[Antennas] Interesting article written by a ham

Sat Jun 12 22:29:28 EDT 2004

Excellent rant, Daniel, and well deserved I suppose.
However, regardless of the physics, politics, awards, or whatever, NOTHING
in this world is 100 % efficient compared to ANYTHING.
If the author meant "as efficient as" whatever, then he should have stated
it that way. No knowledgeable scientist or engineer would be guilty of ever
making a statement that something or anything is 100% efficient.
Closely related to perpetual motion . . .
End of my little rant - partly tongue in cheek! [g]
73, George W5YR
Fairview, TX
w5yr at att.net
http://www.w5yr.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Boyer" <dpboyer at wisc.edu>
To: "'Harvey&Bessie'" <w4tg at bellsouth.net>; "'George, W5YR'" <w5yr at att.net>
Cc: "'Terry Conboy'" <n6ry at arrl.net>; "'Antenna Reflector'"
<antennas at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 9:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Antennas] Interesting article written by a ham
> I'm sorry but I get annoyed when people read the words that they want
> from a article instead of the words that were written... The author
> does not state a 100 percent efficiency, but rather "80 to 100 percent
> efficiency as COMPARED to the larger antennas" (emphasis is mine) which
> is still impressive but not unrealistic. Also it states that when "His
> first attempt", which "was only a small model and not designed to handle
> much power", melted it was the "part of the antenna that failed proved
> to be the key to the design". The conclusion drawn from the nature of
> the failure was that "he was able to transform a lot of current along
> the antenna with even relatively low power."
> Now I personally understand very little of physics behind antennas (I'm
> a biologist not a physicist), so I don't know if his statement that "The
> larger the current the more radiation and the better the output of the
> antenna" is true or not, but give that he was "recently presented the
> 2004 Outstanding Intellectual Property Award by URI's Research Office"
> tells me that at least some of the people "in the know" think that his
> theory/product is sound.
>> Okay end of my little rant,
> Daniel/KC9DAG
>> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: antennas-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> > [mailto:antennas-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Harvey&Bessie
> > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:58 AM
> > To: George, W5YR
> > Cc: Terry Conboy; Antenna Reflector
> > Subject: Re: [Antennas] Interesting article written by a ham
> >
> >
> > I also began to question the claim of "high" efficiency when
> > I read that the experimental
> > model burned up with only 100 watts input!
> > Harvey/W4TG
> >
> > - - -
> >
> > Your moderator for this list is:
> > Larry Wilson KE1HZ antennas-owner at mailman.qth.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Antennas mailing list
> > Antennas at mailman.qth.net
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antenn> as
> >
>> - - -
>> Your moderator for this list is:
> Larry Wilson KE1HZ antennas-owner at mailman.qth.net
> _______________________________________________
> Antennas mailing list
> Antennas at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/antennas