Open source patent being used to create novel type of telescope ARRAY.
Jon Abel
I am building and testing a concentrating, condensed, resonant array of Loop Antennas - based on patent 512,340. However, the entire array only has to be wrapped with 2 adjacent wires (30 AWG in my case). According to the patent - one wire acts as a capacitive barrier between the other wires - each with it’s own wirelength & LC resonant frequency - and so you end up (apparently) with an easy-to-wrap array of loop antennas that are shaped like a cone. I am considering a perforated Grade 1 Titanium sheet bent into a cone - but 304 SS is cheaper - then covering it with beeswax, and then wrapping my 2 wires on it. All collected frequencies along the array have a shared point of phase termination at the Apex of the cone. This happens when the slant height & circumference (at any given height are equal) - which occurs at a constant base angle of 80.842 degrees. Therefore, the apex is apparently the best place to put a near field sensor attached to an LNA & SDR.
I will be using this antenna to test a theory that galaxies occur at pinch zones & armatures extend across EROSITA bubbles - and may actually be 2 plasma conduits that are 180 degrees out of phase and wrapped in a 3D helical configuration.
Marcus D. Leech
vantage point, it's looking a bit like word salad.
Alex P
Jon Abel
Patent 512,340 isn’t just “a cone antenna” — it’s about recursive geometry that can be scaled into arrays of loop elements. In my implementation, I’m not building one cone, I’m building an array of loop antennas arranged around a conical geometry.
Here’s how it works:
-
The loops are positioned so that the base circumference of the cone equals the slant height. That geometrical rule fixes the base angle at ≈80.842°, no matter the size of the array.
-
Each loop is resonant at a distinct frequency, and because of the recursive layering implied by the patent, you end up with multiple nested resonances, not just one.
-
The geometry naturally brings phase-similar terminations together at the apex. That means instead of collecting signal incoherently, the array performs a built-in spatial and phase collation before the data even reaches the receiver.
For the backend, I’m using an Ettus-clone SDR (HamGeek B220 mini) to collate the I/Q data across the whole set of resonant frequencies defined by the loops. In practice, that means the SDR isn’t just listening to “one cone antenna” — it’s digesting a fractal spectrum of signals unified by the recursive geometry.
So the design isn’t a novelty cone. It’s a recursive array antenna that leverages both geometry and resonance to handle signals in a way that flat, linear arrays can’t.
Jon Abel
Expansion on Cosmic-Web Geometry
The same recursive geometry that underpins patent 512,340 and my conical loop array can also be seen on the cosmic scale. What we usually label “cosmic web filaments” aren’t just straight plasma tubes — they appear to be pairs of interleaved, phase-opposed conduits.
-
Two filaments, 180° out of phase: Think of them as counter-wound helices. Instead of lying flat, the filaments traverse space as 3D interleaved coils, wrapping around each other.
-
Bulbous periodicity: Along each helix, the plasma doesn’t flow smoothly — it naturally forms bulbous regions (plasmoid-like expansions) separated by pinch points where the filaments squeeze inward.
-
Galaxy bulges at pinches: Those pinch points are where energy density and charge separation spike. That’s where galactic bulges and cores are likely to form, right at the narrowings. The “arms” we see are then just quarter-wavelength segments of these bulbous helices extending around the bulge.
-
3D helix, not flat plane: Standard astrophysical renderings flatten galactic arms into spirals, but if you view the filament as a bulbous helix winding in 3D space, the armatures climb and wrap rather than lying flat. This is why many galaxy morphologies look inconsistent in projection — we’re missing the depth dimension of the filament scaffold.
In other words: galaxy placement and morphology are dictated by the periodic geometry of interleaved plasma helices, not random density fluctuations. The recursive, self-similar structure seen in antennas scales upward into cosmology.
kb3puw
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.
To post to this group, send email to sara...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sara-list-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sara-list?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sara-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sara-list/dfc9e503-8233-45d0-bf11-b5ed51180730n%40googlegroups.com.
Marko Cebokli
Bringing up Nikola Tesla in such contexts triggers my skepticism instantly.
Despite the fact that lawyers later got him a radio patent, he never really had anything to do with radio. All his wireless experiments were done in the near field (NFC!), not propagating radiated field. So he is not really an authority in things like antennas - extremely doubtful that you could make a good antenna based on his patents.
Marko Cebokli
2025-09-05 18:46, je kb3puw napisal
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sara-list/CAB-X21Pjyo1zUodf-R5LoodGtLh-yi_u9kFp8woP-XzW%2BikrQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Jon Abel
I have not tested it yet, however, you can stick my idea into A.I. and get fairly educated deductions & answers from it - especially if you tell it to assume the diagram in patent 512,340 is a top-down view of a cone - and ask how it can be used to make an ladder of loop antennas along a cone shaped template with 2 interleaved wires.
Patent 512,340 doesn’t describe a single “conical loop,” but a recursive array of loop elements - potentially arranged on a cone. I chose a geometry constrained so that the base circumference equals the slant height. That sets a constant angle (~80.842°) for every scale of the array.
Because each loop has a different diameter, each one is naturally resonant at a different frequency. The result isn’t just a “wider bandwidth cone,” but rather a multi-resonant array. Instead of one loop with a broad bandwidth, you have many loops with distinct resonances that can be collated in SDR space. I’m using an Ettus-clone SDR to capture and process the I/Q data across those multiple frequencies.
So in short: if bandwidth appears wide, it’s not from a single loop’s geometry but from the superposition of many resonant loops in recursive conical arrangement.
Jon Abel
Marko, I hear your skepticism, but I think that position oversimplifies Tesla’s contributions. Yes — many of his wireless experiments were in the near field, but dismissing him as “having nothing to do with antennas” isn’t accurate.
The fact remains that Tesla’s patents — including 512,340 — are not folklore, they are formal technical filings that describe explicit geometries. Those geometries can be implemented, tested, and measured, regardless of how you interpret his later experiments or intentions.
What I’m working with here is not “Tesla-worship,” it’s applying the recursive geometry he documented: an array of loop elements arranged on a cone & I saw the need to set the slant height = circumference. That structure naturally creates multiple resonant frequencies and phase-similar terminations at the apex.
Whether Tesla himself intended it as a “radio antenna” in the modern sense isn’t the point — what matters is that the geometry is buildable and has clear implications for multi-resonant array design. My SDR experiments (using an Ettus-clone) are about testing that, not retelling Tesla’s biography.
So I’d suggest we treat the patent as what it is — a technical description — and evaluate it on measurable performance, not on whether Tesla fits into today’s antenna orthodoxy.
Dave Typinski
What's recursive or fractal about it?
--
Dave
On 9/5/25 15:34, Jon Abel wrote:
> I have not tested it yet, however, you can stick my idea into A.I. and get
> fairly educated deductions & answers from it - especially if you tell it to
> assume the diagram in patent 512,340 is a top-down view of a cone - and ask how
> it can be used to make an ladder of loop antennas along a cone shaped template
> with 2 interleaved wires.
>
> array of loop elements - * potentially arranged on a cone. I chose a geometry
> constrained so that the /base circumference equals the slant height/. That sets
>
> Because each loop has a different diameter, each one is naturally resonant at a
> different frequency. The result isn’t just a “wider bandwidth cone,” but rather
> *many loops with distinct resonances* that can be collated in SDR space. I’m
> multiple frequencies.
>
> So in short: if bandwidth appears wide, it’s not from a single loop’s geometry
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 5, 2025 at 11:46:55 AM UTC-5 kb3puw wrote:
>
> Fascinating discussion. To take this in a bit of a different direction,
> would a conical loop result in a detector with a wider bandwidth as a
> consequence of varying loop diameter?
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 11:09 AM Jon Abel <joabe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The same recursive geometry that underpins patent *512,340* and my
> conical loop array can also be seen on the *cosmic scale*. What we
>
> *
>
> *Two filaments, 180° out of phase*: Think of them as /counter-wound
> helices/. Instead of lying flat, the filaments traverse space as *3D
> interleaved coils*, wrapping around each other.
>
> *
>
> *Bulbous periodicity*: Along each helix, the plasma doesn’t flow
> smoothly — it naturally forms *bulbous regions* (plasmoid-like
> expansions) separated by *pinch points* where the filaments squeeze
> inward.
>
> *
>
> *Galaxy bulges at pinches*: Those pinch points are where energy
> density and charge separation spike. That’s where *galactic bulges
> and cores* are likely to form, right at the narrowings. The “arms”
> we see are then just *quarter-wavelength segments* of these bulbous
>
>
> *3D helix, not flat plane*: Standard astrophysical renderings
> inconsistent in projection — we’re missing the depth dimension of
> the filament scaffold.
>
> periodic geometry of interleaved plasma helices*, not random density
> scales upward into cosmology.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sara...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sara-list-...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sara-list?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to sara-list+...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sara-list/dfc9e503-8233-45d0-bf11-b5ed51180730n%40googlegroups.com
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sara...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sara-list-...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sara-list?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
> to sara-list+...@googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sara-list/29350e68-3555-420e-a86b-6eb598c34dd8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Jon Abel
Good questions. A conical log spiral is certainly a proven design, but there are a couple of key differences in what I’m exploring:
-
Orientation of the horn – In most log spirals, the cone flares downward (toward the ground), which is fine for some use cases but limits interaction with the sky hemisphere. My geometry is essentially flipped — the cone apex is pointed toward the ground — so the aperture is facing the signal environment I actually want to interact with (the sky).
-
Element spacing – Log spirals typically use relatively wide spacing between turns. In contrast, the geometry I’m working from (based on Tesla’s 512,340 patent) puts the adjacent loop elements tightly together. That produces stronger mutual coupling, more uniform phase addition, and potentially different resonance stacking. The 2 interleaved wires (when in series) creates a capactive barrier between each wrap, causing more distinct seperations in the wirelength and LC resonances.
-
Recursive / fractal aspect – The “recursive” part comes from how the structure scales. Each loop in the array maintains a proportion that matches the cone’s slant height, so the same angular relationship repeats at every scale of the winding. That self-similar scaling is what gives it a fractal-like quality. Instead of a smooth spiral, it’s a discrete cascade of loops that geometrically repeat the same ratio. Therefore, if you have used 3400 wraps of 30 AWG wire to wrap a 1 meter long cone - then it potentially will act like an array of 1700 different-sized loop antennas - each with it's own LC & wirelength resonant behavior.
So in short, the main advantage is not “better in every case,” but a different resonance and phase geometry than the conventional conical log spiral. Whether that translates into broader bandwidth or improved gain in practice is exactly what I’m aiming to measure with the SDR setup. A.I. is fairly good at assisting the writing of python code for my SDR.