On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:56:24 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Seem like a lot of wierd speculation is going on with nothing to
suggest that they are reasonable.

Speculation is, what speculations "seems." Your appeal here for
validation suffers from its thin content and over elaborate
speculation. Ultimately, this speculation of yours collapses from
many faults, two of which are enough to describe:

1. This is due to the lack of equilibrium by your own admission of
twisting the line in flagrant contradiction to how you described its
construction.

2, You cannot defend against the poor performance of Weak Forces that
dominate your own design; by your own stated purpose and admission.
This is obvious on the face of it.

These demonstrate the superiority of conventional dipoles and the
experience of millions of users for three centuries confirms this.
This last observation is NOT speculative, but clear proof supported by
a reservoir of data.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC