Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
John Smith I
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21600147
JS
Mike Kaliski
"John Smith I" <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f54d8p$ok$1...@nnrp.linuxfan.it...
> Actually, old news from 3 years ago ...
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=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
John Smith I
> [stuff]
Quite obviously, you are missing the real point here ... here is more.
http://www.rfglobalnet.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=9f3876f8-62d6-4d90-90b8-c15300bbee23&VNETCOOKIE=NO
http://electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2005/05/12/35201/Antenna+is+half+height+of+monopole.htm
http://www.uri.edu/news/vincent/report05/testreport.pdf
http://ema.arrl.org/article.php?sid=1025&mode=&order=0
JS
John Smith I
Mike Kaliski
John
That is one beautifully constructed antenna and the antenna test facility is
to die for. All those radials and salt water!
Mike G0ULI
Jimmie D
"Mike Kaliski" <michael...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:6eidnRlLTrmLV-jb...@bt.com...
Still, nothing new, short antennas work quite well especially when used with
a very high quality ground system.
Jimmie
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
art
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
herbe...@gmail.com
would give roughly the same results.
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
Mike Coslo
news:4675cfc2$0$3245$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
> 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 -
Jimmie D
<herbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182128117.8...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
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
Jimmie D
Jimmie
"Mike Kaliski" <michael...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:JaidnWq4ZsK_Xejb...@bt.com...
Mike Coslo
> 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.
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
J. Mc Laughlin
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: J...@Power-Net.Net
John Smith I
> ... 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
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
John Smith I
> ...
Dear Virginia:
If you seen it in the New York Times, it must be true:
Regards,
JS
Dave Oldridge
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
Michael Coslo
>
> 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.... ;^)
Jim Lux
> 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.
Jim Lux
> 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
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
charlie
<SNIP>
> The patent was awarded so one can assume that the design is providing
> something new.
> Art
>
knocking the antenna BTW.
Charlie.
--
M0WYM
www.radiowymsey.org
Dave
"art" <aun...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:1182196967.1...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux <james.p....@jpl.nasa.gov> 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??
nm...@wt.net
> 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
Jim Lux
> On Jun 17, 8:51 pm, John Smith I <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> 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]
>
Richard Clark
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
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
Tom Ring
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:26:52 -0700, Jim Lux <james...@jpl.nasa.gov>
> 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
Tom Ring
Or maybe you had tongue planted firmly in cheek?
tom
K0TAR
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
Richard Clark
wrote:
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?
LA4RT Jon Kåre Hellan
> nm...@wt.net 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
Gene Fuller
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
John Smith I
> Actually, old news from 3 years ago ...
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=21600147
>
> JS
This:
"It would seem that despite the naysayers, the DLM antenna does work and
quite well at that. Rob suspects that many homemade DLMs are now on the
air in Europe and on our US west coast, judging from the e mail traffic
he has received. Nice work, Rob!"
Taken from here:
http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/print.php?storyid=14
Should be a good indication of the power the naysayers here have to
dis-inform and promote their own personal views. Close attention should
be made to the names and calls involved, and especially in further use
of this newsgroup.
Regards,
JS
JIMMIE
> On 17 Jun, 19:34, Mike Coslo <mco...@youknow.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jimmie D" <GFEN...@carolina.rr.com> wrote innews:4675eb9a$0$28142$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> > > 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 -
>
> 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.
> 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
> were included in the patent request which would infere that the PTO
> confirmed the propriety of the tests, usually by being present.
>
> - Show quoted text -
BIG DEAL, I can stick up a 6ft radiator over a good ground sytem like
the one in the article add the appropriate inductance and capacitance
to make it resonant ant match it to the feed and most people will be
impressed by how well it works. Take that same antenna ,stick it in my
back yard using the best ground system as will be practical there
whith a feedline that is also practical with my backyard installation
and that antenna is going to suck bilge water. The fact is if you have
the real estate and the financial means for the kind og ground system
you need to make a short antenna work as well as the claims made in
the article you might as weel go ahead and erect a full size antenna.
Jimmie
Buck
wrote:
>BIG DEAL, I can stick up a 6ft radiator over a good ground sytem like
>the one in the article add the appropriate inductance and capacitance
>to make it resonant ant match it to the feed and most people will be
>impressed by how well it works. Take that same antenna ,stick it in my
>back yard using the best ground system as will be practical there
>whith a feedline that is also practical with my backyard installation
>and that antenna is going to suck bilge water. The fact is if you have
>the real estate and the financial means for the kind og ground system
>you need to make a short antenna work as well as the claims made in
>the article you might as weel go ahead and erect a full size antenna.
>
>
>Jimmie
Why erect a full sized 160 meter vertical IF a 40 foot vertical can do
as well?
--
73 for now
Buck, N4PGW
"Small - broadband - efficient: pick any two."
Buck
Where are instructions on building them?
John Smith I
> ...
> Where are instructions on building them?
Buck:
You just have to go on the scanty details presented in the news
releases, I can't even find a picture of the darn thing.
However, I threw together a 1/2 wave - 6.5 ft. (includes 12 inch
adjustable whip and disc top hat at base of whip.) "Plano Helix Coil"
constructed by drilling two sets of holes on opposing sides of 1.125 pvc
pipe, wire is then "laced" through these holes - forming a series of
"hair pin loops" running the length of the pvc pipe.
This gives an apparent equal radiated power on a sensitive homebrew FSM
located ~3 wavelengths away as compared to a 1/4 wave 102 inch whip
w/loading coil on 10 meters, both mounted as mobile antennas on the auto.
I have no idea how close the design of this antenna matches Mr. Vincents
design ...
The antenna is worth playing with, definitely! I too would like more
details on Mr. Vincents designs ...
Regards,
JS
Richard Clark
wrote:
>Why erect a full sized 160 meter vertical IF a 40 foot vertical can do
>as well?
Why indeed if you live in a saltwater marsh.
JIMMIE
> On 17 Jun, 17:24, John Smith I <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> 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
I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they
tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if
they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was
intentionally left out . Deception by ommission.
If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made
then he should provide all information to clarify the issue.
Jimmie
Richard Clark
wrote:
>If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made
>then he should provide all information to clarify the issue.
Hi Jimmie,
I've read the reports. The "inventor" wrote his paper with about as
much class as an 5th grade science report. It was a hodge-podge of
statements and intellectual clutter reminiscent of Arthur's writing.
The technical report merely confirms the performance being no better
than any small antenna. In other words, no surprise, and certainly no
advancement over, say, any of dozen variations of the common
screwdriver antenna of the same size.
Jim Lux
>
>
> I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they
> tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if
> they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was
> intentionally left out . Deception by ommission.
>
> If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made
> then he should provide all information to clarify the issue.
>
>
> Jimmie
Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology
business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague
title and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search
(harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite
well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the
examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot
of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers
the same general application, there's a high probability that your
patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a
possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested
significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a
license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file
suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution.
The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how
to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their
new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from
vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that
uncertainty has definite business value.
The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to
cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build
your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B
has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts;
and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to
license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut
and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again,
vagueness works to your advantage here.
Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works.
Jimmie D
"Buck" <usen...@lumpuckeroo.com> wrote in message
news:ch7i73tq7hs407389...@4ax.com...
If I had the real estate and the ground sytem I would probably erect a 1/2
wl or a 5/8.
Jimmie D
"Jim Lux" <james...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:f5c143$j40$1...@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov...
Dont think I metioned patents at any time. On the other hand if you want
someone to buy your new miracle whiz bang antenna you either let people know
how great it is with data from a reliable source or you omit your data
giving vague discriptions to pull in the suckers. I dont think an affidavit
from the testing facility on measured field strength compared to a full size
antenna who have endangered his product.
John Smith I
> [stuff]
This:
"Our Technical Coordinator, Rob, K1DFT was guest presenter at the April
5th meeting of the Dallas (Texas) Amateur Radio Club. He thrilled a
packed house with a multimedia presentation concerning his invention,
the Distributed Loaded Monopole or DLM.
Rob telephoned me after the event in addition to one of my Dallas
friends who was in the audience to tell me how well the presentation was
received. Congratulations Rob!! The Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC)
antenna testing range performed a full day of tests on a great many
different versions of the DLM just the week before he left for Texas and
validated every one of the DLM’s performance claims. That should quiet
the nay sayers out there who wanted proof of the antenna’s efficiency
and bandwidth."
From here:
http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12
JS
John Smith I
> [stuff]
This page:
http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/2004-06/msg00225.html
shows someone is "listening", however, somehow he missed the
"plano-helical coil", where each hairpin "turn" is serving as a small
capacitance ...
Also, the "plano-spiral top hat" seems to have been missed, essentially,
I picture a concentric wound "flat" coil which also seems to present
itself to being available to the "capacitive loading" effect. I have
simply taken a flat sheet of 1/16 aluminum and cut a continuous spiral
to create one to experiment with ...
Geesh, I would trade a few hours work for just a good pic of this
antenna, or at least a better description! Save a LOT of experimental
work on this end ...
And, then, there is that nagging mention about some sort of loading
device in the center ... oh well, where is that hacksaw?
JS
John Smith I
John Smith I
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
Jim Lux
If the NUWC range is like most other ranges, it's a facility that is
essentially for rent to anybody who wants to use it. The range provides
the site, the equipment, and the technicians. You tell them what tests
you want to run, operate your equipment if needed, and they make the
measurements and give you the data. As a rule, they'd make no
substantive evaluation of the worth of anything tested there. You could
hire them to make measurements on a 100ft spool of 20year old zipcord
sitting on a folding chair, and they'd happily fire up the signal
generator, measure the field strength, etc. It's not even all that
expensive.. It could be something like $1000 to do a day's testing, and
in comparison to what URI has already paid for their patent applications
and K1DFT's salary, that's not a big deal. It might even be cheaper,
since there's a variety of programs for government facilities to provide
services and such to universities. If the range wasn't otherwise being
used, all the equipment and staff is sitting around anyway, so the
differential cost to run the tests is small.
In other words, to say that "the range performed tests and validated
claims" is probably not technically true. The range performed the
tests, and presumably provided a report of the data they collected. The
validation of claims is up to the person who writes the analytical
report who takes the test data (presumably with it's measurement
uncertainties identified) and shows that test data matches expected
values within experimental error.
Jim Lux
> "Jim Lux" <james...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:f5c143$j40$1...@nntp1.jpl.nasa.gov...
>
>>JIMMIE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they
>>>tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if
>>>they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was
>>>intentionally left out . Deception by ommission.
>>>
>>>If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made
>>>then he should provide all information to clarify the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>Jimmie
>>
>>Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology
>>business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title
>
>
> Dont think I metioned patents at any time.
True enough.. However, URI has filed for patents on this antenna. And,
there's lots of ways an inventor can use their invention for financial
gain, only some of which involve convincing folks that it's a good
invention.
On the other hand if you want
> someone to buy your new miracle whiz bang antenna you either let people know
> how great it is with data from a reliable source or you omit your data
> giving vague discriptions to pull in the suckers.
Perhaps the goal isn't to sell antennas in this case? Maybe it's to
burnish the reputation of a university? Maybe it's to establish a patent
portfolio in the burgeoning world of wireless communications, and just
hope somebody else with deep pockets (e.g. a cellphone mfr) comes up
with a practical idea that's close enough to what you patented.
I dont think an affidavit
> from the testing facility on measured field strength compared to a full size
> antenna who have endangered his product.
The test facility would normally provide a copy of the data to whoever
paid for the tests. The data package would include appropriate
certifications that the equipment was calibrated and to what standards.
It would also usually have a description of the test procedure used,
either explicitly, or by reference to some standard published procedure.
It's the buyer of the data that has the responsibility to make the
claims and comparisons. (or not... I've been involved in some
measurement campaigns where the data wasn't disclosed, for competitive
reasons.) In any event, the independent test facility would almost
never make any sort of "summarizing conclusions", except, perhaps for a
regulatory compliance test, where they'd say: The tested device (S/N
#001) met all requirements for XYZ, as demonstrated by the attached test
data and procedures. Note well the reference to a single test article.
All the lab can say is that "the thing we tested did this".. they won't
(and can't) make any assertions about the design or whether other
articles of the same design will perform the same, etc.
>
>
John Smith I
> [stuff]
I see!
So now, old Rob-boy has not only whamboozled a whole bunch of Phd's and
physics personnel at URI, he how as a "bunch" of hams from arrlri.org to
carve notches on his pistol grips for ... interesting, the only hams
able to see though his sham are here ... or else, the reverse is true!
As my buddy Arnie would say, "Enteresting, veeerrry enteresting ... "
JS
John Smith I
> [stuff]
A thought came to me when this all set the naysayers off, "Don't wait
for him/URI to come courting amateurs and attempting to sell 'em
antennas." The amount of profit to be had might not cover his dinner
and drinks ...
I'd imagine we need to search cell phones, wireless
routers/switches/etc., military, cell towers, gov't, etc. to find the
antennas--where profits are to be had ...
JS
J. Mc Laughlin
patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue).
Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing.
Can not hide.
73, Mac N8TT
--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home: J...@Power-Net.Net
"Jim Lux" <james...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
>
John Smith I
> [stuff]
Obviously, all he might have done is found a way to use existing
methods, techniques and knowledge to be able to change the loading and
radiation characteristics ...
However, that might just be enough to be usable. I have needed a
stealth antenna more times than I could shake a stick at. And, smaller
mobile antennas with improved characteristics are always desirable ...
It is easier to bend laws than to break 'em ...
JS
Michael Coslo
>
> I really don't think there is a market for antennas other than the IR
> antenna I went to a couple of ham fests last year and they closed
> early because of the lack of buyers.
Most Hamfests these days start too early and end too early. That has
been a trend for several years now.
It's short sighted though. If I want to go to say the Butler or Timonium
Hamfests, both around 2.5 hours from Happy Valley, I have to get up at
around 3 a.m. so I can be there when they open.
Now it's getting to the point that unless you're a local, going to a
Hamfest can be a great way to wreck your weekend. Sheer timing is the
big problem IMO. Not Ebay or the actuarial tables.
> I suppose ham radio reflects the
> veterans of WW2 where many of those who were doers are gradually dying off
> leaving former CBers in the majority.
I suppose that some of the Amateurs in that age group may believe such a
thing. I kind of doubt it is the actual case though.
gwatts
...
>
> Most Hamfests these days start too early and end too early. That has
> been a trend for several years now.
>
> It's short sighted though. If I want to go to say the Butler or Timonium
> Hamfests, both around 2.5 hours from Happy Valley, I have to get up at
> around 3 a.m. so I can be there when they open.
>
> Now it's getting to the point that unless you're a local, going to a
> Hamfest can be a great way to wreck your weekend. Sheer timing is the
> big problem IMO. Not Ebay or the actuarial tables.
I have to agree. I'm 4-6 hours from just about any hamfest I'd want to
attend so I have to leave around midnight or get a hotel room. Not
being in my 20's anymore it's a hotel room and that adds quite a bit of
overhead to what would be low hamfest prices, and faced with that I
usually put a search on ebay and wait for the email.
If they started at noon or even 10:00 it would be a whole different
story, I'd much prefer to buy at fests simply for the eyeball contacts.
- Galen, W8LNA
Michael Coslo
I really enjoy the hamfest at Dayton, where they start at 0800, and
sell all day. I think how this got started was that the sellers agitated
for earlier starts, and earlier begat earlier, until we ended up with
what we have now. One of our semi local fests starts at 0700 and is over
at noon.
Obviously not going to get the church crowd either.. 8^)
So I guess they got everything they wanted - and lost a lot of the
customers in the deal.
Jim Lux
> On 20 Jun, 13:02, Jim Lux <james.p....@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Glad you wrote that Jim. A lot of people have no real idea of how
> the patent idea is used in commerce or that the claims are the
> most important part so at to protect in the event of new
> advances in science.When competing for contracts it is
> important to protect your designs even tho trivial incase
> the contract is put out again.
>
> I do have a question tho
> and that is with respect to trade secrets/utility patents.
> If a person decides not to patent and the idea is later
> deciphered does that prevent a patent issued to either
> party?
Nope.. he who discovers first gets the potential ability to patent,
regardless of what you've done in the past. "first to discover vs first
to disclose". (US vs EU) If you've disclosed it, you have a year to get
the app filed (in the US.. everywhere else, you have to file before
first public disclosure) "disclosure" is kind of a tricky thing too.
That's why that evidence of date of invention (the classic bound
notebook with the signature on the page of someone who "read and
understood") is handy. That establishes "priority"
From a strategic point, it used to be (before the started publishing
apps) that you'd have a trade secret AND file an application. You'd mark
your thing "Patent Pending". You'd make little changes (possibly in
response to an examiner's questions, or possibly as a "Continuation in
Part" CIP) in the application to extend the time before the patent gets
granted and published. If someone looked like they had independently
discovered what your secret is (or they acquired it by espionage), you'd
let the application start running, and then you'd go to the competitor
and say, "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?" Then, negotiations for a license ensue.
This is all changing though, so don't take what I write as gospel.
With respect to submarines I thought the last
> changes to patent law now prevents this.
> Another posting stated that it is for the courts to determine
> if a patent was authentic yet I read that the courts have now
> stated that they are not in the game of overuling the
> patent office any more.
There is that, too...
However, you still have to go to court to enforce your patent. The
alleged infringer has to say why your patent is invalid or why they
don't infringe. This isn't cheap. If the infringer is an off-shore
mfr, then you might get a customs order to stop importation, but that's
like playing whack-a-mole, because each and every container load will
likely be from a (ostensibly)different infringer.
Jim Lux
> Submarine patents have gone away with a change in the maximum duration of a
> patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue).
> Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing.
> Can not hide.
> 73, Mac N8TT
>
Gone mostly away, I'd say...
There is an "art" in the writing of disclosures and claims that cause
the patent to not look applicable. I knew someone who patented
everything using the word "Catalyst" in the title, etc. There are
thousands and thousands of catalyst patents issued all the time, so
yours would be lost in the morass, and nobody has the time to read ALL
the patents.
Modern search engines help a lot to fight this.
There's also the fact that standards bodies are much better about making
participants in a standards setting process disclose their "patents in
waiting" so you don't get submarined by adopting a standard, only to
find the next year that it requires a license from some patent holder.
Ian Jackson
<mj...@psu.edu> writes
In the UK, amateur 'hamfests' and 'tailgate sales' used to be a fairly
leisurely affair, starting at a round 11am, and go on until 5 or even
6pm, allowing lots of time to wander around, meet your long-lost friends
etc (ie a 'good day out'). These days, opening time is often as early as
9am, with some dealers starting to pack up around noon. Ordinary
tailgate sales sometimes do start at early as 7am. Things ain't what
they used to be.
Ian.
--
Richard Clark
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.
John Smith I
> ...
> 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/images/bottomhelix.jpg
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com/images/Loading_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
Richard Clark
>On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> 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
>>
>>
>> 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
nm...@wt.net
>
> 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
Cecil Moore
> 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
John Smith I
> ...
> 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
herbe...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:09:04 -0700, art <aun...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >On 21 Jun, 20:36, John Smith I <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> 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
>
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 -
nm...@wt.net
> n...@wt.net 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
Jon Kåre Hellan
Abstract:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/8/28638/01282130.pdf
It's "Disk loaded monopole"
73
LA4RT Jon
John Smith I
> ...
> I've already done the experiments.. Going on nearly 20 years ago..
> I'm just telling what I see in the pix..
Yes, but then you didn't see what Mr. Vincent "seen", enough to get a
physics dept. of a university to back him, and mentioned by arrl! And,
gawd knows, arrl is a power to be recognised! <COUGH!>
But then, the naysayers have painted Mr. Vincent as a con man, indeed,
not just a "con man" but a "SUPER CON MAN!" The type of con man where
bankers lock their doors at his approach, men step before their wives in
protection, wives shade the eyes of their children, massive and powerful
men grasp their wallets tightly and expert con men run before him in
fear, envy and loathing! :-(
> ...
> But I think it's good that you are testing the idea..
> I wish some of the "inventers" would follow your lead..
> MK
>
Yes, well, what I am hoping is to the the armchair-amateurs to do
something constructive ... however, some are amusing ...
JS
Richard Clark
wrote:
You didn't read the patent either, did you? ;-)
I don't blame you. It is like reading the telephone book (aside from
the obvious sloppiness).
nm...@wt.net
> n...@wt.net wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > I've already done the experiments.. Going on nearly 20 years ago..
> > I'm just telling what I see in the pix..
>
> Yes, but then you didn't see what Mr. Vincent "seen", enough to get a
> physics dept. of a university to back him, and mentioned by arrl! And,
> gawd knows, arrl is a power to be recognised! <COUGH!>
Doesn't matter to me. I don't build my antennas for the ARRL. I build
them for me... I'm not even a member of the ARRL.. Never have been.
>
> But then, the naysayers have painted Mr. Vincent as a con man, indeed,
> not just a "con man" but a "SUPER CON MAN!" The type of con man where
> bankers lock their doors at his approach, men step before their wives in
> protection, wives shade the eyes of their children, massive and powerful
> men grasp their wallets tightly and expert con men run before him in
> fear, envy and loathing! :-(
I don't think he's a con man at all. But I don't think the information
he
provides give anyone enough info to make an accurate comparison.
Or at least from what I've seen.
There is nothing really "wrong" with his antenna. I just think there
are better ways to get what he is after, which seems to be mainly
improved current distribution. People have known how to improve
the current distribution for years.. Nothing new..
And it sure does not require multiple loading coils to accomplish.
His disks? Nothing more than small capacitive hats.. Nothing new
there.
I just don't see the hype, and in fact, I think his design would end
up
being inferior to what I would cook up for the same height mast and
stinger. Cecil seems to agree with me, so if you don't believe me,
maybe his word will mean a little more to you.
The *best* way to load a short vertical is with a large enough
capacity
hat to load the antenna with *no* loading coil needed.
And that is what your's truly would build if I had to have a contest
against his using the same height whip.
And the current distribution in such a case is pretty linear
across the whole whip. You ain't gonna beat that with a
bunch of multiple coils, disks, linear loading, etc, ad nausium..
But if you want to try, be my guest..
MK
nm...@wt.net
> The *best* way to load a short vertical is with a large enough
> capacity
> hat to load the antenna with *no* loading coil needed.
> And that is what your's truly would build if I had to have a contest
> against his using the same height whip.
BTW, I realize if the antennas were for a low freq, I might
have to use a coil in order to avoid a hat that was just too
big to handle, but still, I would concentrate as much capacitive
loading at the top as I could, and use the minimum inductor
value to match the antenna. If we both have to use coil loading,
mine should win. The current distribution will be more linear
on mine. And in a case using a large hat, it really doesn't
matter where the coil is. The current distribution will still
be fairly linear as long as the hat is big enough.
That would be about the only case where I might consider
a base loading coil to reduce coil windings.
MK
John Smith I
> [stuff]
Yes, it is duly noted that you would repeat what has been done before ...
However, we ALL know where that gets one, don't we?
Regards,
JS
nm...@wt.net
I think it would give me the better antenna in this case.
I doubt he would want me at one of his seminars..
I'd be one of those hecklers that he has nightmares
about late at night. But in my case, I would whip out
my antenna and whoop him right there on the spot if he
was brave enough to compare.
I repeat what is proven to be best.
I've already tried all his methods,
and proven them inferior by testing.
I'll back up my jibber jabber with real working antennas.
Would be simple to set up too.. All I need is a
standing mast like yours, and a few wires to
string out a large top hat.
I wonder what his alphabet soup would buy him if he
lost... :/
MK
John Smith I
> [stuff]
In countless physics labs, around the world, students complete
experiments done countless times before--and this is good ... it is
hoped, one day, they go on to complete experiments never done before, or
even ones not done properly, or those were important data was missed ...
That is simply all I point out ... an open mind never knows for certain.
Regards,
JS
John Smith I
> [stuff]
Actually, I don't think I explained that well--for want of a better
explanation ...
Take the Michelson–Morley experiment. They were attempting to find the
equivalent of how the doppler effect affects sound in air. However, if
the way matter affects ether is similar to the way air affects sound,
the earth and its' atmosphere would be a less than optimal test bed.
Indeed, if you take the horn from a train and place it in a long train,
you would loose the effect, the skin of the train
deflects/slows/distorts/whatever the air which causes the effect.
Now, if someone where to reconstruct the Michelson–Morley experiment
from the nose of a space shuttle (no matter intervening or massive
matter in close proximity), to mirrors traveling at the same speed and
in the same trajectory of the shuttle, perhaps a quite different
conclusion would be reached. Especially, if the matter of air and
proximity to earth is masking anything enough to throw off the experiment.
I know unexpected results were obtained when a long tether was let out
behind the shuttle, and never explained to my satisfaction.
Perhaps that is a somewhat better way to express what I attempted in the
post this one responds too ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith I
> [stuff]
Well, it is good to remember, the boys in R&D (the ones who come up with
the new stuff) get paid just as much to find out what doesn't work, as
the do to find the stuff which does ...
It is the ratio of the two which determines if they keep their jobs or
not ... well, unless they work for gov't ...
Regards,
JS
Mike Coslo
news:AFILDVG0...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk:
> In the UK, amateur 'hamfests' and 'tailgate sales' used to be a fairly
> leisurely affair, starting at a round 11am, and go on until 5 or even
> 6pm, allowing lots of time to wander around, meet your long-lost friends
> etc (ie a 'good day out'). These days, opening time is often as early as
> 9am, with some dealers starting to pack up around noon. Ordinary
> tailgate sales sometimes do start at early as 7am. Things ain't what
> they used to be.
Yoiks! If they only started at 9 a.m. here...
Just possibly, there is a glimmer of hope. I have noticed that in the past
year a lot of the computer junk has gone away - do we really need that
Pentium 1 computer? (hint, the answer is no)
Perhaps this will return the hamfests to hams, and we can enjoy chatting
and socializing again, as well as selling our own "junk"
nm...@wt.net
> On 22 Jun, 17:21, John Smith I <assemblywiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope.. But I've tried nearly every perversion of a short vertical
you can conjer up.. I bet a lot more than you have.
I tried the methods that guy is using a long time ago.
Do you think I should ignore all results of the tests I do?
If his methods were best, don't you think I would have one
mobile?
>He has also read the WWW
> from beginning to the end,
Not yet, but I have road runner cable now.
I'm working on it at a bit faster clip now...
>nothing new he has done it all.
I haven't molested Paris Hilton yet...
But, actually, she's really not my type..
I don't really like whiny bitchettes...
>I would
> imagine that the antenna company that he designed antennas for
> gave up and went bankrupt when he said he was going to retire.
And what company might that be?
> I would imagine that is why the space ship landed today in
> California no point in taking risks now that he has left.
If that's what you imagine, then you are fairly clueless.
> IEEE is looking for an experienced antenna designer with
> extensive knoweledge of all types of antennas with extensive
> experience in determining worthwhile projects and be able to
> smell those that would fool others.
I already have a job.. But maybe I could consult for them
part time. I can usually smell male bovine droppings from a fairly
good distance.
> Must be able to provide
> evidence of achievements that have benefited the advance of science.
I'll show mine, if you show yours...
> Experience in winding coils accepted as well as evidence of
> climbing towers to replace light bulbs.
I can wind a coil, but I've never climbed a tower to change a
light bulb. I would like to try it, but access to the local antenna
farm is fairly restricted. Mainly due to liability, insurance
purposes. BTW, I'm not an aggie... Does that give me extra
light bulb changer status?
>Must be a EE with a
> Masters from an accredited college
I'll get mine when you get yours...
>with a history of writing
> papers on the science of antennas as well as able to judge
> antenna designs presented to the IEEE.
Sounds like a boring job.. I've decided I'll pass..
I'd rather fly a Southwest 737 than do something
as sleep inducing as that.
>Trench diggers for
> cable installations need not apply.
I've never worked for the cable company, but
like I say, I do have road runner cable now.
But our system is fiber optic, overhead lines,
etc.. No trenches around here.
But playing in the dirt does kind of appeal to me.
> Maybe he will not be around to long as he is evidently
> better than sliced bread in all the sciences.
If I'm not around *too* long, it's probably cuz I puff too
many cig's and drink about 22 cups of coffee a day..
You can see me hard at work here...
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/nm5k.jpg
> I imagine that he made more money on the stock market
> than the average broker
You really wonder about stuff like that?
You must really be bored...
If I were your doktor, I would recommend two prozac,
and call me monday morning, at which time I'll consider
a lobotomy if you haven't improved by then.
MK
John Smith I
> ...
Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
(both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)
This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...
However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...
Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...
Regards,
JS
Jimmie D
<nm...@wt.net> wrote in message
news:1182555642.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I thought the base coil would be for impedance matching, maybe he is tapping
up on the coil to find a 50 ohm point.
John Smith I
> ...
> I thought the base coil would be for impedance matching, maybe he is tapping
> up on the coil to find a 50 ohm point.
That is exactly the way I interpreted his description/pics; and, it's
exactly the way I implemented it (a modified gamma match--implemented in
helix form?) The wire-length/inductance is a 1:1.4 ratio between bottom
helix and upper loading coil--with the 1.4 of the length in the upper
loading coil. An adjustable 20" length of conductor is used between
lower and upper coils. Top whip is a 20" length also. (10 meter design)
From what I estimate, it ended up using, VERY CLOSE! TO, a computed
half-wavelength of wire at 28.050! And, I mean within' 1-3 inches! I
honestly did not expect that ...
Tap ended up almost dead center in the bottom helix turns for a 50 ohm
match; a variable capacitor is in series with this tap point on the
bottom helix and used to tune out the inductance of the tap wire.
I kludged a var/cap together using two small sheets of light aluminum.
These sheets are rolled into tubes and made so one is a smaller dia and
slips very loosely into the one of a larger dia. I then cut some clear
plastic from a drink container, rolled it and use it as the dielectric
(withstands the 1-100 watts test signal) between the inner/outer tubes.
This makes a serviceable/usable var. concentric cap. Inner tube is
roughly the dia of a bic pen (~1/4 inch.)
#8 copper is used, except for the upper loading coil which is #10 copper.
Try one; prove me wrong; I dare ya!
Regards,
JS
nm...@wt.net
> n...@wt.net wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
> (both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
> to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
> optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)
I assume you mean winding a 1/2 wave winding on a short stick.
I could see that maybe beating a 1/4 wave if the ground system was
not the greatest..
But I don't really see it happening over a good ground, where
the 1/4 wave isn't really stunted.
It's quite possible for for a 1/4 wave whip on a bumper, to
lose to a loaded whip half it's size, if mounted on the roof.
So on a car/truck, the location can make a big difference..
CB'ers have run those things for years under various names.
I can see cases with lousy grounds where a 1/2 wave, even
short might be worth a try. But I once did a comparion with my
standard "1/4 wave tuned" mobile on 15m, vs using my 40 meter
setup on 15m as a "extended winding" psuedo 5/8 wound whip.
The normal 1/4 wave setup was the best.
>
> This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
> which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...
Ground, or lack of it could account for it. Same mount location, etc?
Bumper, trunk, or roof?
A mobile is not the best place to test vertical antennas.
Too quirky...The car is half the antenna.
Sure, you can see which one works best, but it's not a
very good test platform in general. I'd rather test over a
specified quantity of radials, if ground mounted.
Ditto for elevated, the only difference being the number
required drops as you increase height.
>
> However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
> present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
> even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...
I don't know what navy data you are talkng about.
>
> Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
> their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...
I don't know what you mean by "test jig".. What you have as far as
a "test" antenna, or having a location with a specified ground
quality?
MK
John Smith I
> ...
The damn thing is nothing short of amazing. The best I have done before
this was a 1/2 wave electrical length, helical wound to a 1/4 physical
length using a modified gamma feed of my own design--this beats it.
I am just disappointed that the patent system allows a rearrangement of
already and quite commonly known/implemented designs/methods/practices
to be patented; as far as I am concerned, all this should be considered
to be in the public domain ... but, this will little affect amateurs,
the antenna itself is just too easy to construct--I am working on a dual
band 20/10m version now.
Also, I am now playing with an electrical 1/4 wave in a 2'+ physical
implementation ...
I have already presented enough details of the 1/2 wave version that
anyone can repeat my experiment(s) ... I do not wish to keep doing that
... I get nothing out of it, others need to make mistakes, have success,
or just try their wildest imagination upon this project--this way we all
learn.
Frankly, I think the high performance standard of mobile antennas has
just changed when small size and stealth are of importance ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith I
> ...
Anyway, in a relatively short period of time I should have expended all
my energy and ideas and know this antenna inside out--probably just a
couple of months or so ...
This time I am chucking all "laws" and just experimenting, I will
especially be trying things which "don't work!, and run contrary to
"accepted practices."
Regards,
JS