The j-pole antenna is fixed...

Id start by searching the archives of QST, QEX, HRM, CQ, 73, and maybe others by going thru their yearly indexes in the December issues.

 

I want one!

 

The biggest problem I see is the amount of gain for the length. If I am interpreting this correctly, this has the gain of a HW dipole, which at 2M would be around 38". But this antenna is double that in length, so it takes 76" to achieve 0dBd of gain (if I am reading this right). As a comparison, a 5/8 wave antenna is about 48" tall, and has 4 QW radials. But it has some gain over a HW dipole.

The advantage to this antenna is that it is directly mounted to the mast, and doesn't extend out a QW for the radials, which could be some advantage.

 

Yes that and in practice a mast can be turned into this antenna topology yielding a well grounded antenna that protects, via a near direct short, the feed.

However, yeah a sturdy lower gain antenna has limited applications. It's likely better than a mere laboratory curiosity, but not by much.

 

So you will not be able to build one without first apply for a permit and fileing an environmental impact report.

 

Carl,

These types of comments infuriate inventors. Here's why:

The patent captures the novelty of the invention. This is manifest SOLELY in the --claims--with the support of the specification, and so on.

When you make a comment like this, the implication is that the inventor failed to cite the prior art and/or the invention is potentially rendered erased by 'obvious to anyone skilled in the art'. IOW , no invention.

Claim 1 claims the novelty of the antenna, whereas the later claims capture a method.

A bit of history as analogy...many know the now famous story of roughly 30 years ago when I asked my dean to let me use a closet to store my antenna stuff at BU, IOW use BU facilities to do fractal antenna development. He derided me and declined because he asserted that he had built a 'fractal antenna' years before when he replaced a broken car antenna with a bent coat hanger. This was the start of my delusionment with academia, and specifically, loss of BU to any fractal antenna patent rights. Most importantly, his incorrect assertion slowed down the development of the technology. 'Development' happened on a changing table and in the furnace area of my basement . BTW, I suspect this loss of patent rights was a contributing factor to his loss of position later on. Fifteen years later , with a company established, I saw him walking up the street and entering a substance and alcohol abuse facility. Perhaps he was only asking for directions, but I doubt it. I personally suspect his judgement had been impaired for quite a while, and that I was victim of same.

Comments have consequences. Let's use good judgement in making them.

John cleverly and appropriately made a public statement asking you to cite the published article(s). That's because he has ALREADY done his diligence (go read the text of the patent) and found nothing that amounts to prior art that 'prevents' the novelty of the invention.

IF there is bona fide pertinent prior art, then John has to notify the patent office with an IDS,and the patent is reviewed--again. Not pretty,very frustrating.

IOW, throw-away comments about obviouslness or 'done before' really need to be carefully vetted and documented by others before they are asserted. It, otherwise, is an injustice to the inventor.

John has done a nice piece of work and I am glad he shared that with us.

73
Chip W1YW

 

USG is the assignee. John is the inventor.

 

I did dig deep for prior art, my IDS is pages long (unusual for patent applications), but there's always that one unturned leaf out there somewhere. I agree with Carl, there's nothing new about the particular mast decoupling stub concept to be sure, we've seen them used to detune towers near AM broadcast stations, but appears to be something new in concert with the traditional J.

 

I , for one person will applaud your statements . I totally agree with you about comments have consequences . KX4O has spent a lot of time working this out . Good on him. Keep going . DO NOT let detractors give him any doubts , they are not smart enough to do this . I really hope he keeps going .
AE7XG

 

Always good to see some antenna creativity out there
G3SEA/KH6

 

I appreciate YOUR comments John and all Im saying is that the J Pole application has already been published in some form that I dont remember the details. So dont be surprised to hear from others.
I have no interest in the subject patent and only posted to help and listed possible sources for others to peruse.
Dont shoot the messenger

Detuning of ham towers when using them as supports for other antennas such as 80 and 160 have been done for many decades, mine was in the early 80's at another home. And again here using sloping wire phased verticals for 80 and 160 off two towers.

Carl

 

Patents aren't matters of opinion, but assertions of novelty

If you look at claim 1, you will see a concatenation of A AND B AND C...and so one. it is that combination-chain that John had to show was 'novel', not each part in the chain. Most people don't get this, and many assume that if there was another technique to 'fix' a Jpole (as this example), or 'D' in the chain is a well known technique, that its the same thing or so similar as to be the same, and not 'novel'. Of course examiners often argue (for example) to point out 'A' and 'D' are well known 'in light of' , and so on, and assert the combination-chain would have been obvious. which can get subjective from the examiner's end. Then it becomes a 'wording' issue, sometimes fixed by adding more ANDS to the chain(if supported by the specification/disclosure), among other methods.

Unfortunately the more links in the chain, the less 'broad' the claim.

Perhaps some will get a better handle on the patent process from these comments

73
Chip W1YW

 

It shall now be known as the cactus antenna.

 

Is there a design program for this design? If so, where would I find it?

 

Wow, way to really overthink something...........