On Apr 13, 5:32*pm, wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:28*am, "Dave" wrote:



Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism
he just gave up. *You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American
education. *I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism
wherever it is that you hail from.

73, ac6xg

no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other
suckers he could get to agree with him. *check out:http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz
but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there.

Good grief.. *:/ *I read through about 75% of that.. You can't debate
a subject
with Art. Tom asks him to simply show one device he has designed using
this new fangled Gaussian theory, then Art claims Tom is "dissing"
him,
kicking sand in his face, or whatever other assault Art conjures up in
his
mind. *:/

But he also alters facts to suit his whim, conjures non events out of
the
thin air, and other feats of internet skill.
He whines because we ask him to define how he uses the term
equilibrium
in respect to antennas.
But then he runs off to web page Q and whines that everyone asks him
the definition of the word itself.. This is an oft used tactic of many
that
wish to confuse the audience at hand.

He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from
MIT
laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory.
This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange
and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all.
In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the
great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again.
And he never gave any math at all as far as Art's design.
So this event can be labeled as "the big lie" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm all for antenna experimentation, but after several years of
tinkering I have learned a couple of things.
And so far they have never been proved wrong. Even by Art, or
even the great wizard from MIT.

#`1 There is no free lunch.
#2 *You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.

Art claims to do both, but as always, refuses to provide a working
model that can be tested against known benchmark antennas,
or he provides a design which does not work as claimed.
Like the short "contra wound" contraption I've seen a picture of.
He claims it is a viable antenna for 160m, and will be quite
efficient.
Heck, I don't even have to test it. I can just look at it and tell
you it will be a dud compared to any decent antenna.
But this is OK. It's not my design, and it's not my job to prove
the design actually works.
That is Art's job, but Art refuses to do it.

If I had a design, I would want to test it against antennas with
known properties. Art refuses. This is why he thinks many of
these off the wall theories and designs work.
He will never actually do the tests to confirm the performance.
I bet he doesn't even have any reference antennas on his
property, like say a 160m dipole, or a 1/4 wave monopole.
How can one advocate a design or theory without even testing it?

To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. * :/
That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it.

Arts design is not origonal, it was around in the 60s and 70s as a CB
radio joke. It rated up there along with burying a dipole a 1/4 wl
deep in the ground.. Unlike the buried antenna this joke was
especially good because sometimes it wold work just well enough to
work some skip and then you would hear the guy talking about this
great antenna he had

Jimmie