[Antennas] Interesting article written by a ham

Sat Jun 12 22:49:22 EDT 2004

Unfortunately, the original news release of this
"technology" was devoid of details and as a result many have
been guessing as to what it really is. Until we get an
accurate description of what this "new" technology is, none
of the criticism OR defense of this "technology" is really
warranted. Let's wait until the author reveals it. If he
has accomplished what many antenna design professionals in
the past 75 years have failed to accomplish, I will be the
first to congratulate him! If it is yet another smoke and
mirrors antenna claim....well, it appears that he had an
excellent PR agent.
The claims are nothing less than fantastic! I am looking
forword to the objective evidence proving them. It would be
a new era in antenna design if they are true!
73,
Chuck...K1KW
----- 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 10:02 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