GMT, "
wrote:

He infers that he has improved the design,
specifically with respect to F/B
What was it before and to what amount was it improved ?

Hi Art,

What are the answers to these same questions applied to your design?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:17:50 GMT, "
wrote:

The gentleman has his patent.
If I disclosed how this could be beat on this forum would I still be able to
get a patent for myself if I so desire? Or would it be best to not disclose
it at all?

I am no lawyer, but from what I have always heard, if you express a
general idea, that isn't a problem. However, if you are specific, or
offer enough information that someone else can reproduce your idea,
you could lose it.

i.e. 'Modifying the antenna so the angle of radiation shifts several
degrees will improve it considerably' wouldn't hurt your patent idea,
but 'Add a coil at the end with three cw turns overlapping twelve ccw
turns to improve the gain' could jeopardize your patent, or at lease
risk someone racing you to the patent office with an application.


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:57:31 GMT, "
wrote:

I don't operate on 40 M so I may be missing something but exactly what is it
that stands
out with this antenna that would make it desirable to hams?

From the title: "Two-Element Driven Array *With Improved Tuning and
Matching* (emphasis added)"

The major claim is that the antenna is more easily adjusted than the
alternatives. This would seem to make it "desirable."


Efficiency would
be reflected by the loads
used which is not necessarily "state of the art".

What "loads"?

He then states "a large
F/B is effected"
but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots !

He doesn't claim "improved" F/B, only "comparable to that which is
available from a three element Yagi of similar electromagnetic
properties."

So what before and after do you expect to see?

Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M
antenna that have lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the
normal 14 degrees?

Yeah, I'm still interested in seeing how you can lower the "TOA"
without changing the antenna height, or is that the "secret"?

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:21:29 GMT, "
wrote:



The original design is 50 years old.
He infers that he has improved the design,
specifically with respect to F/B

He makes no such claim.

In article ,
Buck wrote:

I am no lawyer, but from what I have always heard, if you express a
general idea, that isn't a problem. However, if you are specific, or
offer enough information that someone else can reproduce your idea,
you could lose it.

i.e. 'Modifying the antenna so the angle of radiation shifts several
degrees will improve it considerably' wouldn't hurt your patent idea,
but 'Add a coil at the end with three cw turns overlapping twelve ccw
turns to improve the gain' could jeopardize your patent, or at lease
risk someone racing you to the patent office with an application.

The rules vary somewhat, it seems (I'm not a lawyer either).

Most of the world uses a "first to file" priority rule. Disclosing an
invention before you file, would give someone else the ability to file
for the patent first, and you'd lose.

The United States uses a "first to invent" rule, so in theory the
original inventor has priority even if the invention is disclosed
before filing. Winning the first-to-invent battle can be difficult, I
gather... to prove priority the original inventor would need to have
proof of the date of the discovery. The usual way to do that is to
keep an engineering notebook, date and sign each page and have the
signatures witnessed and/or notarized.

If I recall correctly, there's a limit to the amount of time that the
"first to invent" rule can protect you... one year from the first
public disclosure, I think.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

You have up to one year to file for a U.S. patent after you publicly
disclose the invention. (This isn't generally true in other countries.)
I assume that Art would be aware of this since he's been through the
process several times in the past. It's also easy to find at the USPTO
website.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Buck wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 04:17:50 GMT, "
wrote:


The gentleman has his patent.
If I disclosed how this could be beat on this forum would I still be able to
get a patent for myself if I so desire? Or would it be best to not disclose
it at all?


I am no lawyer, but from what I have always heard, if you express a
general idea, that isn't a problem. However, if you are specific, or
offer enough information that someone else can reproduce your idea,
you could lose it.

i.e. 'Modifying the antenna so the angle of radiation shifts several
degrees will improve it considerably' wouldn't hurt your patent idea,
but 'Add a coil at the end with three cw turns overlapping twelve ccw
turns to improve the gain' could jeopardize your patent, or at lease
risk someone racing you to the patent office with an application.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:35:18 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:21:29 GMT, "
wrote:
specifically with respect to F/B
What was it before and to what amount was it improved ?
Hi Art,

What are the answers to these same questions applied to your design?

Tuff question. No doubt, not all is known about antennas....

If I remember correctly the worst point to the rear 180 degrees
was more than 40 db down. But I must point out that nobody
accepted my theoretical analysis regarding the phase/ current magnitude
theory and even tho my models show an INCREASE in lobe width because
it reflected a circle on the gain side one should certainly question what I
say.
There are many better educated people than I on this group and if not one
came forward and blest the theory then it would appear that my theory is
flawed,
my vector diagram is flawed and also my modelling is flawed. My only
disapointment was that none came forward to point out the flaw or just
assumed without mathematical reason that it must be flawed.
Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed
to lower the TOA. even in the face of presumed flawed analysis.
Weird. very weird yet again none declared it impossible
Regards
Art



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:35:18 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 05:21:29 GMT, "
wrote:
specifically with respect to F/B
What was it before and to what amount was it improved ?
Hi Art,

What are the answers to these same questions applied to your design?

Tuff question. No doubt, not all is known about antennas....

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, "
wrote:
If I remember correctly

Hi Art,

No notes? No model? No data?

But I must point out that nobody
accepted my theoretical analysis regarding the phase/ current magnitude

What theory? You simply described a trivial draughting exercise.

My only
disapointment was that none came forward to point out the flaw or just
assumed without mathematical reason that it must be flawed.

Let's see, I gave you the rationale that supported your results, I
named the mathematical curve, and then pointed out the necessary
premise to arrive at the results.

Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed
to lower the TOA. even in the face of presumed flawed analysis.
Weird. very weird yet again none declared it impossible

This is more flawed remembrance.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

All understood so now we can put the thread aside
Art
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, "
wrote:
If I remember correctly

Hi Art,

No notes? No model? No data?

But I must point out that nobody
accepted my theoretical analysis regarding the phase/ current magnitude

What theory? You simply described a trivial draughting exercise.

My only
disapointment was that none came forward to point out the flaw or just
assumed without mathematical reason that it must be flawed.

Let's see, I gave you the rationale that supported your results, I
named the mathematical curve, and then pointed out the necessary
premise to arrive at the results.

Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed
to lower the TOA. even in the face of presumed flawed analysis.
Weird. very weird yet again none declared it impossible

This is more flawed remembrance.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC