On 18 Jun, 14:32, "Dave" wrote:
"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??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Simple you say, there are two patent requests, one last year and one
this year.
Who said they are not making deals now? As far as a gaussian design
definition
you are not equipped to understand it. It has been stated on this
group but
with your lack of knoweledge about Gauss you can never be able to
understand it,
thus it is hard for you to consider yourself as legitarmate critic if
you don't
understand the subject. Per your posts thru the years you haven't
found a person
that you could like or you couldn't attack. Your posts reflect who you
really are,
somebody with no credability.

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

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

Here's another "different" antenna:

To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector
element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along
the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director
elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom
on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver
element.

This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Lux wrote:

...
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.

Jim:

Your text is interesting.

I went ahead and put together, on the little I could glean from the info
on this, an antenna. I marked a pvc pipe on both sides, drilled it, and
put the wire though, basically as a series of hair pin loops. "Tap'ed"
it, obtained a 50 ohm match (had to use a variable cap) and it works, I
need more data ...

I need a complete pic and data so I can duplicate his construction ... I
have an open mind. However, this "thing" is so simple, it is better I
confirm or reject "it" on my own observations ... it may, or may not, be
nothing ...

Regards,
JS

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

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

Here's another "different" antenna:

To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector
element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver

Or maybe lower?

resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along
the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director
elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver

Or maybe higher?

resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom
on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver
element.

This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

tom
K0TAR

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

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

Here's another "different" antenna:

To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector
element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along
the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director
elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom
on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver
element.

This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek?

tom
K0TAR

Dave wrote:

...
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??


Funny you should mention that ... I tore apart last years cell phone.
There is a strange looking "antenna" which is etched onto the pcb
board--strikingly similar to what "he" (the guy with the "weird antenna"
) has described ...

JS

Richard Clark wrote:

...
This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard:

From my time here, I have learned to love you, present wife is worried!
ROFLOL

Anyway, in the land yacht, I use a "boosted antenna" which utilizes a
mars device--works surprisingly well, and was purchased at a flea market
for ~$10 bucks. The thing is crap ... at least technically!

I know it should not work as well as it does, XYL wants me to replace it
with a mobile direct tv setup--hey, what can I say, I believe in fairy
tales?

Anyway, I was able to watch the lost tv series on it when we went to
visit family ...

I have time to play with such, it keeps me out of jail. :-)

Regards,
JS

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:52:43 -0500, Tom Ring
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

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

Here's another "different" antenna:

To increase the directivity of such an antenna, a parasitic reflector
element, usually tuned to a frequency slightly higher than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed parallel to the driver element along
the boom. For further increased directivity, one or more director
elements, usually tuned to frequencies slightly lower than the driver
resonant frequency, can be placed at various distances along the boom
on the other side of the driver element and parallel to the driver
element.

This is the world's first gaussian array.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek?

Hi Tom,

It support's Arthur's faith in the PTO giving authority to invention:
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.

Of course, Arthur also leand on their credibility to recognize
something "different:"
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.

Considering that the PTO can be condemned and praised for the same
thing is about as clarifying as his explanation for gaussian antenna
theory. The original quote above (drawn from an actual patent that
teaches the "different" antenna theory of the inventor) has its
problems too, of course, but its "difference" makes it patentable.
Afterall, who could possible beat him in the marketplace by stealing
this idea?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Lux writes:

wrote:
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.

It isn't prior art just because you did it.
It isn't even prior art if you can prove you did it.
It is only prior art if you published it. Or you can prove in some
other way that the idea was well known among those skilled in the art,
or obvious to them.

73
Jon

LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:
Jim Lux writes:

wrote:
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.

It isn't prior art just because you did it.
It isn't even prior art if you can prove you did it.
It is only prior art if you published it. Or you can prove in some
other way that the idea was well known among those skilled in the art,
or obvious to them.

73
Jon

That is completely incorrect in the US. Publication is NEVER required
with respect to establishing prior art. At least two things
automatically support "prior art" status:

1) Valid documentation (but not necessarily publication) of the prior
art. This usually means something like a lab notebook entry, witnessed
by others.

2) Shipping a product that contains the prior art. No notification or
publication is required.

There are undoubtedly other means of establishing prior art that do not
require "publication". In the US, establishing prior art is a matter for
courts and lawsuits, so YMMV.

73,
Gene
W4SZ