Nothing seems to be as durable as a bad idea. The crossed-field antenna (CFA) has been promoted for over 20 years, and it simply does not work. Now, I just read in the May, 2010 issue of Microwaves & RF, that a company called Dockton (www.dockton.com) is promoting basically the same kind of antenna, except that it is used for the higher-frequency wireless applications rather than for the AM broadcast band. The "new" antanna is called the CPL.
No reference to the CFA is made in the article, but the CPL is the same thing as the CFA. The preferred configurations are slightly different. The CFA usually uses two closely-coupled vertical monopoles, and the CPL uses an electric dipole closely coupled to a magnetic dipole at right angles. The CFA patent includes the CPL configuration. Patents for the CPL are pending. If the examiner at the USPTO is sharp enough (I have noticed that patent examiners today tend to be smarter than they were before), he should be able to identify the CFA as "prior art" for the CPL. It doesn't really matter, however, because one of the requrements of patentability is that the invention has to be functional, and the CFA (and therefore the CPL) is not functional. If Dockton is lucly enough to get a dumb examiner, however, the patent could be valuable for selling the antenna, because some people think that a patent is some sort of endorsement by the government. Actually, the USPTO does not have expertise or laboratory facilities to determine if an invention is any good or not.
Ermi,
Thanks for the heads up. For many things it is all about the marketing. A certain vacuum cleaner and popcorn brand come to mind.
You are correct that many consider the patent an endorsement or validation by the government. Unless the rules have changed since I was involved I did not have to affirm that my patented inventions worked. The declaration was a description of the preferred embodiment but no requirement was placed on me to prove efficacy. This is a good reason to keep patents in perspective. They are to protect an invention and are not certification that things work as claimed.
Neil
This review is for your opening comments, Ermi Roos, on this or these antenna systems. You were convincing, persuasive, and I find that you have debunked the CFL or CPL or whatever antennas and the trustworthiness of patents altogether. I share with you the distrust of "patents" as a sort of "proof of performance."
It would be interesting to list goofy inventions that qualified for patents.
Also, if a patented device really does work the large corporate giants grab it up and the little inventor is stuck with the bill for any dispute.
I am trying to come out more bitter than anyone else about patents, but this isn't sports.
Yet, I still wonder about the isotropic antenna.
It would be interesting to list goofy inventions that qualified for patents.
The Popeel Pocket Fisherman
Popeel scalp spray paint for us bald guys.
And DO NOT CLICK unless you are ready to waste a whole bunch of time because this stuff is "car wreck" fascinating...
http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com/
http://www.totallyabsurd.com/archive.htm
I just wasted 2 hours at work
Education about patents cannot be complete until one learns about the really bad patents.
Thank you SCWIS for your graduate course.
The word patent
almost rhymes with pretense.
Has anyone figured out why the man who invented the Chia Pet is a billionaire?