On Jun 24, 8:01 pm, art wrote:


No that is not true. After trying several times to educate the group
and getting responses such as yours he decided to move on as
other experts have done in the past. They are trying to help with the
amateur radio antenna group but realised quite quickly it was
mainly composed of the non antenna type people. They don't need
the sort of things that are stated they move on. He has a Doctorate
and thus he is qualified for some respect

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r... bdc00f7e7cbcd

I had to refresh myself on the reasons of his departure..He never
really proved anything.. In fact, at
the end, Richard Clark seemed to be making a pretty good case that he
was misreading, or
misinterpreting the data.. But he never came back to respond to the
last posts.
The way I see it, it never really was agreed on one way or the other.
I'm fairly sure he
failed to convince a few on here. Seems to me, with his vast storages
of knowledge,
having a doctorate, papers on wall, etc, that he should have been
able to settle things
real quick just by shear brute force of reasoning. Didn't seem to work
that way.
But all this is really moot. It doesn't matter. Even if he was
correct, I'm still
fairly certain that the antennas you are cooking up don't rely on such
exotic
"gaussian" methods to function. Thats assuming you believe in such a
thing..
MK