"Jimmie D" wrote in
:

Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when
used with a very high quality ground system.

OH NO! That thing is raising it's ugly head again....


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in message
oups.com...
i'm not as smart as you but I do know tht even a mached paper clip
would give roughly the same results.

On Jun 17, 5:34 pm, art wrote:
On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I wrote:

Jimmie D wrote:

...

Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when
used with
a very high quality ground system.

Jimmie

Actually, antennas that short, at least normally, perform quite poorly,
with efficiencies in the single digits ...

JS

I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?
I know that a member of this group attended one of the lectures of
this
inventor so a check of the archives might provide the extra info.
The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing
something new.
Art



Even a 6ft verticla can be made to perform reasonably well on 40m when used
with a good ground system, the ground system thay were using is probably as
close to ideal as you can get. The big difference is in using a short
antenna with a poor to mediocre ground system, then they stick out like a
sore thumb I did nt see any qualitative data given in the test results
except saying that the short antennas performed nearly as well as the full
size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down reported as "nearly as well" or as
"comparable with". Im sure the numbers had to be available so why werent
they posted.What would be the point of doing a test like this if you didnt
get qualatative data? Without the data the st might as weel have been, "hey
good buddy you sound fine over here at theWinn Dixie, I cant see my S meter
'cause the lights out on it but yo sound like 30 over to me"


Jimmie

Soory Mike Didnt mean to hijack your post

Jimmie
"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
...

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Actually, old news from 3 years ago ...

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...cleID=21600147

JS

The guy doesn't even seem to realise that height is one of the prime
factors
in optimising propogation, particularly at medium wave frequencies and
vhf.
Building a tall mast costs plenty of money and if commercial radio
stations
could broadcast efficiently from an antenna the size of a bean can, they
would have done it years ago.

This is surely just a couple of coils wound in opposite directions with
capacitive coupling and a capacity top hat to prevent coronal discharge
and
maximise current in the top half of the antenna. Basically a form of top
loaded, inductively wound whip antenna tapped somewhere up from the base
in
order to pick up a 50 ohm matching impedence at the design frequency. I
don't see any new or innovative principles at work here.

Now if he could make it work efficiently on all frequencies with 50 ohms
impedence and with no requirement for further matching or adjustment of
any
sort, I would be impressed. :-)

Mike G0ULI

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:

I did nt see any qualitative data given
in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed
nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down
reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the
numbers had to be available so why werent they posted.

Heh, heh. Jimmie youze is throwin' 'round them scientifical terms
like "nearly as well" and "comparable to". Heck I'ze gettin' all
confoozlated. But not so confusticated that I'll not get me wonna them
mircle antennies!


Seriously though, you are right. There has been precious little
real data on this antenna since the first press release in '04.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
Now if he could make it work efficiently on all frequencies with 50 ohms
impedence and with no requirement for further matching or adjustment of any
sort, I would be impressed. :-)

Mike G0ULI

Well then, let me take you at least half way to being impressed:

1) "The technology is completely scalable: Take the component values and
divide them by two, and you get twice the frequency; take all the
component values and multiply them by two, and you are at half the
frequency," said Vincent. "There are two poles in the antenna, and where
I place the poles in relation to one another-how much I bring the two
resonant frequencies together or spread them apart-enables me to emulate
different antennas, from a quarter-wave to a five-eighths wave."
"
2) "All I have to do is tap the helix at its base, and you get a perfect
50-ohm match with out any lossy networks as are required for other
advanced antenna designs," said Vincent.

3) "Eight years ago, antenna design was 90 percent black magic and 10
percent theory," said Vincent. "But now, with my design, they are 10
percent black magic and 90 percent theory."

The above from this URL:

http://www.jefallbright.net/node/2718

He mentions being able to create these in 1/4 to 5/8 design--so, create
a 1/2 and loose the radials and salt water ...

It is difficult to find real detail on this antenna! Makes 'ya wonder,
don't it?

JS

On 17 Jun, 19:34, Mike Coslo wrote:
"Jimmie D" wrote :

I did nt see any qualitative data given
in the test results except saying that the short antennas performed
nearly as well as the full size antennas. Hell, Ive heard 20db down
reported as "nearly as well" or as "comparable with". Im sure the
numbers had to be available so why werent they posted.

Heh, heh. Jimmie youze is throwin' 'round them scientifical terms
like "nearly as well" and "comparable to". Heck I'ze gettin' all
confoozlated. But not so confusticated that I'll not get me wonna them
mircle antennies!

Seriously though, you are right. There has been precious little
real data on this antenna since the first press release in '04.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Look at the patent request to obtain the basics.
The testing station tested it with a set up that is tracable
to normal standard antennas. Results therefor can be compared against
a standard antennas with confidence. The testing was done by a
independent source so a review of the results shows what you get.
The patent was accepted by the PTO so on the surface it would
appear that there is something new here even if the experts are
baying at the moon ahead of time knowing that all is known about
antennas. It would be interesting if the independent test reports
were included in the patent request which would infere that the PTO
confirmed the propriety of the tests, usually by being present.
Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program
which the range test confirmed after the fact.

On 17 Jun, 18:40, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:

... I assume that the testing people know their business so why can't hams
accept it?

...

He states it uses a "2-dimensional helix", think about that (since I
can't find a pic or construction details), flatten a helix and you end
up with a zig-zag pattern of wire.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ... etc. ... (poorly represented in ascii here)

This must drop the inductance of the "helix coil" drastically, leaving
you with only the self-capacitance of the conductor (-jX), which
requires a "loading coil" of +jX ...

Also, there is some text I interpret to suggest there is some additional
coupling somewhere at the center, however, I can't find enough material
to confirm or reject this ...

JS

One of the links provided pictures of the testing station which
I believe belonged to the Navy. I believe they have also applied
for a follow up patent that contains propriety information
that has not yet been released. True, we have had a string of
questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that
is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently
not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure
can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers.
When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend
ourselves as being antenna experts.
Art

art wrote:
... True, we have had a string of
questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that
is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently
not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure
can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers.
When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend
ourselves as being antenna experts.
Art


Art:

It is all in the numbers (odds.)

If you know how to gamble, you know how to play the odds. Show me one
street smart individual and I will show you someone who knows the ropes ...

Being a naysayer has great advantages, most experiments/"new inventions"
turn out less than what may have been expected ... playing the odds of
"naysaying" you can always claim a better than avg. "batting avg."

It's all in the game ... play it right and you expose the details.

Regards,
JS

On 17 Jun, 20:57, John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:
... True, we have had a string of
questionable designs that amateurs have questioned but that
is no reason to condemn all new designs especially when apparently
not all is known or disclosed. An independent testing procedure
can be very convincing if repeated and monitered by the naysayers.
When reviewing the postings on burning water we could not defend
ourselves as being antenna experts.
Art

Art:

It is all in the numbers (odds.)

If you know how to gamble, you know how to play the odds. Show me one
street smart individual and I will show you someone who knows the ropes ...

Being a naysayer has great advantages, most experiments/"new inventions"
turn out less than what may have been expected ... playing the odds of
"naysaying" you can always claim a better than avg. "batting avg."

It's all in the game ... play it right and you expose the details.

Regards,
JS

Very true unless you have to state why
Art

Dear Group:

Details of the patent applications may be found on the USPTO's site.

Robert J. Vincent (Electronics Technician II, Physics-URI)

Application 20060022883; published Feb. 2, 2006
Application 20070132647; published June 14, 2007

73, Mac N8TT


--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home: