So Much For THAT Rant....
 

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...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ

"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...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ


Hello, Steve

Most folks that invent or discover something are doing something they enjoy.
We can likely look at almost anything and most folks are having fun and only
a few are actually "inventing" something. Of course, it is totally ignorant
to assume than no ham is doing anything constructive any more than it would
be to assume that no NASCAR racer, or baseball player, or any other person
in a given field is "doing" anything ;)

Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 6/2/04

In article ,
(William) writes:

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

There was NO "rant." Since nursie didn't include either a link or
enough of the news article, here it is -

=================================================
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, Vincent has
always lived in houses situated on small lots. Because
he couldn't erect a large antenna on a confined
property, he has been continually challenged over the
years to find a way to get better reception.

"I was always tinkering in the basement. Thank
goodness, my parents were tolerant. I can still
remember my poor father driving up our driveway after
a hard day's work to see wires wrapped around the
house," Vincent recalls.

"The Holy Grail of antenna technology is to create a
small antenna with high efficiency and wide
bandwidth," explains Vincent. "According to current
theory, you have to give up one of the three - size,
efficiency, or bandwidth - to achieve the other two."

After decades of experimentation, combined with a
30-year engineering career and Yankee ingenuity,
Vincent has invented a revolutionary antenna
technology. The distributed- load, monopole
antennas are smaller, produce high efficiency, and
retain good to excellent bandwidth. And they have
multiple applications.

With this technology it will be possible to double, at
minimum, the range of walkie-talkies used by police,
fire, and other municipal personnel. Naval ships, baby
monitors, and portable antennas for military use are
other applications. An antenna could be mounted on a
chip in a cell phone and be applied to wireless local
area networks. Another application deals with radio
frequency identification, which is expected someday to
replace the barcode system.

"It could even make the Dick Tracy wrist radio with
all the features, such as Internet access, a
possibility," Vincent says.

The inventor pursued his quest to build a better
antenna in earnest eight years ago when he and his
significant other moved into a house situated on a
50-foot by 100-foot lot in Warwick. There was nothing
on the commercial market that could fit the lot that
would provide the performance Vincent needed to be
heard in distant lands and that would be acceptable to
his neighbors. All the small antennas being sold were
inefficient and lacked bandwidth, which resulted in
low performance and high frustration.

Vincent looked at the techniques that were currently
used to reduce antenna size and realized something was
missing in the way everyone was approaching the
problem.

He began to model various combinations into a computer
program called MathCad. His first attempt produced a
21 MHz band antenna that was 18 inches high. Normally,
antennas for this band are 12 to 24 feet high.

Vincent installed the antenna in his back yard. The
legal limit that amateurs can operate is 1,000 watts
with the norm being 100 watts.
The amateur radio operator experimented with 5 to 10
watts. He reached a station in Chile and made contacts
in various European countries. Meanwhile he kept
adding power until it reached 100 watts. That's when
things suddenly went bad. Walking outside in the
backyard, he understood why. The antenna had melted.

After examining the molten matter, Vincent wasn't
discouraged. This was only a small model and not
designed to handle much power. The part of the antenna
that failed proved to be the key to the design. After
analyzing the failure, Vincent realized that he was
able to transform a lot of current along the antenna
with even relatively low power.

"Antennas radiate by setting up large amounts of
current flow through various parts of their
structure," he says. "The larger the current the more
radiation and the better the output of the antenna."

Vincent went back to the drawing board and continued
to improve the technology. Relying on his nearly 30
years at Raytheon Co. and at KVH Industries in
Middletown R.I., which provided him with a
diversified background in electronics and electronic
systems, Vincent overcame a myriad of problems and
succeeded.

He established three test sites for various
prototypes. Antennas were placed in Westport, Mass. in
a salt marsh, the best ground for transmission and
reception. Another set of antennas was placed on rocky
ground in Cumberland, R.I., the worst kind of site,
and at a Warwick site which is in between the two in
terms of grounding. The antennas, which resemble
flagpoles, worked well at all locations.

Tests confirmed that Vincent has created antennas at
one third to one ninth of their full size
counterparts. Normally smaller antennas are only 8 to
15 percent efficient. Vincent's antennas achieved 80
to 100 percent efficiency as compared to the larger
antennas.

A patent is pending on Vincent's technology. The
inventor has made the University of Rhode Island and
its Physics Department partners that will benefit from
any revenue his invention earns. "The University and
its Physics Department has been very supportive and
given me time and space to work on this project," says
Vincent who was recently presented the 2004
Outstanding Intellectual Property Award by URI's
Research Office. "I couldn't have done this without
the University's support. It's only fair that it share
in the profits."

Copyright © 2002 University of Rhode Island
(Disclaimer)
===============================================

Firstly, the "article" was published by the University of Rhode
Island and all such things from all organizations and schools are
in the "self-love" category or better known as PR/Public Relations.

Secondly, Rob Vincent is a PRO with 30+ years working for a
salary and has access to MathCad tools (any of the NEC programs
could have done it...such as Roy Lewallen's EZNEC).

Thirdly, small antennas aren't new...they've been used for a half
century and more. The USMC-contract T-195 (via Collins) had a
built-in HF antenna tuner to work with any vehicular whip. The
AN/PRC-104, a manpack HF transceiver (Hughes Ground Sys.
Div., early 1980s) has an automatic antenna tuner built-in for the
single manpacked whip antenna. SGC has been building and
selling HF antenna tuners for many and various radio services,
ham included. The Navy Postgraduate School has some slightly
old double-whip antenna designs on the web (PDFs) intended for
shipboard use on HF.

Fourth, one has to note who made everyone notice this piece,
as well as the lack of link or other references other than having to
go to the University of Rhode Island site and go down two levels
to get it. Nursie's qualifications as an antenna "expert" are in
question since he went gung-ho on the "ham" part and seriously
neglected the other facts of the invention.

Fifth, the URI must have funded the application for the patent since
a patent search (required by patent office to show any prior art) is
going to cost somewhere between $4K and $6K nowadays. [why
would Vincent set up some experimental antenna on a salt marsh
plus two ohter places unless it was for some URI project?] That
little squib has "PR" written all over it. Might work, though, but
lots and lots of folks be working on small antennas trying to get the
golden "100% efficiency" qualification.

Jim Hampton was right. Newsgroups ARE getting sillier and
sillier, with such gems as "MARS is amateur radio." :-)

Hello, Len

I won't even go into the MARS is amateur radio since you won't find their
signals inside of any amateur band (at least I don't think so, but I am not
very familiar with Military Affiliate Radio Station).

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?

As far as small antennas, we know that magnetic monopoles (loops) are quite
efficient. If very small, the conductor must be quite large as there will
be large circulating currents (and this also puts demands on the capacitor).
Generally, it has been difficult to make a *very* small loop efficient
simply due to IR losses; however, loops can be quite small compared to a
half-wave dipole and still run at 90% efficiency.

What with the crossed-field antenna, e-h antenna, fractal antenna, and more,
I'm interested in finding out what this guy has. What I'd love is a 6 inch
antenna that is 90% efficient with a 1.1 SWR on 160 meters on up. LOL,
wouldn't we all? Of course, even if we had such a beast, we must remember
that where the thing is mounted (height, in terms of wavelength) will likely
affect its' performance considerably. The ground type also comes into play.
Come to think of it, there were some arguements over the published
"efficiency" of the cross-field antennas at one point too.

Of course, this particular newsgroup is not really the place to discuss
antennas; I'd just like something beyond the code vs no code arguements and
the flame wars.

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

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

Hello, Len

I won't even go into the MARS is amateur radio since you won't find their
signals inside of any amateur band (at least I don't think so, but I am not
very familiar with Military Affiliate Radio Station).

Military Affiliate Radio SYSTEM... :-)

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.

There have been TWO significant amateur radio related inventions
(or innovations, the line is blurred in reality) in Dan Tayloe's unique
CMOS switch mixer which is capable of making a direct-
conversion receiver for a sensitive QRP rig that receives either
on-off keyed telegraphy signals or SSB signals...and the several
who publicized the relatively-easy-to-make crystal filter using only
matched-measured individual quartz crystal resonators (which may
have been unpatented trade secrets in the relatively small crystal
filter biz).

For everything else in hardware, the radio world came up with it
and used it in commercial-military equipment and also in some of
the amateur radio stuff.

It's fun and personally satisfying to receive a piece of paper saying
one is an inventor. Nice brag item for those not in the biz. :-)
However, being one (an inventor that is) is not a guarantor of
big smarts or of the guru-dom since a lot of really weird (and
usually unworkable) stuff has been patented. Besides that, in
electronics, the patent search costs are rather stiff on the order
of 6 grand average and may wind up showing that someone else
invented the whatever the inventor is trying to patent. Patent
searches are NOT a part of the patent office but the office requires
some sort of showing...if you want the patent within 6 or so years
from now.

Mine is U.S. number 3,848,191, granted in 1974 and assigned to
RCA Corporation. The only reasons that RCA bothered with the
patent at all a (1) RCA began in the radio-electronics business
to keep "radio" patents in the USA back in the late 1920s; (2) My
project group was on a company-funded R&D program at the time
with some potential for the Corporation. At least a dozen patents
were granted out of that one project, an aircraft collision avoidance
system.

Most corporations simply don't bother with the patent work since
radio-electronics is still on such an up-slope of changing state of
the art that a typical 2 or 3 year wait for a grant plus another year
to arrange rights, etc., may not be worth the cost. Industry makes
do with the "trade secret" policy and, if someone copies an un-
patented thingy, will go to the attorneys and their expensive billing
at that time.

Also, in a typical HF transceiver of today, there may be as many as
a hundred different patents applying to the circuitry and subsystems
and keeping all that straight requires more personpower on the
payroll to keep track of which patent is still in force and which has
lapsed.

As far as small antennas, we know that magnetic monopoles (loops) are quite
efficient. If very small, the conductor must be quite large as there will
be large circulating currents (and this also puts demands on the capacitor).
Generally, it has been difficult to make a *very* small loop efficient
simply due to IR losses; however, loops can be quite small compared to a
half-wave dipole and still run at 90% efficiency.

A wideband, two-mast HF antenna has already been developed
for the U.S. Navy, extensively measured, plotted, etc. There's a
paper on it in PDF floating around. I downloaded it about a year or
so ago out of curiosity. Covers the whole HF territory...but does
need an antenna tuner to maximize RF power into the antenna.
[getting as much RF as possible INTO the antenna is the REAL
"efficiency"] You've still got Maxwell's Equations to contend with
and the fact that the antenna size and pattern will determine how
much signal gets to a far, far-field receiver. Most of the other
propaganda on antennas is mostly BS to convince others to buy
a product.

If the U.S. military wants to use HF in the field, the standard little
20 W RF out AN/PRC-104 is good for it. ONE whip plus an
internal automatic antenna tuner is good enough there, has been
since before 1986. SSB with synthesized tuning, no-sweat use.
[it could do on-off keying CW but the military don' do dat no more]

What with the crossed-field antenna, e-h antenna, fractal antenna, and more,
I'm interested in finding out what this guy has. What I'd love is a 6 inch
antenna that is 90% efficient with a 1.1 SWR on 160 meters on up. LOL,
wouldn't we all? Of course, even if we had such a beast, we must remember
that where the thing is mounted (height, in terms of wavelength) will likely
affect its' performance considerably. The ground type also comes into play.
Come to think of it, there were some arguements over the published
"efficiency" of the cross-field antennas at one point too.

Back around 1960 (give or take a couple), Northrup Corporation
came out with the DDRR (Directional Discontinuity Ring Radiator).
Was ideal for limited bandwidth, VERY small size v. wavelength
provided there was a handy conductive ground plane the ring was
mounted above. In terms of "effective antenna area" it wasn't too
swift but you could make it within 25 foot circle or so just a
couple feet above the ground plane at 3 MHz. Omnidirectional.

The Discone had already been invented in 1960 and the log-
periodic was close on its heels. Muy wideband, great for those
who needed almost-instant QSYs anywhere in VHF-UHF
(discone) or HF (log-periodic)...like military folks.

The software to simulate an antenna structure and to analyze it
for 3D pattern, gain, impedance, etc., came out courtesy of the
Navy again...the Numerical Electromagnetic Code or NEC. Free
for anyone to use but commercial software houses write their
own softstuff to display patterns, etc., all based on the free NEC
kernel. Roy Lewallen, a long-time ham, does this with EZNEC.

Anyone can find out more about antennas and NEC packages
at website Antennex. Interesting stuff even if some of it looks
like Chalabi's electronic brother is putting stuff over on everyone.
:-)

However, there are thousands of little PR pieces put out as "news
releases" each year in the overall electronics industry. They have
a terrible sameness about them...like literary con-jobs. Whatever
they tout has got to be the "most" the "best" the "wonderful new"
the "new concept" or other BS which usually doesn't mean squat.
Those "news releases" are just come-ons to get folks to investigate
and see products or (in the case of universities) people. The
Nobel Prize committee isn't going to be swayed by those things.

Of course, this particular newsgroup is not really the place to discuss
antennas; I'd just like something beyond the code vs no code arguements and
the flame wars.

Some folks have no real interest in anything BUT flaming. Whatever
the general newsgroup topic line is is just used for them to express
their anger, frustration, or whatever they gots inside to relieve them-
selves (both psychologically and physiologically as in waste
relief). Those will try to monopolize a particular thread and bring it
up (as in vomitus interruptus) in other threads as well. They like
the noteriety, apparently.

The newsgroup focus could be anything and they would get angry
and abusive over anyone daring to defy them with some opposite
viewpoint. That happened way back on ARPANET, then USENET
(that came after ARPANET), branched over to BBS networks, and
finally on the Internet. Seen it all for three decades. Some of it is
funny, most of it is tragic with all the self-pitying and so-called
psychological trauma of the angry and irritated who are very busy
abusing others. shrug Way of life in all computer-modem
communications that isn't fully monitored and moderated 24/7.

"Mankind invented language to satisfy his need to complain!" - anon.

:-)

"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

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 -

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

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

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



Steve. What a "losser." I'll "crap" my hands when he stops posting.

Pity he don't live in "Feenix." He could be a columnist in CQ
magazine, telling us all about the strife and times of Hashacodey
Scrunchy, a "reel ham."

Might not last too long, that job. About as long as the "Purchasing
Agent" job did. Moeson wouldn't like to be called "putz" when the
great gunnery nurse gets a disagreement going.

Gotta love all those "meaningful discussions" in here. :-)

LHA / WMD

In article ,
(William) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
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...

Lockstep.

Remember, "real hams" do it with telegraphy. And LOGS.

And with AUTHORITY. [tension-hutt, gunnery nurse on da
bridge! all rise!]

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. :-)

Is it time for Carl to spank Steve again?

Naw!

Carl be busy with true productive work with the IEEE.

Gunnery nurse incapable of anything but trying to suppress
those with differing opinions.

The definition of insanity is to spank an insane guy again and expect
different results.

Good point! I need a vacation...but, it's so EASY to reply
to the gunnery nurse...why, the posts just seem "to write
themselves!" :-)

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. :-)



Steve is only here for meaningful discourse.

Of course. All us newsgrope readers can SEE that. :-)

By the way, that Burbank HRO store is right next to a Radio
Shack store. Ain't dat sometin? :-)

Betcha da gunnery nurse didn't know that, too busy "shopping
with friends" there...like back at a time when that HRO store
wasn't there! Amazing. Like Quantum Leap wasn't a TV show,
it really existed! :-)

Subject: So Much For THAT Rant....
From: (William)
Date: 6/8/2004 6:06 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Welp, its nice to see that at least somewhere on r.r.a... that people
can seperate their disagreements from their hatreds. But several
years ago, it really didn't look that way.

Now if we could get YOU to seperate your fantasies from what really
happened....

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: So Much For THAT Rant....
From: (William)
Date: 6/8/2004 6:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

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



Steve. What a "losser." I'll "crap" my hands when he stops posting

Is that as opposed as to posting your crap with your hands, Brain...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: So Much For THAT Rant....
From: (William)
Date: 6/8/2004 6:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...

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

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



Steve. What a "losser." I'll "crap" my hands when he stops posting

Is that as opposed as to posting your crap with your hands, Brain...?!?!

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Still the angry, snarling Log Inspector not understanding
a little humor from the newsgroup of the past?

Have you worked Rob Vincent yet on any antenna?

Has nursie told the When and Where of all those "hostile actions"
along with documented proof for a reference?

Was J.Lo any good? What was she wearing at your front door,
begging to be pleasured? Did she like the whips and chains you
prefer?

Did you wow her with your ham radio expertise? [others would
call that a "quickie."]

How was it on the air for the RRAPnet?

The world wants to know...

LHA / WMD