In article , (the
Meaningful Dis-Cusser) writes:

(William) wrote in message
.com...
(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.

Yes, it is.

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!

I am sure you wiash this were true.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...still making typos when oh, so angry? :-)

You have a "wiashing machine" there? A "clothes driaer?"

Appliance technology marches on...

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

Sorry, Brain...No need to waste that much bandwidth with material
that Lennie already wasted bandwidth on in the first place.

Everyone just loves all this "meaningful discussion" stuff. :-)

Now, try and find something you KNOW something about to talk
about, Brain. So far you can discount DXpeditions, reciprocal
licensing, MARS, and emergency communications. You've failed
miserably in ALL of these subjects.

"MARS is amateur radio."

Nursie is a veteran of "hostile actions."

Nursie shopped at the HRO in Burbank, CA, before they even
moved out of their Van Nuys location...

Everyone just loves this "meaningful discussion" stuff. :-)

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

Sure there has been, Lennie.

Only on nursie's side... :-)

[poor person thinks his every utterance is "truth"... ]

From my own experience, over six years of assertions of how
Amatuers are allegedly NOT involved in any kind of research. Goggle
archives attest.

No "amatuer" is involved in any kind of research.

A few amateurs are.

What is a "goggle" other than an eye shield?

Do you get little archives on your helmet goggles while flying?

Try GOOGLE instead.

[no, you don't grow archives in the garden to put on salads...]

I don't care about the intimate details of the project. The
POINT was (and still is) that Amateurs ARE involved in research and
they ARE recognized for thier contributions AS Amateurs by entities
OTHER than Amateur Radio-related sources.

You "don't care about the intimate details" because you can't
get intimate with basic electronics enough to understand what
is being talked about. Not the newsgroup's problem...except to
to see your blabbering of injured ego...

You have asserted on numrous occassions that since no one except
ARRL sources routinely report on such things, they obviously don't
occur.

I don't make a career of such "numrous occasions" but the
"research" into radio technology is still, overwhelmingly, done
by corporations and academicians...VERY little by licensed
radio amateurs.

Of course, if the only source of your information is the ARRL, then
you will appear thoroughly brainwashed into believing them and
that hams are busy, busy, busy "advancing the state of the
radio art" all over the place.

Yoda asks, "What state of any art has nursie advanced...hmmm?"

You were (again) proven wrong.

"Wrong?" By a news release from URI that gave NO details on
this wondrous new antenna other than more snake-oil sales
pitching? Hundreds of those news releases appear every month.

Those inventions assume some legitimacy when they appear as
papers in known publications or presentations at conferences.

The fields on your antenna are crossed but you are still not
a Stone's Throw from Antennex.

[a pun for those who know Jack...]

[nursie won't understand]


The rest of your "more smoke = less credibility" spin deleted.

I gave up smoking a long time ago. :-)

You didn't. Your "hostile actions" claim is still on fire.

So is "MARS is amateur radio."

Smokey the Bear say, "Only YOU can put out forest fires..."

Try again, Grampa Lennie...

That's GREAT in front of that to be a "meaningful discussion" thing.

Now show us your logs on working Rob Vincent in RI on one of
the URI micro-antennas.

Remember...No proof = Doesn't exist.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...


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.

snip

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

Jim,

In 1976, I purchased a Heathkit H-8. With 16 big K of ram (and I ordered a
12 K memory board from another vendor - a total of 28 K in the computer),
and a text only monitor and tape recorder for mass storage, the thing set me
back way over $2,000.00 - *in 1976*!

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

N2EY wrote:
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".

Just what is that anyhow? a 50 ohm resistor on the end of a pole?

Maybe he's got a real advance, maybe it's all just hype. I'll reserve judgement
until there's some real info available.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'll not only reserve
judgment, but am highly skeptical about it at the same time. This sort
of thing is almost like the audiophile stuff I posted the other day.

And what I have seen so far on this breakthrough is feelgood stuff. I
just wonder why an 80 to 100 percent efficient antenna melts when hit
with a "whopping" 100 watts of power?


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?

First I would have said "kewl" or whatever I was saying in 1975.
(probably more like "Far out, Dude!")

I wouldn't have seen any mechanical limitations however. I would have
marveled at getting so much stuff on one integrated circuit, noting that
the size was limited by the limitations of light. I don't think I would
have thought of X-ray lithography at the time. But I would have believed
that such a thing could be done.

The areas that I would be most surprised at would be that the computer
would have a single CPU that did all the processing. I would wonder why
on earth we weren't using massively parallel processing. In fact, I
still do. Love my G5 dual processor!

The most mind boggling thing to me would have been the software and
applications for the computer of 2000 or 2004. Soundcard applications,
GUI's, graphics and all that other stuff was simply not on my radar
screen at that point.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

OTOH we don't have anything to go on other than "continuously loaded
monopole".

Just what is that anyhow?

A term that can mean all sorts of things.

a 50 ohm resistor on the end of a pole?

HAW!

No.

Here's one implementation:

Imagine a large vertical helix. The length of the helix is such that resonance
occurs at the operating frequency. The wire size, diameter, and spacing of the
helix is such that efficiency is maximized. Whole thing is operated as a
vertical against ground. Not a new idea at all, but perhaps some new tricks
were applied.

(I don't know if that's what the guy invented, just that it's one form of
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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'll not only reserve
judgment, but am highly skeptical about it at the same time. This sort
of thing is almost like the audiophile stuff I posted the other day.

I don't see the need for "extraordinary proof" - just proof! I won't rush to
judgement either way.

And in real life, this development has no effect at all - yet. We cannot go out
and buy these antennas, nor obtain the needed info to build them ourselves. We
don't even know if and when such will be available. So they're unobtanium.

And what I have seen so far on this breakthrough is feelgood stuff. I
just wonder why an 80 to 100 percent efficient antenna melts when hit
with a "whopping" 100 watts of power?

Read the article again. The melting antenna was his *first attempt*, 30+ years
ago.

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?

First I would have said "kewl" or whatever I was saying in 1975.
(probably more like "Far out, Dude!")

"Bummer, man!"

I wouldn't have seen any mechanical limitations however. I would have
marveled at getting so much stuff on one integrated circuit, noting that
the size was limited by the limitations of light. I don't think I would
have thought of X-ray lithography at the time. But I would have believed
that such a thing could be done.

But at that price? Heck, single TTL ICs of any complexity were over a dollar
apiece back then.

The areas that I would be most surprised at would be that the computer
would have a single CPU that did all the processing. I would wonder why
on earth we weren't using massively parallel processing. In fact, I
still do. Love my G5 dual processor!

Lots of problems with parallel processing. For example, you still need a single
control processor or its equivalent to run the show. Second, parallel
processing only helps when the tasks can be split up efficiently between
processors. Thsi is true in some situations and not true at all in others.
Third and most important, the cost climbs faster than the benefit. All else
equal, a 1 GHz computer doesn't cost ten times as much as one with ten 100 MHz
processors and the supporting circuitry.

The most mind boggling thing to me would have been the software and
applications for the computer of 2000 or 2004. Soundcard applications,
GUI's, graphics and all that other stuff was simply not on my radar
screen at that point.

Almost all of which was in existence back then, due to work at Xerox's Palo
Alto Research Center.

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


OTOH we don't have anything to go on other than "continuously loaded

monopole".

Just what is that anyhow?


A term that can mean all sorts of things.


a 50 ohm resistor on the end of a pole?


HAW!

No.

Here's one implementation:

Imagine a large vertical helix. The length of the helix is such that resonance
occurs at the operating frequency. The wire size, diameter, and spacing of the
helix is such that efficiency is maximized. Whole thing is operated as a
vertical against ground. Not a new idea at all, but perhaps some new tricks
were applied.

(I don't know if that's what the guy invented, just that it's one form of
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.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'll not only reserve
judgment, but am highly skeptical about it at the same time. This sort
of thing is almost like the audiophile stuff I posted the other day.


I don't see the need for "extraordinary proof" - just proof! I won't rush to
judgement either way.

And in real life, this development has no effect at all - yet. We cannot go out
and buy these antennas, nor obtain the needed info to build them ourselves. We
don't even know if and when such will be available. So they're unobtanium.

Indeed.


And what I have seen so far on this breakthrough is feelgood stuff. I
just wonder why an 80 to 100 percent efficient antenna melts when hit
with a "whopping" 100 watts of power?


Read the article again. The melting antenna was his *first attempt*, 30+ years
ago.

Yeah, but I mean was it filament wire or maybe number 40 or something?
100 watts is only so much energy, and an antenna that melts when faced
with 100 watts must be pretty fragile. I could have accepted maybe that
the antenna caught one of the local trees on fire, or something like
that, but we're talking about total destruction of the antenna, (as an
antenna anyhoo) with 100 watts of power!


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?

First I would have said "kewl" or whatever I was saying in 1975.
(probably more like "Far out, Dude!")


"Bummer, man!"

I wouldn't have seen any mechanical limitations however. I would have
marveled at getting so much stuff on one integrated circuit, noting that
the size was limited by the limitations of light. I don't think I would
have thought of X-ray lithography at the time. But I would have believed
that such a thing could be done.


But at that price? Heck, single TTL ICs of any complexity were over a dollar
apiece back then.

The areas that I would be most surprised at would be that the computer
would have a single CPU that did all the processing. I would wonder why
on earth we weren't using massively parallel processing. In fact, I
still do. Love my G5 dual processor!


Lots of problems with parallel processing. For example, you still need a single
control processor or its equivalent to run the show.

Yup, and each processor can loaf right along. Year ago, the Commodore
Amiga had it right. All those dedicated chipsets in it were
co-processors, not specifically parallel processors, but the concept was
valid and very sound.


Second, parallel
processing only helps when the tasks can be split up efficiently between
processors. Thsi is true in some situations and not true at all in others.

I've been using dual processor computers since y2K, and it is truly
amazing just how superior they are. I do understand that the PC world
may be different archetecture-wise, in a way that makes multi processor
computers work less well for that platform. But that should not be
confused with parallel computing being not very efficient.

Intel-centric is the concept I think! ;^)

Third and most important, the cost climbs faster than the benefit. All else
equal, a 1 GHz computer doesn't cost ten times as much as one with ten 100 MHz
processors and the supporting circuitry.

The most mind boggling thing to me would have been the software and
applications for the computer of 2000 or 2004. Soundcard applications,
GUI's, graphics and all that other stuff was simply not on my radar
screen at that point.


Almost all of which was in existence back then, due to work at Xerox's Palo
Alto Research Center.



http://www.boka-software.com/Articles/Xerox/essay.html

An interesting little piece on the subject.

- Mike KB3EIA -