[NewCandle] Schlicher 'drive'

[Kyle R. Mcallister]

John Steck wrote:
> Kyle,
> First impression... the structure looks to be somewhat dynamic.  If 
> there are critical elements of the geometric form, this particular unit 
> may give variable/inconclusive results even if you solve the pulsing 
> problem.  Is there a function that drives the length of the wire 
> structure? 

Function as in? Not sure exactly what you mean here.

> Can the wire structure be braced with non conductive 
> elements or spiraled to increase rigidity/stability?  

John suggested that I brace the wires with pieces of balsa wood or 
something like it. There are a few there that he put on it. I remember 
him saying something about the forces tending to distort the antenna 
under certain circumstances.

> Apart from the 
> device itself, did John give you any drawings, construction notes, 
> design guidelines associated with the unit you have?  If you could help 
> me identify key elements/relationships of this unit (as much you can 
> understand), I could try and come up with a more controlled test 
> platform to isolate the key elements that produce the greatest effect... 

Unfortunately, I didn't get much else. He ended up sick for a long time 
after I got the unit in the mail, and once he recovered, I hadn't the 
ability to work on it due to 'real life' things. Once I got back into 
it, and he started helping me with suggestions, it was only a short 
while before he was in the hospital. The last time I spoke with him, I 
didn't even recognize his voice, due to the Parkinson's medications. I 
never spoke to him again; I received a phone call a few days later that 
he had checked out of the hospital, gone home, and then simply dropped dead.

> lengths, angles, gaps, gages, spacing, materials, insulation/isolation.  
> Maybe a 1/2 scale unit to reduce the overall power requirements to drive 
> it?

The angles of the device are supposed to be important, both as per the 
patent, and from my talks with John. He said the return path angle had 
to be different from the 'petal' angle. The explanation given in the 
patent wasn't obvious, and he had a sort of hard time explaining it over 
the phone. I've considered building a smaller scale model and testing 
it, but I don't know what parameters the scaling might change.

Any ideas where to move forward at this point?

--Kyle