To: Denver Ditdat
Is this article intentionally vague on the details of the technology or is it just me? Other then "distributed load monopole" there isn't much beef there. Would be interesting to see the patent application.
16 posted on
06/08/2004 8:28:50 PM PDT by
steve86
To: BearWash
I agree, the details are pretty sketchy at best. I'd like to check out the patent app, too, and cobble together my own version of the antenna to see how it performs.
19 posted on
06/08/2004 8:56:21 PM PDT by
Denver Ditdat
(Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2004, RIP.)
To: BearWash
Yes it is vague.
On top of that you don't "test" an antenna by seeing "how far it will go". You make field strength measurements relative to and/or with a reference antenna under controlled conditions.
Very odd article.
I hope it's true.
22 posted on
06/08/2004 9:13:00 PM PDT by
DB
(©)
To: BearWash; Denver Ditdat; Bear_in_RoseBear; Wneighbor; Professional Engineer; Ramius; ...
"Is this article intentionally vague on the details of the technology or is it just me? Other then "distributed load monopole" there isn't much beef there..." N8BSG here...
Sounds to me like a loop antenna, where the height of the stack of windings of the loop would be 18 inches, for instance.
To: Vic3O3
Hey check this out!
Semper Fi and 73's
33 posted on
06/09/2004 6:48:48 AM PDT by
dd5339
("We came to change a nation, instead we changed the world" President Reagan.)
To: BearWash
Is this article intentionally vague on the details of the technology Yes, antenna design is a black art.
37 posted on
06/09/2004 10:08:10 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(Theorems link concepts; proofs establish links)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson