W5GI Antenna?

[N5RWJ]

Has anyone use the W5GI antenna,do you have comments about it?

[K4SAV]

http://vk1od.net/antenna/W5GI/

[N8WWM]

Wonder what W5GI has to say about the analysis and about the patent discrepancy...hmmm????

[WB2WIK]

Wonder what W5GI has to say about the analysis and about the patent discrepancy...hmmm????

A bit late for him to say anything...

[KA7NIQ]

Has anyone use the W5GI antenna,do you have comments about it?

It's a "Mystery Antenna" LOL
It is a mystery why otherwise intelligent Ham Radio Operators believe the bull#### that the W5GI antenna "can't be computer modeled" and /or "confounds antenna experts"
Here is the W5GI Antenna Thread

Well guess what, we have real live antenna experts (not me) who post here on QRZ. I once asked one of the antenna guru's here if he was "confounded" by the W5GI Mystery Antenna.
This Antenna Elmer said he was "confounded" by the W5GI Antenna, confounded why any Ham would want one.

[KB9MZ]

If a antenna expert says he is confounded by the gain claims of this antenna then it is the expert
who is a fraud. Whenever any antenna departs from omni radiation it then develops nulls which is seen by the radiation of a dipole since radiation taken from nulls adds gain to areas untroubled by nulls. If a dipole is extended then the process repeats itself by providing more nulls where the radiation is added to the remaining beams.
Of course experts are aware of this but do not add or are unaware that the remaining beam gains are created by a corresponding narrowing of beam width. If the expert is not aware of this fact then he himself is a fraud.
It is obviously natural if a communicating ham resides in the beam width area of a higher gain lobe his comments with respect to the antenna,s claims are obviously true. Obviously Tom in his off the cuff testing, did not have a contact where the narrow beam included another ham to correctly compare with a dipole being a standard as it also has developed nulls! If you cannot personally understand an experts teachings then one should seek another expert and that also is relevant to education pupils instead of just following in the pied pipers foot prints.
Art

[KA7NIQ]

If a antenna expert says he is confounded by the gain claims of this antenna then it is the expert
who is a fraud. Whenever any antenna departs from omni radiation it then develops nulls which is seen by the radiation of a dipole since radiation taken from nulls adds gain to areas untroubled by nulls. If a dipole is extended then the process repeats itself by providing more nulls where the radiation is added to the remaining beams.
Of course experts are aware of this but do not add or are unaware that the remaining beam gains are created by a corresponding narrowing of beam width. If the expert is not aware of this fact then he himself is a fraud.
It is obviously natural if a communicating ham resides in the beam width area of a higher gain lobe his comments with respect to the antenna,s claims are obviously true. Obviously Tom in his off the cuff testing, did not have a contact where the narrow beam included another ham to correctly compare with a dipole being a standard as it also has developed nulls! If you cannot personally understand an experts teachings then one should seek another expert and that also is relevant to education pupils instead of just following in the pied pipers foot prints.
Art

Hello Art, are you talking about Tom Rausch here, W8JI ?
W5GI is a silent key, his name was John.
So WHAT Tom are you talking about ?

And if you are asking if I would follow Tom Rausch W8JI like a "pied piper", the answer is Yes.
I greatly respect the opinions of Tom Rausch, W8JI, as well as the opinions of Hex Beam Steve , VK1OD, Cecil, Wb2WIK, Joe Riesert, Roy Lewallen, and all the other antenna elmers here at QRZ nice enough to help out fellow Hams.
Forgive me if I omitted anyone.

I have read Lew McCoy, Doug DeMaw, Dean Straw, and W4RNL Art.
Jim Lawson, Bill Orr, and James Lee.
Never read Maxwell, I admit it.

I don't know what to think of you Art, to be honest. Your ideas and opinions differ greatly from those who I consider to be the Antenna Guru's here at QRZ.

Art, here is the deal. VK1OD, W8JI, Cecil, W4RNL and other Antenna Elmers all HAVE websites, and their opinions and observations are laid out, for all to see, and question.
You, have nothing.
You sit back and take cheap shots at them, and have no apparent scientific measurements to back up your claims.
You call Hams who follow the rational scientific advice of the QRZ Elmers "Pied Pipers", almost as if you are jealous of anyone listening to any advice, other then yours.

If you want respect as an Antenna Elmer here at QRZ, earn that respect.

[KB9MZ]

I fully understand your reasoning as hams as a group are like physisists who take isue on past accepted understandings of people on whose shoulders they stand on. Hams like others rely on past understandings
of classical physics that have generated so many areas of misinterpretation of past interpretations of past
theories which then progress more and more unfounded assertations. Even now science organizations fight to the last to avoid change or corrections as seen by the light versus particle by noted theorists.
Thru out all time including the present contradictions are being disregarded despite evidence presented.
Einstein was proved in error so many times but all reject the findings at Cern.Since the teachers of science
are faced with allegance to the past or face expulsion it is very obvious that the books they write are those wedded in opposition to change. Personally I recognise many arears on the teachings in antenna sciences because of my my own personal investigation and observances where others in the main stand by and do nothing. Ofcourse it will take time to see if I am right or wrong in my own teachings and understandings with respect to Classical physics but what I do is being faithfull to myself. The day I put things in writing is the day I will be maligned except the people who are willing to be open minded and except the consequences of change.
In the mean time I must accept the difference between a mad man and an engineer as being wisker thin, such that uneducated people are unable to discern the difference until a personal observance provides the desire or greed to change.
As far as Maxwell's claim to fame, are you aware that he changed or altered a law of Laplace and thus provide closure on his own work? To this day that dishonesty survives as a credible needed change for the advancement of science. No man is perfect, even those who feel all is known about radiation and antennas and thus reject change. As for Tom he strictly adheres with the written word on science without question and is very knowledgable about modern Classical physics, where as, I am open minded with respect to accepted errors
which I deem as false thus making me true to myself.
Best regards
Art
One can never work as an engineer where his education provides the expectation of success, where as a physics person may well become deceased before the truth becomes evident. I to am well read with respect to antennas but if I have difficulty with acceptance of what I read I experiment to try and find a explanation of my own personal observations which I can agree with. Bear in mind that success is obtained only by learning of your own failings and of those with shoulders that you stand upon.
Best regards
Art

[K1DNR]

Did anyone actually read the article http://vk1od.net/antenna/W5GI/

[KA7NIQ]

Did anyone actually read the article http://vk1od.net/antenna/W5GI/

Yes, I read Owens article Charlie.