Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:13 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:


"Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU
don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it.
When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business.
Feel Lucky?"


In fact, the manufacturer is completely lucky. Their product line can
continue forever based on the design preceeding publication - even if
the design and the publication are the same. They just can't change
it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

It's the second mfr that's got the decision to make, and decide if
they're lucky. Here's the speculative scenario:

1) Mfr A invents something, files ap, keeps it secret
2) Mfr B invents same thing, but later
3) Mfr B starts making the thing
4) Mfr A gets their patent
5) Mfr B is instantly infringing, and can't continue mfr, distribution,
sale, etc., without a license from A.

If B knows that A has filed a patent in an area of B's interest
(potentially indicated by mfr A selling a product labelled Pat.Pend.),
they've got a real gamble when they invest in step #3.

B can negotiate in advance of patent issuance before step #4
OR
B can tell A to go away, gambling that
a)they won't infringe the unknown patent when it does issue
or b)that the patent won't issue
or c) A won't have the resources to take B on for infringement.

OR
B can wait for the patent to issue, then negotiate with A for a license.

The last strategy is particularly effective if, meanwhile B has filed
for or patented something that happens to be infringed by A's existing
mfr operation. They can cross license their patents. (happens all the
time in the semiconductor business)

John Smith I wrote:

...
Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

These images:
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...ottomhelix.jpg
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...ading_Coil.jpg
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/both.jpg

Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of
coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc.

A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded
pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe
errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps
purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper
pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire.

1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09
2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45
3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19
4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free

materials $12.73
tax $1.18
----------------
total $13.75

Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS

On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

...

Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...s.com/both.jpg

Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of
coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc.

A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded
pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe
errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps
purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper
pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire.

1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09
2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45
3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19
4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free

materials $12.73
tax $1.18
----------------
total $13.75

Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS

Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed
Regards
Art

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:04 -0700, art wrote:

On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

...

Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...s.com/both.jpg

Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of
coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc.

A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded
pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe
errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps
purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper
pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire.

1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09
2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45
3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19
4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free

materials $12.73
tax $1.18
----------------
total $13.75

Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS

Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed
Regards
Art

Truth is often stranger than fiction, but patents have the monopoly on
the absurd.

Taken from top of Page 2 "Other publications"

T. Simpson, "The Dick Loaded Monopole Antenna,"
IEEE Transactions of Antennas and Propagation,
vol. 52, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 542-545.

Hardly worth going any further into the mysteries of this invention.
Dipole envy? :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jun 21, 9:36 pm, John Smith I wrote:


Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS


Hummm, I would use a slightly wider spacing with the
loading coil wires.. Too tightly wound.. I assume the
wire is enameled... The problem with this, is your
lower coil is the same diameter as the center load.
But, your lower coil is actually the more efficient
of two, being it's wider spaced. You are stunting
your upper coil with too close together windings.
I actually believe the current distribution would be
slightly better with all center loading, than with the
mix of two coils, one being basically a base load.
I would also clip those "mast" wires where they
don't run along side of that coil. Thats not good.
Like I say, I've already tried all this with helical
glass whips combined with larger hi-Q coils.

I don't use it anymore. Now all my loading is one
center loading coil.
I once combined the glass stick helical windings
with the larger lumped coil. But came to the conclusion
it was a bad idea because the narrow helical windings
on mine were more lossy than the larger coil.
But on yours, all windings are the same size dia..
So it really doesn't matter, except as far as current
distribution. My gut instinct is that you would force
more current up the mast , using only the upper
center loading coil. This is what you should test.
Use equal whip and stinger sizes, and compare
the "split loading", with a loosely wound all
center coil. Not tight wound like you have.
Have about at least a wires width of space between the
windings.
If the all center loaded antenna didn't win, I'd be kinda
surprised. The way I see it, if you share loading
locations, the current distribution will also share
the two locations.. IE: you should have more current
lower on the mast with the split coils, than with
only a center coil. To me, this should offset any
advantage of less total turns being needed, from
using partly a base load. All center loading should
need a few extra turns to tune vs the split setup
I would think, but it's not enough to hurt you much.
MK

wrote:
I actually believe the current distribution would be
slightly better with all center loading, than with the
mix of two coils, one being basically a base load.

Yes, you are right. One high-Q coil with linked flux
is more efficient than two half coils in different
locations. Splitting one coil into two can be considered
the first delta step toward linear loading, known to
be lossier than single-coil center loading.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:

...
Hummm, I would use a slightly wider spacing with the
loading coil wires ...

The coils used were used only as a visual aid. That part is left up to
the individual experimenter ... no attempt was made to do the actual
experiments for the reader ...

However, if you read Mr. Vincents data, this coil is "closely wound."
And, I documented the construction of the jig itself, not the individual
components to be used. The importance here is how quickly components
can be swapped in and out ...

Low Q might be very desirable to someone valuing bandwidth over other
aspects ... not only out of the box thinking is necessary,
out-of-the-box-experimenting is accepted here ...

Regards,
JS

On Jun 21, 10:26 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:04 -0700, art wrote:
On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

...

Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

These images:http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/...jpghttp://asse...

Depict a "test fixture" I kludged together. It allows quick changing of
coils, wire conductors between coils, top hats, tap points, etc.

A 1/2 pipe flange is screwed onto the board. A 3/4 slip to 1/2 threaded
pvc adapter is screwed into the flange and holds the 3/4 pvc pipe
errect. All connectors which are clamping the wires are ground clamps
purchased at home depot, they are made to clamp onto glavanized/copper
pipe and provide a grounding point for a ground wire.

1) 1/2 pipe flange $2.09
2) (5) 3/4" and 1" ground clamps (clamps both sizes) $1.49 X 5 = $7.45
3) 10 ft. of 3/4" pvc pipe $3.19
4) Board dumped in my yard by some bum! $free

materials $12.73
tax $1.18
----------------
total $13.75

Now there is no reason for anyone not to experiment a bit ... the
fixture is far from ideal, your improvements are welcome--it is quick
and dirty to construct!

Regards,
JS

Thanks for sharing, please keep us informed
Regards
Art

Truth is often stranger than fiction, but patents have the monopoly on
the absurd.

funny

no one really reads these patnets do they? Not evne the author.

Taken from top of Page 2 "Other publications"

T. Simpson, "The Dick Loaded Monopole Antenna,"
IEEE Transactions of Antennas and Propagation,
vol. 52, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 542-545.

Hardly worth going any further into the mysteries of this invention.
Dipole envy? :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 22, 6:54 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Hummm, I would use a slightly wider spacing with the
loading coil wires ...

The coils used were used only as a visual aid. That part is left up to
the individual experimenter ... no attempt was made to do the actual
experiments for the reader ...

I've already done the experiments.. Going on nearly 20 years ago..
I'm just telling what I see in the pix..

However, if you read Mr. Vincents data, this coil is "closely wound."

Well, if that is what he is doing, that is fine. I wouldn't though..
Just another glaring problem I see..

And, I documented the construction of the jig itself, not the individual
components to be used. The importance here is how quickly components
can be swapped in and out ...

Yea, looks like you can do that quick enough..

Low Q might be very desirable to someone valuing bandwidth over other
aspects ... not only out of the box thinking is necessary,
out-of-the-box-experimenting is accepted here ...

Low Q is not desirable with what should be a Hi-Q loading coil... :/
Well, unless you want to lose efficiency.. I don't worry about
bandwidth. I'll retune the coil, stinger, whatever if I need to QSY..

Like I say, I've already been through all of this in nearly 20 years
of building my own mobile antennas.. I really doubt you are going
to find anything that surprises me here. I've built nearly
every perversion of a short whip you can think of.
But I think it's good that you are testing the idea..
I wish some of the "inventers" would follow your lead..
MK

writes:

On Jun 21, 10:26 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
no one really reads these patnets do they? Not evne the author.

Taken from top of Page 2 "Other publications"

T. Simpson, "The Dick Loaded Monopole Antenna,"
IEEE Transactions of Antennas and Propagation,
vol. 52, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 542-545.

Hardly worth going any further into the mysteries of this invention.
Dipole envy? :-0

Abstract:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...8/01282130.pdf

It's "Disk loaded monopole"

73
LA4RT Jon