art wrote:

...
Very true unless you have to state why
Art


Art:

You missed, but not by much; change that to, "... unless you have to
CORRECTLY state why."

Regards,
JS

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in
:


"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. :-)

The other day, just for fun, I modelled a shortened 80m dipole hung from
a 100-foot high supporting rope. The dipole was 35 feet long and had two
loading coils about 4 feet from each end. I fed it at the bottom end.

The thing would be fairly narrow and would require an autotransformer or
tuned match at the base (or a quarter wave open stub) but the PATTERN was
very nice, indeed. With all that current up that high, it's nice and
flat and low to the ground. Gain isn't spectacular, though, only about
1.5dbi. But phase 4 of them and you're up there with the big guns,
though probably only for about 10-20khz of the band.

And, on receive, it's a horizon-scraper. You'd hear stuff you didn't
even know was there before. Whether you can outshout THEIR local noise
and QRM is a different question, of course!



--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

John Smith I wrote:


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


One of the most impressive and strange things about these latter days
is that we have a lot of people who are amazingly skeptical about
science which has a pretty good system to avoid quackery , and yet are
willing to extend credulity to amazing claims.


I wonder if Mythbusters would be willing to take this antenna on? I
volunteer to explain the whole thing to Kari.... ;^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

art wrote:

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.

not at all.. The PTO's current strategy is to grant the patent unless
obviously defective, and let potential infringers down the road spend
the time to break the patent.

The examiners are fairly knowledgeable in their areas, but they also
depend on what's in the application to describe why it's novel and
doesn't merely duplicate prior art.

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.

One almost never puts test results in a patent application. Why would
you..an invention doesn't have to actually work, today, it just has to
be described appropriately, and have appropriate claims. There are lots
of perfectly valid patents out there that have no test data: Feynman's
patents on nuclear powered airplanes would be one.

The "reduction to practice" requirement is met by "describing with
sufficient detail that someone ordinarily skilled in the art can
implement the invention". It's been over 100 years since the PTO
required working models or test data.

The only case where the PTO would actually have to have a working model
demonstrated would be for a perpetual motion machine (and one other,
which escapes me at the moment).



Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program
which the range test confirmed after the fact.


And this is true for most antennas these days... Simple antennas have
been around a while and wouldn't be likely to be patented. A complex
antenna which might be patentable is probably tricky enough to build
that one would want to model it first, before "cutting metal".

And, any decent modeling code(s) will have extensive validation against
range tests, so it's not much of a surprise when the antenna works as
modeled. The surprises come from aspects that weren't modeled.

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
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
I think that ends in ..649
filed 25 Jan 2007

one might note that claims 1-23 were cancelled...

The second application is basically a revision of the first amd has more
details of why it has priority over earlier applications (presumably
over other inventors?)

The first is a continuation application as well.

I'm going to guess that the examiner came back on the first app and
said: Uh,uh, you need to update to establish why a)you're first and b)
why you're novel

If you've got significant time available, compare the two applications
and it may be revealed



73, Mac N8TT


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

art wrote:
SNIP
The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing
something new.
Art

That's a joke, right? The US patent system is a mess. I'm not
knocking the antenna BTW.


Charlie.

--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org

On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux wrote:
art wrote:
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.

not at all.. The PTO's current strategy is to grant the patent unless
obviously defective, and let potential infringers down the road spend
the time to break the patent.

The examiners are fairly knowledgeable in their areas, but they also
depend on what's in the application to describe why it's novel and
doesn't merely duplicate prior art.

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.

One almost never puts test results in a patent application. Why would
you..an invention doesn't have to actually work, today, it just has to
be described appropriately, and have appropriate claims. There are lots
of perfectly valid patents out there that have no test data: Feynman's
patents on nuclear powered airplanes would be one.

The "reduction to practice" requirement is met by "describing with
sufficient detail that someone ordinarily skilled in the art can
implement the invention". It's been over 100 years since the PTO
required working models or test data.

The only case where the PTO would actually have to have a working model
demonstrated would be for a perpetual motion machine (and one other,
which escapes me at the moment).

Note the antenna was designed using a propriety computor program
which the range test confirmed after the fact.

And this is true for most antennas these days... Simple antennas have
been around a while and wouldn't be likely to be patented. A complex
antenna which might be patentable is probably tricky enough to build
that one would want to model it first, before "cutting metal".

And, any decent modeling code(s) will have extensive validation against
range tests, so it's not much of a surprise when the antenna works as
modeled. The surprises come from aspects that weren't modeled.

Let us have a fresh look at the emergence of this new antenna
where amateurs confess that they do not know all the details
but it MUST be a fake, but for why they cannot explain.
The Naval antenna testing facility tested the antenna as they do
with all military antennas. The test figures are published on the web
( put the antenna initials in Google) The computor program was home
brewed
and verified later by the IEEE, again see report on google. )
The test performed by the Navy also confirmed this home brewed report
before the IEEE reviewed it after the fact
Now I am in no way saying it has merit tho the methods used to check
his claimes appear to have validity. Remember that I have provided
a new antenna on this newsgroup. The mathematics were supported
independendly
and STANDARD computor programs confirm it but again amateurs
cannot find themselves able to accept anything new. Look at Cecil's
page where he has a Zepp dipole for all frequencies using stubs,
do you think they believe Cecil? I wrote up a similar antenna
where the tuning mechanism is a loop with a dipole protruding out from
each side
and where the loop is tuned with a variable capacitor which also
emulates
the Zepp for all frequencies( See the Gaussian thread).
Even when hams model it they can't believe it,
completely disregarding scientific back up. Remember it is AMATEUR
radio
who learn radio basics but only in a few cases actually UNDERSTAND the
basics.
I also provided a three element antenna on a eight foot boom that
excels the
specs that ARRL optimised in every region and at the same time
provided more
gain per unit length than the accepted Gain/Boom length graph printed
in most books.
Again amateurs are loathe to accept anything new except when it is
in a book that they can learn from but not necessarily UNDERSTAND.
As a side note, one of my past PTO examinas did not know the
difference
between parallel and series circuit but that is O.K.
His job is to enter key words from an application and see what patents
emerge so he can send them to the applicant, from then on it is
resolved on grammatical terms . I would like to see a thorough
examination of this new vertical antenna if only to find out where the
Navy
and the IEEE were in error. I certainly would not trash it on
the basis of comments by amateurs on this newsgroup unless they
provided credible proof that they were knoweledgable about the
specifics
of the antenna and could then provide credible reasons why it
should not be accepted. That ofcourse will never happen
in this newsgroup. Look up at the howl that emanated on this group
on such a simple subject such as Gauss together with conservative
and non conservative fields. We even have teachers in this group
who could not come forward to explain it to others as well as some
who denied any possibility of a connection. This is just an
amateur group who likes to play word games with others to get a
"gottcha",
It is not a scientific group with credible backgrounds that
by itself demands attention, it is just a group of amateurs
from various fields and pursuits where their every post reflect
their true abilities.
Regards
Art

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux wrote:
art wrote:
and the IEEE were in error. I certainly would not trash it on
the basis of comments by amateurs on this newsgroup unless they
provided credible proof that they were knoweledgable about the
specifics
of the antenna and could then provide credible reasons why it
should not be accepted. That ofcourse will never happen
in this newsgroup. Look up at the howl that emanated on this group
on such a simple subject such as Gauss together with conservative
and non conservative fields. We even have teachers in this group
who could not come forward to explain it to others as well as some
who denied any possibility of a connection. This is just an
amateur group who likes to play word games with others to get a
"gottcha",
It is not a scientific group with credible backgrounds that
by itself demands attention, it is just a group of amateurs
from various fields and pursuits where their every post reflect
their true abilities.
Regards
Art


simple answer... its a 3 year old article, who do you know that is selling
them? if they were anything special someone would have picked them up and
started marketing them. speaking of which, who have you lined up to sell
your 'gaussian' designs art? can you even define it yet??

On Jun 17, 8:51 pm, John Smith I wrote:
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:

Doesn't impress me much, and it's not really new either.
I did that 12-15 years ago on my first mobile antenna..
"combining a helical mast with lumped loading coils."
Big deal...
Myself, I think he would be better off to dump the helical
windings, and just use all lumped loading..
A large high Q lumped coil will generally have less total
loss than using any narrower dia helical winding along
with a lumped coil.
I did away with the helical windings on mine. And I
still have good current distribution.
And slightly less loss.


1) "The technology is completely scalable:

What isn't ?

"
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.

Who says other designs have lossy matching networks?
Mine don't.. He calls that an advanced antenna design? Hummm...
I'll reserve comment...


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."

This is even worse... That statement is just total BS...


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 ...

Wow, that's really advanced.. I wish I could think to try that... :/

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

JS

Not really.. The antenna is ok I guess, nothing really horrible about
it, but I don't see anything new. In fact, some of his statements are
sort of silly.. IE:
"For instance, in a normal quarter-wave antenna the current
continually drops off in a sinusoidal shape, but these antennas
don't do that," said Vincent. "The current at the top of the antenna
is 80 percent of the current at the base."

Wow..I suppose he thinks his antenna will outdo a full quarter wave
then I guess.. Good luck in the contest is all I can say...

Then you have this jibber jabber..
"Using a DLM antenna one-third to one-ninth the size of standard
quarter-wave antenna, he measured nearly 80 percent efficiency,
when conventional wisdom would dictate that an antenna the size
of a DLM should be only 8 to 15 percent efficient."

Look how vague it is.. Can't even get the size of his antenna right..
So how can we decide what to compare it to?
Also he makes no mention of ground quality, radials, etc..
It's easy to sound "advanced" when you don't give enough info
for anyone to prove you wrong...
Anyway... ho hummmm.... As you can tell, I'm really excited
about this new fangled technology.
MK

wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:51 pm, John Smith I wrote:

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:


Doesn't impress me much, and it's not really new either.
I did that 12-15 years ago on my first mobile antenna..
"combining a helical mast with lumped loading coils."
Big deal...
Myself, I think he would be better off to dump the helical
windings, and just use all lumped loading..
A large high Q lumped coil will generally have less total
loss than using any narrower dia helical winding along
with a lumped coil.
I did away with the helical windings on mine. And I
still have good current distribution.
And slightly less loss.


But then you would have something that is prior art.

Sometimes, all you want is a novel implementation of a standard thing,
so that you can patent it. For instance, say a helically loaded whip is
a readily known thing that's been around for years. You can't patent
that. But maybe you could get a (very narrow) patent for a helical
loading where the turn spacing follows some mathematical formula, and
you make some assertions that this spacing is special. Maybe it's
sinusoidal, and the resulting impedance curve has bumps in some places
that are "useful" in some application.

Now, you can go out and patent this literally one of a kind antenna.

You can market yourself as having "patented an antenna". The PR
department of your company can say "our patented antenna designs.."

and then you can go out and make regular old loaded whips with bulk
inductance...


"
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.


Who says other designs have lossy matching networks?
Mine don't.. He calls that an advanced antenna design? Hummm...
I'll reserve comment...

That's a standard part of every patent application. You have to "knock
the prior art" and say why your invention is an improvement. You'll see
statements like:

As Smith taught in patent 1,234,567, matching networks can be used to
provide the desirable 50 ohm termination impedance. However, lumped
components of sizes suitable for the applications we consider have
losses that are excessive.

[Bingo, you've just said why your invention is "different" than Smith's]