[Antennas] Interesting article written by a ham

[Daniel Boyer]

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
>