On Jun 21, 12:44 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:45:53 -0700, art wrote:
On the other side of the coin, all details are clearly stated
over the past year or more on this newsgroup.

Bull Looney. You have simply robbed graves and used the headstones to
adorn your postings. You couldn't even explain the significance of
"equilibrium." However, that hardly matters because in plain English
it maintains the entire absence of dynamism. Antennas are dynamic.
Yours are dead?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

OED's at home, but I doubt that the definition found there is much
different than, "a condition of balance between opposites," found in
an American Heritage desk dictionary, or "equal balance between any
powers, influences, etc.; equality of effect," found at www.dictionary.com.
Systems in equilibrium can be very dynamic, with lots going on, as in
chemical reactions. Old-growth forests reach a state of equilibrium,
but that certainly doesn't mean they are static. When you turn on a
faucet, there's an initial transient but quite rapidly, a condition of
equilibrium is reached wherein the amount of water flowing into the
far end of the pipe equals the amount delivered by the faucet
(assuming no leaks along the way); but that's a dynamic system too.

Just what Art means when he writes about "equilibrium" with respect to
antennas is a total mystery to me, though. I have not a clue in what
way his "Gaussian" antenna is either more in equilibrium than a Yagi
or a doublet or a coat-hanger or a bed-spring, or for that matter is
"Gaussian" in any sense that my dictionaries define "Gaussian." (I
suppose he'll say I've become "indignant" about it, or that I have
dismissed his ideas, in which case he's totally missed the point...)

But then, I'd probably get fired and sued for publicly writing details
about an idea that was the subject of a patent application...

Cheers,
Tom