David
Idid describe an antenna that will do all the things that the new patent
claims and
it would not surprise me i9n the least if it turns out to be of the same
design.
I am not a guru so I am not a prisoner to past accomplishments and am able
to focus
purely on max radiation per unit length. Tome the loop is a prime example
in that it produces
not only more gain per unit length but also has an additive vector
radiation in a similar way
centrifugal forces add a vector even tho the electrons
have a constant speed. It does not take a rocket scientist to visualise that
an antenna
with a figure 8 circuit would change the radiation field.( clockwise +
counterclockwise radiation )
The other point to remember is that true coupling can increase the current
in an element
while reducing its voltage and it is current which we hamms are interested
in.
Ofcourse if your radiator melts then it shows good coupling and the element
has to be larger in diameter.
Now I know that what I say is basic but it apears that hams are locked into
a rut when thinking about
new design and if the new patented antenna melted then I suspect he under
estimated the increased
current created by coupling. Now because feed impedance is so important to
the ham it will be important
to have a unconnected vertical placed inside the coil perimeters which
allows by coupling the ability
to meet impedance requirementst
Now David I know hams do not like to pursue the idea of maxcimum radiation
per unit length but
if you have a computor program that can use variable dimensions to meet
specs then I have provided
enough info for those that are interested but I suspect that most are
inately lazy and prefer to0 await the unveiling
at the end of this month. By the way in the description of the multi loop I
made no reference to use of
clockwise and counter clockwise travel a statistic that is very important as
is the center pole.
Am I sold on the idea of a different aproach to antennas, you bet I am as
this aproach provides a
flattening of the take off angle on the horizon at the expense of higher
angle radiation which for cell type frequency
is wasted energy
Cheers and beers
Art

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article uUdSc.237968$%_6.185742@attbi_s01,
wrote:

Yes, that does seem a reasonable aproach if you want to use the antenna
that
you describe.

It does give me thought about the new revolutionary antenna and the
impact
it will have on radio.

On reading your comments, Art, my feeling is that you've swallowed the
glowing claims in the original press releases hook, line, and sinker,
and as a result you are greatly over-estimating the likely impact of
this "revolutionary" technology.
snip