On 2 Jun, 08:20, K7ITM wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote:





On 1 Jun, 21:53, K7ITM wrote:

On Jun 1, 10:32 am, art wrote:

Jimmie
Let us talk common sense. Remember its origins is based on a static
field
...
Art

Art,

I don't much care what the _definition_ is, but I am interested in
what the _purpose_ is. In terms of "features and benefits," why would
I care about this antenna? At least with the "crossed field antenna"
and "fractal antennas," I understood _why_ one would be interested in
the claimed benefits (though they never seemed to actually be
delivered), but so far I haven't seen anything to get me excited and
wanting to learn more about this "Gaussian" thing you've been tossing
about with respect to antennas.

Please understand that there are plenty of cases to which "Gaussian"
is applied that I do see the benefit to, both practical and
theoretical, but this "Gaussian antenna" thing is just leaving me
cold, so far.

Cheers,
Tom

The definition was requested and I answed that request
The Gaussian thing I am tossing around is something that the experts
refuse
to acknoweledge in any way. Over more than twenty years this group of
experts have attacked all experimentors and have got away with it.
I am a experimentoras you know and I have been attacked since day one
over my experiments and patents. On the Gaussian thing they refuse to
acknoweledge
the connection between Gaussian statics law and other laws of the
masters.
Even a Doctrate holder tried to convince them of the connecting
mathematics
but they have rejected all. To me it suggest that over the years
many of these suedo experts have over estimated their abilities. Why
they refuse
the Gaussian connection I do not know but I am going to hammer away at
it because
there are many silent observers who surely understand the physics
involved.
And each time I bring the subject up I smile as protagonists continue
to deny the
Gaussian connection. Actually Tom if a person or group finally came to
their sences
and acknoweledged the Gaussian connection that I flaunt we all we be
on a more stable keel.
They asked for the mathematical proof after I presented the antenna,
that mathematical proof
was provided and the Gaussian connection was rejected.
To me and others this sort of thing has happened time and time again,
I am not running away
as other hams have been forced to do. I will stay until they are
forced to acknoweledge
the ficklties of science where ever it may lead and I will continue to
make an
example of the assailants inadequacies with respect to experimentation
and its findings.
I am an east ender from London, if I am wrongly pushed I will push
back regardles of the
inflicted pain that is applied to me so you better explore other
tactics to make your points.
Art

Art,

I'm puzzled why you would go off on that same old rant and ignore the
key question I asked: why should I care about this antenna? What are
its features and benefits? What are its advantages over competing
antennas that have similar features and benefits? I'm not trying to
"make points" but simply to understand why I should care about this
antenna. You may have previously posted things about that, but I got
lost in all the other words that didn't get me excited about it--words
that never told me why I would care about it. Is it particularly
compact? Is it easy to build? Will it stay together well? Does it
do a better job letting me communicate than antennas I already know
about?

If it causes you too much pain to tell us why it's an antenna worthy
of consideration over other existing antennas, please just ignore my
question and I'll go away and let you write whatever you want about
it.

Cheers,
Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Do you or do you not accept the mathematical explanation
of the connection between a conservative field and a non
conservative field that evolves around the Gaussian law of statics?
All this group rejects this connection and thus without
that foundation feel free to reject the discovery.
If the group rejects the idea of adding the unit of time
to both sides of the Gaussian equation it is futile to expand
on what that connection provides. Good, bad or whatever
a discovery has been made, proven by independent mathematical
analysis tho still rejected as viable by this group of
antenna experts. What point is there for me to do this or do that
and you 'will let me' when the very foundation of the antenna design
is rejected by the cream of amateur radio antenna designers, authors
critics e.t.c. If one wants to discuss antennas one
must have a foundation to build on. The professor from MIT
spent a lot of time and effort in a past thread on Gauss
with a mathematical analysis. Nobody has yet to prove faulty
mathematics but refuse to accept that given. One person made an effort
to double check facts using a antenna program, this group
refused to offer him any help because they rejected the
independent analysis provides.
Why should I answer to your requests if the very
foundation is rejected and thus provide fodder for abuse?
You could change the subject to the patent on Constant Impedance
Matching System since that also was rejected by the amateur
masses on this newsgroup to add fresh fire to the conversations.
You certainly will get a lot of support on this newsgroup.
A person asked me for a definition of the Gaussian antenna, I
carefully
formated one for that poster. You become indignant because
you don't care about definitions.......give me a break
Art