"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

Maybe - or maybe not.

Fact is that without more info we're not in a position to judge the
thing one way or another. Maybe it's a breakthrough, maybe it's one of
things that is great in theory but totally impractical, or maybe it's
a dud. Without more info, any judgement is just raw speculation. And
since a patent application is involved we're not going to see much
real data for a while anyway.

One point to watch for, though: What matters in practical antennas is
the performance of the entire antenna system, not just the antenna
itself. For example, a short (in terms of wavelength) whip antenna can
be quite efficient - it's the matching network and ground system
losses that reduce antenna system efficiency, and bandwidth, to low
numbers.


73 de Jim, N2EY

Hello, Jim

Your point about matching network and ground losses is well taken.

We keep hoping for that "perfect" antenna. An IEEE publication back in 1995
pointed out that the Northern Lights are caused by ions that are far too
small to be efficient radiators of light - and yet they radiate light. In
theory, an antenna can be vanishingly small and yet be efficient - and even
possess gain!

If any one has a 6 inch whip with a 3 dBi gain on 75 meters, let me know.
I'd like to try it first, however. Don't ask for money up front like all of
the notes I receive about transferring $10,000,000.00 US for which I receive
$1,000,000.00 - uh, but have to send someone some up front cash to ensure
the account is good :))

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 6/4/04

Jim Hampton wrote:

The gentleman in question with the antenna may well have been professional;
my point is that most inventors are doing something they enjoy. Come to
think of it, how many folks are continually involved in something they
*don't* like?

Well, there's Leonard *snicker*.

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...
(William) wrote in message
.com...

Steve, I didn't see the rant. Please repost it.

Perhaps if you didn't have your head so far up Lennie's rectum,
you might have had the opporutnity to read it in any one of several
HUNDRED anti-Amateur rants he's posted here.

Sorry you missed it. (More like IGNORED it.)

Steve, K4YZ

Sorry, Steve, but my head is not up Len's rectum. More like your head
is up your own rectum. If you should ever pull it out, it will become
the "POP" heard round the world!

If you cannot produce the rant, you'll just have to troll elsewhere.

There must be MANY "rants" floating around in his troubled
personal mind waters.

So much so, that a link or meaningful part of the URI news release
was never quoted. Nursie took only the part about Rob Vincent
being a ham as important, then trying to connect it with some old,
imagined insults against his person-as-a-ham that only he can
think up.

Nursie must consider this newsgroup as His Own Battleground
where he can Fight His Battles and avenge his self-definition
of something or other.

In reality, a small (less than quarter wavelength), efficient, wide-
band antenna concept IS important to radio amateurs working
in HF bands. THAT should be the focus, not a bunch of pain
from individuals' bruised egos.

Lots of different groups/organizations are working such antenna
problems and coming up with some (usually) different solutions.
Such solutions ARE of importance, not the petty squabblings of
a few individuals.

"Sorry Hans, MARS IS Amateur Radio."

:-)

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
.com...
(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

The gentleman in question with the antenna may well have been
professional;
my point is that most inventors are doing something they enjoy. Come to
think of it, how many folks are continually involved in something they
*don't* like?

Irrelevant. Another stressed that the "invention" was because of his
being a radio amateur. Solely so, so much that nearly all of the
URI news release was omitted.

The rest of the post was irrelevent since the antenna itself was
not of importance.

Oh, my! There was no rant, and the invention/patent is not of
importance.

According to the University of Rhode Island, an academic
institution that includes paid, professional electronic engineers,
the whole topic of Small Antennas was the point of the news
release.

Nursie's interpretation went off into some personal dialect of
"ranting" (and raving) when there was no actual rant going on.

We know nothing yet on the details of this small antenna
with patent pending (?). Actual patent grants might not occur
until 1 to 3 years after submission of the application and the
patent search information (seprate from the patent application
itself). Once the patent is granted it becomes public
knowledge, available for a modest fee from the patent office.

But, patent applications aren't available for full disclosure so
we don't know the details of this "invention."

If the patent application is denied, then it is NOT a "new
invention." [there is lots of prior art in this field and may have
been done by others, therefore making it not patentable]

So what we have is is a lie wrapped up in a lack of judgement.

Well, I think of it more like a festering (perhaps gangrenous)
ego wound from long ago. :-) It must personally hurt a
great deal and thus cause a new "rant" to be done.

Exactly why did you post anything at all except to troll and flame?

That seems to be his reason for being in here. All the angries
on display for all to wonder and praise... :-)

What WAS of importance was that a non-Amateur Radio media source
felt compelled to mention, early on I might add, that the person
responsible for this project was a licensed Amateur.

People everywhere lack judgement, including those in media. Bless
your heart, you're not alone.

Thousands and thousands of "news releases" of new technologies
appear every year in many, many electronic industry publications.
The subscription-free "controlled circulation" periodicals have
regular columns containing nothing but them. Academic
institutions started on that trend years ago.

The POINT being that Sir Scummy of Lanark was once again proven
wrong...

Wrong?

I saw him make no "assertion of fact" for you to refute, and the only
ranting is your own.

It is...but that isn't the brake for the bulldozer driven levee-breaking.

It only adds more diesel to push the bull dozing harder into whatever
ground the bull thinks is fun to throw more mud.

OHSA needs to be informed about this. :-)

[it ought to be "Sir of Sun Valley" to complete the nastygram and
be correct with the USPS...very sibilant that way...good for the
nastygrammers to hiss between their teeth on reading newsgroups]

Amateurs ARE still involved in "advancement of the radio art",
and someone felt stongly enouhg about it to emphasize it in a news
release.

What are you doing in "state of the art?" Bandspanner?

Advancing the state of the art in insulting all those without amateur
radio licenses. :-)

Lennie often raves in this forum about how Amateurs don't do this
kind of thing.

They do it first as paid employees of someone else. They just happen
to be amateurs.

Licensed amateur radio operators DO advance some of the radio
communication arts. I named Dan Tayloe specifically, plus the
several authors of articles in QST on do-it-yourself crystal filter
theory-measurement-construction. There are others, such as the
various amateur-specific multi-band antennas on the market.

My point - lost on the very angry nursie - is that amateurs do NOT
get credit for ALL of the radio communications advancements and
those few (out of 710K total licensees) who DO innovate and
invent are a decided minority among the constantly-advancing
state of radio arts just in the HF region. The ARRL's claim of
"amateurs advancing the state of the radio arts" is specious in
light of ALL the radio advancements done in the last half century.

And of course he can't stand it and will spin this into the
ground.

You're doing a good enough job of that.

As usual. Old bitterness of losing newsgroup discussions
lingers on. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

The evidence is Out There...beyond the ARRL publication
dominance for radio amateur information.

Too late. The egg's already been cracked and he's wearing it.

Insanity. There was no rant, and then you claim the invention was of
no importance. You're wearing the egg.

He took a trip to Fantasy Island again...without "da blane."

Sorry Lennie. Proven wrong by example again.

Poor nursie. Tries to rant and rave, can't even copy enough of
the news release or give the link to the URL...then claims it
"refutes some (nonexistant) rant."

Insanity.

In another galaxy far, far away... "MARS IS Amateur Radio."

I don't think George Lucas has that planned for any future
Star Wars sequels-prequels. :-)

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...

Maybe - or maybe not.

Fact is that without more info we're not in a position to judge the
thing one way or another. Maybe it's a breakthrough, maybe it's one of
things that is great in theory but totally impractical, or maybe it's
a dud. Without more info, any judgement is just raw speculation. And
since a patent application is involved we're not going to see much
real data for a while anyway.

One point to watch for, though: What matters in practical antennas is
the performance of the entire antenna system, not just the antenna
itself. For example, a short (in terms of wavelength) whip antenna can
be quite efficient - it's the matching network and ground system
losses that reduce antenna system efficiency, and bandwidth, to low
numbers.


73 de Jim, N2EY

Hello, Jim

Greetings.

Your point about matching network and ground losses is well taken.

TNX

We keep hoping for that "perfect" antenna.

I just hope for a better one.

An IEEE publication back in 1995
pointed out that the Northern Lights are caused by ions that are far too
small to be efficient radiators of light - and yet they radiate light.

If it happens, it must be possible.


In
theory, an antenna can be vanishingly small and yet be efficient - and even
possess gain!

Sure. But try to match to it!

If any one has a 6 inch whip with a 3 dBi gain on 75 meters, let me know.
I'd like to try it first, however. Don't ask for money up front like all of
the notes I receive about transferring $10,000,000.00 US for which I receive
$1,000,000.00 - uh, but have to send someone some up front cash to ensure
the account is good :))

If it was easy, anybody could do it.

OTOH we don't have anything to go on other than "continuously loaded monopole".
Maybe he's got a real advance, maybe it's all just hype. I'll reserve judgement
until there's some real info available.

If somebody told you, back about 1975, that in 25 years you'd have a computer
on your desk that had a 500 MHz CPU, over 100 MB of memory and 10 GB of disk
space, and cost about $200 complete (1975 dollars) what would you have said?


73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

It's another "crossed fields antenna" type heap of nonsense which
defies both Physics 101 and common sense.

Maybe - or maybe not.

Fact is that without more info we're not in a position to judge the
thing one way or another. Maybe it's a breakthrough, maybe it's one of
things that is great in theory but totally impractical, or maybe it's
a dud. Without more info, any judgement is just raw speculation. And
since a patent application is involved we're not going to see much
real data for a while anyway.

One point to watch for, though: What matters in practical antennas is
the performance of the entire antenna system, not just the antenna
itself. For example, a short (in terms of wavelength) whip antenna can
be quite efficient - it's the matching network and ground system
losses that reduce antenna system efficiency, and bandwidth, to low
numbers.

Physics is physics is physics and we all know the implications of
short antennas *and* we've read the similar hype which surrounded the
farcical CFA and EH antennas to name just a couple of this thing's
predecessors. I'll stick with my "snap judgement", the thing is guilty
until proven innocent.

Maybe. Or maybe it's for-real.

Without detailed info it's all academic anyway.

But I remember a time when it was said that "physics" would not permit
microprocessors faster than about 25 MHz. Nor with more than a few thousand
transistors. Etc.

There was also a very learned "professional in radio" who, when informed of the
intent of the 1921 ARRL Transatlantic Tests, proclaimed that it was physically
impossible for a kilowatt input 200 meter transmitter to be heard at that
distance. Waves were just too short, doncha know. Physics wouldn't allow it.

73 de Jim, N2EY