On 18 Jun, 14:32, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...





On 18 Jun, 11:52, Jim Lux wrote:
art wrote:
and the IEEE were in error. I certainly would not trash it on
the basis of comments by amateurs on this newsgroup unless they
provided credible proof that they were knoweledgable about the
specifics
of the antenna and could then provide credible reasons why it
should not be accepted. That ofcourse will never happen
in this newsgroup. Look up at the howl that emanated on this group
on such a simple subject such as Gauss together with conservative
and non conservative fields. We even have teachers in this group
who could not come forward to explain it to others as well as some
who denied any possibility of a connection. This is just an
amateur group who likes to play word games with others to get a
"gottcha",
It is not a scientific group with credible backgrounds that
by itself demands attention, it is just a group of amateurs
from various fields and pursuits where their every post reflect
their true abilities.
Regards
Art

simple answer... its a 3 year old article, who do you know that is selling
them? if they were anything special someone would have picked them up and
started marketing them. speaking of which, who have you lined up to sell
your 'gaussian' designs art? can you even define it yet??- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Simple you say, there are two patent requests, one last year and one
this year.
Who said they are not making deals now? As far as a gaussian design
definition
you are not equipped to understand it. It has been stated on this
group but
with your lack of knoweledge about Gauss you can never be able to
understand it,
thus it is hard for you to consider yourself as legitarmate critic if
you don't
understand the subject. Per your posts thru the years you haven't
found a person
that you could like or you couldn't attack. Your posts reflect who you
really are,
somebody with no credability.