(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

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

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
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.

Had nothing to do with "physics", had to do with musings posted by a
few gloms who were clueless about how rapidly developed chip
manufacturing technologies could leap past the limits of their own
imaginations. Hoof. Mouf. Classic.

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.

This is not 1921. 83 years later the physics of antennas has been
milked to the extent that the probability of anybody inventing an
antenna which does not utilize long-applied physics lies somewhere
'way out the asymptote of the curve.

Per previous I'll stick.


73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
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.

Had nothing to do with "physics", had to do with musings posted by a
few gloms who were clueless about how rapidly developed chip
manufacturing technologies could leap past the limits of their own
imaginations. Hoof. Mouf. Classic.

Holy Cow! PCTA refer to backward thinking people as "gloms."

From this point forward, I must refer to PCTA as "CW Gloms."

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.

This is not 1921.

As Len Anderson has pointed out repeatedly. But you didn't need him
to point that out. You could see it published on the front page of
any daily newspaper. Even the ARRL puts it on the front cover of QST,
just prior to launching another edition of memory lane.

83 years later the physics of antennas has been
milked to the extent that the probability of anybody inventing an
antenna which does not utilize long-applied physics lies somewhere
'way out the asymptote of the curve.

Are you sure it's not back at the inflection point?

Per previous I'll stick.

Ditto my opinion of the CW Gloms (previously known as PCTA).

(William) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
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.

Had nothing to do with "physics", had to do with musings posted by a
few gloms who were clueless about how rapidly developed chip
manufacturing technologies could leap past the limits of their own
imaginations. Hoof. Mouf. Classic.

Holy Cow! PCTA refer to backward thinking people as "gloms."

From this point forward, I must refer to PCTA as "CW Gloms."

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.

This is not 1921.

As Len Anderson has pointed out repeatedly. But you didn't need him
to point that out. You could see it published on the front page of
any daily newspaper. Even the ARRL puts it on the front cover of QST,
just prior to launching another edition of memory lane.

83 years later the physics of antennas has been
milked to the extent that the probability of anybody inventing an
antenna which does not utilize long-applied physics lies somewhere
'way out the asymptote of the curve.

Are you sure it's not back at the inflection point?

Per previous I'll stick.

Ditto my opinion of the CW Gloms (previously known as PCTA).

http://www.opengroup.com/hubooks/089/0898048044.shtml

Cheers.

Subject: So Much For THAT Rant....
From: (Brian Kelly)
Date: 6/9/2004 9:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


http://www.opengroup.com/hubooks/089/0898048044.shtml

Dang near choked to death laughing, Brian! WTG! I am half tempted to just
splurge and get a copy mailed to You-Know-Who and his trusty sidekick,
PuppetBoy!

73

Steve, K4YZ

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: So Much For THAT Rant....
From: (Brian Kelly)
Date: 6/9/2004 9:47 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


http://www.opengroup.com/hubooks/089/0898048044.shtml

Dang near choked to death laughing, Brian! WTG! I am half tempted to just
splurge and get a copy mailed to You-Know-Who and his trusty sidekick,
PuppetBoy!

I think it was Hans who used it here originally some time ago. I knew
the Putzlet would eventually provide me an appropriate opportunity to
turn it loose on him so I bookmarked it. He did so I did.



73

Steve, K4YZ

w3rv

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com...

I'll stick with my "snap judgement", the thing is guilty
until proven innocent.

w3rv

Were you one of the "destroy fractal at any cost" gang?

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

I'll stick with my "snap judgement", the thing is guilty
until proven innocent.

w3rv

Were you one of the "destroy fractal at any cost" gang?

No Brainiac, not at all. In fact Chip shipped me a piece of
humor-laced e-mail about a week ago. I've taken umbrage with some of
his jottings here and there but I'm not into destructive posts like a
certain PUTZ we know does for jollies.

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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

I'll stick with my "snap judgement", the thing is guilty
until proven innocent.

w3rv

Were you one of the "destroy fractal at any cost" gang?

No Brainiac, not at all. In fact Chip shipped me a piece of
humor-laced e-mail about a week ago. I've taken umbrage with some of
his jottings here and there but I'm not into destructive posts like a
certain PUTZ we know does for jollies.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...are you saying nasty about Dan? He has STATED
that a "dipole is always a half wavelength." :-)

You are being overly sensitive to criticsm, catapult kellie. :-)

And stay away from "humor-laced e-mail." Some of it might
make sense. We can't have such corruption of the CW.

Beep, beep.

LHA / WMD