On Jun 2, 9:20 am, K7ITM wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:20 am, art wrote:


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


LOL, I can see in his answering post, that he did indeed ignore
your valid question, and spewed forth the usual whiny drivel...
Woe is me, sayeth Art...
Note this comment...
""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. ""
Heck, I modeled his small loop/cap thing and proved it did work.
Just fine as far as matching is concerned. But I didn't agree with
his other claims. IE: that there is substantial radiation from the
loop,
etc. He claimed you could steer the pattern, by changing the value
of the cap if I remember right.
I modeled said device, "I called it a loopole", and showed that this
wasn't true.
But I never said it didn't "work" as far as a matching device.
I just said it didn't work like he thinks it does.
This was basically ignored.. He has a fine system of ignoring
any information that does not suit his agenda.
The only problem is I have a fairly decent system of detecting
BS... I really don't even have to know much about whatever it is
being discussed..
If it's BS, I can usually smell it a mile away.. I may not know why
I smell the pecular aroma I do, but I will smell it none the less.
Woe is me, sayeth Art.
MK