| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
June 5th 04, 05:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
June 5th 04, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#4
June 6th 04, 12:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
June 7th 04, 12:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#6
June 7th 04, 04:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 - |
|
#7
June 7th 04, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
June 8th 04, 04:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 - |
|
#9
June 5th 04, 10:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message om... (Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ... Department of Communications/News Bureau 22 Davis Hall, 10 Lippitt Road, Kingston, RI 02881 Phone: 401-874-2116 Fax: 401-874-7872 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ URI physics employee invents new antenna technology Media Contact: Jan Wenzel, 401-874-2116 KINGSTON, R.I. -- June 2, 2004 -- Rob Vincent, an employee in the University of Rhode Island’s Physics Department, proves the adage that necessity is the mother of invention. An amateur radio operator since he was 14...(SNIP) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Guess we can forget the "Hams don't contibute to the "advancement of the radio art" rant...Eh...?!?! 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Theological Rant | Antenna | |||
| Rant | Homebrew | |||
| Another Self-Humiliating LenniRiffic Rant | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
