patents.... (Re: SSTC As a transmitter)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <davep-at-quik-dot-com>

>>>The best that regeneration can do is modify the input

>>>impedance of the receiver, which might happen to give

>>>it a better match to the antenna.

>>This is in conflict with the following statement by John

>>Sutton found in 1994 U.S. Patent  No. 5,296,866, "Active

>>Antenna":

	It is useful to recall that one can claim anything
	in a patent (with one exception....).  Issuance of
	a patent indicates what the inventor claims,
	rather than what is.  Sometimes the two are the same,
	sometimes not.

	This was true in Tesla's day, and is true now.


>>     "The reason why an antenna with regeneration has

>>greater sensitivity than one without regeneration may be

>>understood in terms of the concept of antenna "effective

>>area."  The first to explain why an antenna may have an
>>effective area larger than its geometric area was

>>Reinhold Rudenberg in

	(the exception is claims for Perpetual Motion:
	The patent office requires these be
	demonstrated...  This results in some carefully
	worded claims to avoid this requirement in some
	patents...

	best
	dwp

...the net of a million lies...
	Vernor Vinge
There are Many Web Sites which Say Many Things.
	-me