| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Interesting Antennas
While looking for something else, I came across two interesting antennas in
the USPTO data base. Sixty years separates their filing dates. Patent 2,268,640 shows an antenna invented by the famous George H. Brown. It may be the first use of nested Yagi type antennas. Patent 6,411,264 shows a supposed improvement on the 8JK antenna such that efficiency is preserved and a large F/B is effected. The inventor is N7CL. Http://www.uspto.gov/ is a place to start. Go to Patents and then to Patent Searches. Enjoy, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: |
Thats interesting Mac I am going to look at that to see what he did.
I modelled a wierd 20 metre antenna today and it finished up with four lobes in aq vertical direction at the front and the same number of vertical lobes at the rear. Need to find out what causes extra lobes. The extra lobes did drop the TOA down however to around 8 to 9 degrees Regards Art "J. Mc Laughlin" wrote in message ... While looking for something else, I came across two interesting antennas in the USPTO data base. Sixty years separates their filing dates. Patent 2,268,640 shows an antenna invented by the famous George H. Brown. It may be the first use of nested Yagi type antennas. Patent 6,411,264 shows a supposed improvement on the 8JK antenna such that efficiency is preserved and a large F/B is effected. The inventor is N7CL. Http://www.uspto.gov/ is a place to start. Go to Patents and then to Patent Searches. Enjoy, Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: |
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:51:36 -0500, "J. Mc Laughlin"
wrote: Patent 6,411,264 shows a supposed improvement on the 8JK antenna such that efficiency is preserved and a large F/B is effected. The inventor is N7CL. Hey, I know Eric. See: http://www.cal-av.com/antennas.html for the commercial version of his design. |
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? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots ! 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? I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting the present assembly aside. Regards Art "Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:51:36 -0500, "J. Mc Laughlin" wrote: Patent 6,411,264 shows a supposed improvement on the 8JK antenna such that efficiency is preserved and a large F/B is effected. The inventor is N7CL. Hey, I know Eric. See: http://www.cal-av.com/antennas.html for the commercial version of his design. |
I had to chuckle over this -- Art being critical of another antenna
design because the designer doesn't produce adequate quantitative data or explain clearly what its advantages are. Thanks for the entertainment. I need a break from reality once in a while. Roy Lewallen, W7EL 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? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots ! 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? I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting the present assembly aside. Regards Art |
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? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots ! Before and after what? 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? I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting the present assembly aside. Regards Art "Wes Stewart" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:51:36 -0500, "J. Mc Laughlin" wrote: Patent 6,411,264 shows a supposed improvement on the 8JK antenna such that efficiency is preserved and a large F/B is effected. The inventor is N7CL. Hey, I know Eric. See: http://www.cal-av.com/antennas.html for the commercial version of his design. |
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? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots ! 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? That last post got away from me too soon. Yes, I'd like a "TOA" of 9 degrees. Unfortunately, I don't have room for a 110' tower. Now what do I do? |
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 could not see or define the advantages from what I read which is why I placed the posting. Absolutely nothing wrong with that Roy, you must be losing it. Actually I have heard the same thing said of your computor program instructions Regards Art "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... I had to chuckle over this -- Art being critical of another antenna design because the designer doesn't produce adequate quantitative data or explain clearly what its advantages are. Thanks for the entertainment. I need a break from reality once in a while. Roy Lewallen, W7EL 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? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots ! 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? I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting the present assembly aside. Regards Art |
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... 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? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots ! Before and after what? The original design is 50 years old. 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 ? Art , 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? I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting the present assembly aside. Regards Art "Wes Stewart" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:51:36 -0500, "J. Mc Laughlin" wrote: Patent 6,411,264 shows a supposed improvement on the 8JK antenna such that efficiency is preserved and a large F/B is effected. The inventor is N7CL. Hey, I know Eric. See: http://www.cal-av.com/antennas.html for the commercial version of his design. |
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:57:31 GMT, " wrote: snip That last post got away from me too soon. Yes, I'd like a "TOA" of 9 degrees. Unfortunately, I don't have room for a 110' tower. Now what do I do? Use a cell phone Art |
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 |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, "
wrote: 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 Perhaps my pestering you for the "secret" to lower "TOA" without changing the antenna height was too oblique to qualify as "declaring it impossible." Therefore, let me as my congressman would say (actually not *my* congressman, he's not that bright), "I would like to revise and expand my remarks: It's impossible." |
Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle
at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height. The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle of the dipole over perfect ground. But as we and others have pointed out before, lowering the "takeoff angle" (as the term is used by modeling programs) doesn't guarantee better DX performance, and really doesn't mean much at all. For example, the modified W8JK has a gain of 5.66 dBi at an elevation angle of 10 degrees and 0.31 dBi at 5 degrees. If we change source 2 phasing to -144 degrees for a nominally unidirectional pattern (see the recent discussion about the impact of current distribution on front/back ratio), the takeoff angle rises slightly to 26 degrees. But the gain at 10 degrees elevation is now 6.55 dBi and at 5 degrees 1.15 dBi, both greater than the W8JK with its lower takeoff angle. And at very low elevation angles, the gain of the dipole over real ground is very nearly the same as the gain of the dipole over perfect ground, despite the difference in takeoff angles. At higher angles, the dipole over perfect ground is better, despite its higher takeoff angle. Actual gain at elevation angles of around 2 to 10 or 12 degrees is a valid and useful measure of DX performance; "takeoff angle" isn't. But based on past performance, I'm not holding my breath that we'll be seeing any actual numbers from Art about his innovations. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Wes Stewart wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, " wrote: 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 Perhaps my pestering you for the "secret" to lower "TOA" without changing the antenna height was too oblique to qualify as "declaring it impossible." Therefore, let me as my congressman would say (actually not *my* congressman, he's not that bright), "I would like to revise and expand my remarks: It's impossible." |
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height. The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle of the dipole over perfect ground. But as we and others have pointed out before, lowering the "takeoff angle" (as the term is used by modeling programs) doesn't guarantee better DX performance, and really doesn't mean much at all. For example, the modified W8JK has a gain of 5.66 dBi at an elevation angle of 10 degrees and 0.31 dBi at 5 degrees. If we change source 2 phasing to -144 degrees for a nominally unidirectional pattern (see the recent discussion about the impact of current distribution on front/back ratio), the takeoff angle rises slightly to 26 degrees. But the gain at 10 degrees elevation is now 6.55 dBi and at 5 degrees 1.15 dBi, both greater than the W8JK with its lower takeoff angle. And at very low elevation angles, the gain of the dipole over real ground is very nearly the same as the gain of the dipole over perfect ground, despite the difference in takeoff angles. At higher angles, the dipole over perfect ground is better, despite its higher takeoff angle. Actual gain at elevation angles of around 2 to 10 or 12 degrees is a valid and useful measure of DX performance; "takeoff angle" isn't. That is exactly what I pointed to in the discussion. The top half of the forward lobe of a directive array is of no use say for opening a band. The important point is the underside contour of the main lobe where there is useful gain at the angles that Roy stated. For instance; a 60 foot + boom yagi with a gain of around 16 dbi will have a TOA at say 13 degrees but it is also possible to construct a directive array of 10 degrees TOA that has the same underside contour as the yagi design and thus equal in performance. The difference is that a yagi design has a fat lobe with narrow beam width, where asyou can construct a radiator or an array that has a larger beam width, but with a thinner lobe that covers the aforementioned degrees of coverage required. Another point of mention is that many associate low TOA with antenna height but without specificity with respect to feed point height or as in other cases such as a top hat or "unused" array as with stacked antennas For me it is a question of phase angle provided by a transmitting point where its optimum angle is directly opposite the earths surface and supplimented by a secondary radiation of a similar phase, but to explain why would be impossible with respect to this group so don't ask One particular poster hit things right on the head when he referred to resistive impedance THRU OUT the length of any radiator./s, he obviously knows his stuff tho I question the thin wire aproach to accomplish this i.e. negate reactance But based on past performance, I'm not holding my breath that we'll be seeing any actual numbers from Art about his innovations. Just for me, try to hold your breath for ten minuits. You well know that no figures are accepted by the know alls on this group. Even observed tests undertaken are not accepted unless the so called guru is actually present which would be impossible , since the gurus wish is to preserve their perceived stations and not subject to ridicule On this actual thread I have given explanations and figures and only ommited how I achieve it ,which I will save until I have completed pertinent studies. As a former engineer which apparently you say that you are one also, it is important to review and check your work several times to ensure that it is in presentable state to fellow engineers for review. One says that it is impossible, another somehow turns his responses to unfounded gibberish and another declares the whole thing as hillarious and so on, such that any comment made, even when made in approval, is meaningless as comments made are emotional and without any technical depth. Art Unwin KB9MZ..............XG Roy Lewallen, W7EL Wes Stewart wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:13:02 GMT, " wrote: 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 Perhaps my pestering you for the "secret" to lower "TOA" without changing the antenna height was too oblique to qualify as "declaring it impossible." Therefore, let me as my congressman would say (actually not *my* congressman, he's not that bright), "I would like to revise and expand my remarks: It's impossible." |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:44:34 GMT, "
wrote: For me it is a question of phase angle provided by a transmitting point where its optimum angle is directly opposite the earths surface and supplimented by a secondary radiation of a similar phase, My design is simpler and does it better. but to explain why would be impossible with respect to this group so don't ask Hi Art, Time has proven when we do ask, you can't answer - so your advice is commendable on two counts. You well know that no figures are accepted by the know alls on this group. You haven't offered any 1. Data; 2. Notes; 3. Models and certainly no 4. Figures. Even observed tests undertaken are not accepted unless the so called guru is actually present which would be impossible Then they are not "observed tests." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote: Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height. The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle of the dipole over perfect ground. All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying to refer to was Art's "magic" design. To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the normal 14 degrees?" I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number) element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9 degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above real ground at 14 MHz. |
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height. The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle of the dipole over perfect ground. All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying to refer to was Art's "magic" design. To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the normal 14 degrees?" I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number)top hat element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9 degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above real ground at 14 MHz. I don't remember the two element bit and I also stated it was NOT a yagi design. You mentioned horiuzontal antenna which suggests a yagi design unless you intended horizontal "polarisation". Roy, same as I, is pointing out the number of incorrect statements that you have made and you are now adding to them. To help you out I will stop posting on this thread to save you any further embarrasment, that way you will not need to admit to anymore errors. Pity you didn't define what you meant with respect to antenna height i.e. feed point height, top hat height, a higher unfed antenna height and so on. Adding ambiguety just leads to confusion for everybody. Frankly you are looking more like Richard every day with your leaning on emotions instead instead of technical matters pertaining to the thread with the assumption that all must be placed before you for judgement as you are the leading analysts in antenna design. Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode. See you on another thread perhaps. Regards Art KB9MZ....XG |
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:36:35 GMT, "
wrote: I don't remember the two element bit Because so much of antennas is still unknown, perhaps. So we will proceed with what you DO know! Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode. Hi Art, You certainly entertain some strange fantasies - however one has to wonder why you expose them here? It's tough enough trying to separate the wild claims you offer from actual work performed and then to have to wade through your mauve musings. Glad to hear To help you out I will stop posting on this thread again.... not holdin' my breath ;-) Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:36:35 GMT, "
wrote: "Wes Stewart" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height. The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle of the dipole over perfect ground. All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying to refer to was Art's "magic" design. To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the normal 14 degrees?" I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number)top hat element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9 degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above real ground at 14 MHz. Note this is not a *direct quote*. I did not say "top hat" in the original post. I don't remember the two element bit and I also stated it was NOT a yagi design. Let me refresh your memory: 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? Efficiency would be reflected by the loads used which is not necessarily "state of the art". He then states "a large F/B is effected" but it doesn't show before and after overlaid plots ! 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? I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting the present assembly aside. Regards Art" End quote Doesn't the foregoing *exact* quote say, "...two element 20 M antenna....?" You mentioned horiuzontal (sic) antenna which suggests a yagi (sic) design unless you intended horizontal "polarisation". Okay polarize it any way you want, and I don't see where I mentioned Yagi at all. Roy, same as I, is pointing out the number of incorrect statements that you have made and you are now adding to them. Roy made a valid point. You on the other hand are full of it. To help you out I will stop posting on this thread to save you any further embarrasment (sic), that way you will not need to admit to anymore (sic) errors. When you can show me an error, I will admit to it. So far there's nothing to admit to. But I can understand your desire to drop out. Pity you didn't define what you meant with respect to antenna height i.e. feed point height, top hat height, a higher unfed antenna height and so on. I said, "array center." If you want to vertically polarize it you might make it at ~70 to 80' with a pair of collinear dipoles if you can figure out a practical way to feed it. That would give a whopping 4 - 5 dBi at 9 degrees, where my Yagi design at 70' has 12 dBi at 9 degrees even though the max gain is at 13 degrees. (One of the points Roy was making) You're claiming some magic design that will lower the "TOA" significantly, from the "norm" (from whatever hat that came from) of 14 to 9 degrees, without increasing the antenna height. I'm suggesting that you can't do it. Prove me wrong - wait a minute; you already confessed that you couldn't. Adding ambiguety (sic) just leads to confusion for everybody. This coming from an expert at bafflegab. And speaking of bagglegab... Frankly you are looking more like Richard every day with your leaning on emotions instead instead of technical matters pertaining to the thread with the assumption that all must be placed before you for judgement as you are the leading analysts in antenna design. Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode. See you on another thread perhaps. Regards Art KB9MZ....XG |
"Wes Stewart" wrote in message ... On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 19:36:35 GMT, " wrote: "Wes Stewart" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:54:50 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: Actually, it is possible to lower the takeoff angle (the elevation angle at which the pattern is maximum) without changing the antenna height. The method is to narrow the free-space elevation radiation pattern. For example, modify the EZNEC example file W8JK.ez by changing the height (Z coordinates) to 0.5 wavelength. The takeoff angle is 25 degrees. Delete one of the elements to make a dipole and note that the dipole's takeoff angle is 28 degrees. The lowering is due to the substantially greater elevation directivity of the W8JK. There aren't too many modestly sized horizontal arrays that have enough elevation directivity to make much of a difference in takeoff angle, however, so the difference is generally small at best. It's also interesting to note that the takeoff angle of this dipole over real ground is 2 degrees lower than the takeoff angle of the dipole over perfect ground. All true. I see my response was too encompassing. What I was trying to refer to was Art's "magic" design. To wit: "Would hams have an interest in a two element 20 M antenna that have (sic) lower TOA than the norm, say 9 degrees instead of the normal 14 degrees?" I can't imagine anything that will make a 2 (or any other number)top hat element horizontal antenna of any configuration have a TOA of 9 degrees other than placing the array center at a height of ~105' above real ground at 14 MHz. Note this is not a *direct quote*. I did not say "top hat" in the original post. I don't remember the two element bit and I also stated it was NOT a yagi design. Let me refresh your memory: On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:57:31 GMT, " wrote: snipots ! 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? I think I can quickly put one together for the week end while putting the present assembly aside. Regards Art" End quote Yes I remember it now and yes I think I could put one together ...........so what, nothing special in that! Doesn't the foregoing *exact* quote say, "...two element 20 M antenna....?" You mentioned horiuzontal (sic) antenna which suggests a yagi (sic) design unless you intended horizontal "polarisation". Okay polarize it any way you want, and I don't see where I mentioned Yagi at all. No, I am making the point regarding the "horizontal antenna" comment I would not say my antenna was "horizontal" per se ,if it were then reference to a yagi design could be used at a stretch for any "horizontal antenna' that consists of a boom Roy, same as I, is pointing out the number of incorrect statements that you have made and you are now adding to them. Roy made a valid point. You on the other hand are full of it. Roy just reiterated what I said previously where the bottom contour of the main lobe can remain the same for many antennas which have different TOA and it is this contour that is importantThus TOA can be designed for the frequency of choice. Period! And try as you might you just can't change this fact. To help you out I will stop posting on this thread to save you any further embarrasment (sic), that way you will not need to admit to anymore (sic) errors. When you can show me an error, I will admit to it. So far there's nothing to admit to. But I can understand your desire to drop out. Pity you didn't define what you meant with respect to antenna height i.e. feed point height, top hat height, a higher unfed antenna height and so on. I said, "array center." If you want to vertically polarize it you might make it at ~70 to 80' with a pair of collinear dipoles if you can figure out a practical way to feed it. That would give a whopping 4 - 5 dBi at 9 degrees, where my Yagi design at 70' has 12 dBi at 9 degrees even though the max gain is at 13 degrees. (One of the points Roy was making) Array center means what? The center of a loop, the center of an inverted vee, the center of.. well no point in carrying on with the "Array center" You're claiming some magic design that will lower the "TOA" significantly, from the "norm" (from whatever hat that came from) of 14 to 9 degrees, without increasing the antenna height. I'm suggesting that you can't do it. Prove me wrong - wait a minute; you already confessed that you couldn't. Lets get back to facts as stated in this thread and not innuendo. My tower is a fold over, the antenna is such that the method of coupling is unique and is the foundation of the design (I know groans regarding my fascination with CLOSE coupling.) The single feed point of the antenna assembly is at approx 65 feet. It is capable of placing best F/B at the SAME frequency as best gain.The impedance level is not controlled ( low impedance) as with a high gain yagi design. and its performance can be compared to a 1WL boom Yagi design antenna . Yes, I can use a commercial rotor instead of my heavy prop pitch rotor. I also have said that it could not compete with the simplicity of the YAGI mechanical design aproach. All the above I have mentioned one way or another together with the fact that the main lobe has a larger beam width than the yagi design which can be important when the gain of the antenna narrows the beam. And lastly, I pointed out the basic theory using the vector diagram approach when idealistically where radiation at the rear is removed the main lobe is a pure circle and not elongated as a YAGI design would provide and where one can surmise that forward side lobes would not be generated. Oooops forgot.it can be used as a multi bander! Now those are the facts that I have presented. Others have twisted the above to suggest something else or additions. For me what I have presented is just a pushing out of the envelope antenna knoweledge and to show that no matter what, all is not known about antennas or R.F. radiation And as with all new things that come forward all will say that they knew that all the time but just didn't get around to it, just like many say when they see the winning lotto number. I will not offer any more facts since the intent of many is to just promote arguments, play games and certainly not to discuss technicalities that suggest all is false and point out why with logic. Think about the initial thread heading and then note to yourself how individuals responded in answer to the heading. Yup all were different but all with the diversion aproach. And you of all people scolded me for presenting a "precis" regarding vector analysis because many stated they had no understanding of its use and where the experts stayed silent because they failed to remember 101 and where you miraculously remembered it after my post. Even then you failed to point out any points that made it a bogus aproach. I would say that the average antenna at a height of 1 WL has a elevation angle (TOA ) of around 14 degrees . Read the Antenna book of the ARRL! Adding ambiguety (sic) just leads to confusion for everybody. This coming from an expert at bafflegab. And speaking of bagglegab... Frankly you are looking more like Richard every day with your leaning on emotions instead instead of technical matters pertaining to the thread with the assumption that all must be placed before you for judgement as you are the leading analysts in antenna design. Actually with respect to this thread both of you are showing that you are wearing no clothes tho Richard could well be wearing Shakespeare hose of a see thru nature that he wears around his abode. See you on another thread perhaps. Regards Art KB9MZ....XG You got me to come back Wes to this thread but no more. Have at it You are now free to wave your arms around like Andy Capp knowing that all you say will not be refuted regardles of the clothing that you wear Regards Art KB9MZ...XG |
Art, please fill in the blanks. Trust me, it won't harm in any way your
ability to obtain a patent. ---------- Hi, I'm aunwin. I have invented an antenna that's an improvement over existing designs, because: 1. The gain of a __[A]__ when mounted ______ feet high is _____ dBi at an elevation angle of __[b]___ degrees. My remarkable antenna has a gain of ____ dBi at that same angle. 2. At the same frequency as used to determine the gain in item 1, the reference antenna has a front/back ratio of ______ dB at an elevation angle of __[b]__ degrees. My marvelous antenna has a front/back ratio of ______ dB at that same angle. 3. At a frequency _____% [above|below] the frequency of items 1 and 2, the reference antenna's gain has dropped to _____ dBi and the front/back to ____ dB. My terrific antenna, however, still has a gain of ______ dBi and front/back of ______ dB. 4. When matched to 50 ohms at the frequency of items 1 and 2 which is ____ MHz, the reference antenna has a 2:1 SWR bandwidth of _____ MHz. My outstanding antenna has a 2:1 SWR bandwidth of ______ MHz. A = the name of a reference antenna having a similar size, number of elements, complexity, or cost compared to your antenna. In other words, a common antenna that your antenna is better than. B = an elevation angle useful for DX work -- choose anything between 2 and 10 or so degrees. It would be best to give gain and front/back for multiple angles. That'll show those ignorant troglodites like Roy and Wes that there are still Galileos out here who can laugh in the gurus' faces and come up with performance they never dreamed of! You wanted numbers, I gave you numbers. Choke on those, you doubters! ---------- That's all you've got to do, Art, just fill in the blanks. A few numbers. No need for expositions on coupling, polygons, or takeoff angles. Not holding my breath, Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 02:15:17 GMT, "
wrote: [blah blah] Have at it You are now free to wave your arms around like Andy Capp knowing that all you say will not be refuted regardles of the clothing that you wear Well, just having had surgery to fix a torn rotator cuff, I'm under doctor's orders to wave only one arm. But since you're seemingly enamoured with what I'm wearing, I'll let you in on it. My XYL has designed a lovely tee shirt with a revealing slit up one side that lets me put it on without raising my arm. |
wrote:
Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed to lower the TOA. Art, I'll bet you could do something interesting using entangled electrons. I wonder if entangled electrons emit entangled photons? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Cecil
If photons have no mass I do not see how they could become entangled! As for electrons don't they just re-orient instead of travelling? I suppose if "curls" became active they could embrace both of the above to simulate what apears to be an entanglement ...Grin Was In Washington D.C. for a few days so I could not respond earlier Art "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... wrote: Yet at the same time many are anxious to find out how I managed to lower the TOA. Art, I'll bet you could do something interesting using entangled electrons. I wonder if entangled electrons emit entangled photons? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
" bravely wrote to "All" (26 Mar 05 15:34:38)
--- on the heady topic of " Interesting Antennas" au From: " au Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:27288 au Cecil au If photons have no mass I do not see how they could become entangled! au As for electrons don't they just re-orient instead of travelling? The term entanglement, as used in particle physics, has nothing to do with mass but rather a state or spin. Electrons are a bare charge surrounded by a shield of photons. What we measure is the leakage that gets through. Since light is affected by gravity, doesn't this show a link between gravity and electromotive force? BTW Cecil's body is made up of baryons. A*s*i*m*o*v .... "But, your honor, the light had dopplered to green." |
Asimov wrote:
BTW Cecil's body is made up of baryons. A*s*i*m*o*v For the record, Asimov has never been near my body - unless she is a female. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
"Cecil Moore" bravely wrote to "All" (26 Mar 05 22:31:11)
--- on the heady topic of " Interesting Antennas" CM From: Cecil Moore CM Xref: aeinews rec.radio.amateur.antenna:27320 CM Asimov wrote: BTW Cecil's body is made up of baryons. *A*s*i*m*o*v CM For the record, Asimov has never been near my CM body - unless she is a female. :-) It was a generalization. BTW I meant to ask this some time ago, but isn't "Cecil" a girlie sort of name? :-) I can easily imagine you might have had a traumatic school experience as kids can be brutal. I suppose you may have compensated by growing up to become a lumberjack or a marines sargent? A*s*i*m*o*f*f .... May you find the light and walk the mountain tops. |
Asimov wrote:
It was a generalization. BTW I meant to ask this some time ago, but isn't "Cecil" a girlie sort of name? :-) Cecil is from Welsh "Seissylt" from Roman "Sextus". There are about ten men named "Cecil" in my home town of 4000 people. Remember the director, Cecil B. deMille? Cecilio is Spanish masculine. Cecilia is Spanish feminine. Cecile is French feminine. I have never heard of a female named "Cecil". I can easily imagine you might have had a traumatic school experience as kids can be brutal. Kids suffering from ignorance do have a tendency to be brutal. I suppose you may have compensated by growing up to become a lumberjack or a marines sargent? I compensated by growing up to be six foot four. Judge Cecil Neeley was indeed a marine corps general before he retired. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:48:41 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote: [snip] I compensated by growing up to be six foot four. I've met Cecil and can vouch for that. |
I compensated by growing up to be six foot four. I've met Cecil and can vouch for that. ========================== The main difference, then, between Cecil and John Wayne, is that rattle-snake shooting Cecil is not so slow witted. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com