There is not enough engineering content in this writing by a news reporter to suspect there is some new technology. If a US patent is issued there may be reason for some concern. I am skeptical and I am not one to overlook new technology. I did a brief Google search and did not find much that would correlate in a professional way but it looks like he is a member and K1DFT.

There was a series of excellent articles years ago in QST by Jerry Sevick, W2FMI on short vertical antennas and yes there are tradeoffs in efficiency and pattern compared to a quarter wave or longer vertical. Also the necessary distance to maintain compliance to Minimum Permissible Exposure requirements is increased considerably.

Howie, K9KM

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Raisbeck [mailto:k1twf@arrl.net]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 7:43 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10691] Re: CC&R Solution?

And if it doesn't prove true, this article could haunt us for a very long time ;-) After all, it could be used to prove:

1 - hams don't need big antennas

2 - if they claim otherwise, it's because they aren't up on the latest technology

How would you counter this at an appeals board hearing?

Mike - K1TWF

-----------------------------------
Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck

Phone: (978) 250-1236
Fax:   (978) 250-0432
Web:   www.mraisbeck.com
Email: k1twf@arrl.net

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message.

From: R. B. Vallio [mailto:w6rgg@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 8:01 PM
To: arrl-odv
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:10690] CC&R Solution?

If this proves to be true, we need only worry about BPL!

Bob -- W6RGG

Check this out:

http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/?id=2659