On Sep 3, 11:09 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


You cannot assume that one who makes an accusation has the status of
education to match his veracity. The person who stated that it is an
impossibility does not even posses a high school diploma. Climbing on
the back of his statements puts you back on the stage again!

Does not matter what education I started out with. They don't
teach antenna theory until college level anyway.
Being as you didn't take those courses in college either,
being a mechanical engineer, I don't see how you have any
real leg up on me at all as far as antenna theory.
You had to learn it on your own, same as I did.
You probably had a decent leg up in math at one time,
but you seem so senile now, I doubt it does you any good. :/
You don't seem to exercise the skill.. You hardly ever give out
any math to support any of your theories.

All of my antenna education has been self administered, and for all
you know, I might have eclipsed you years ago. You have no way of
really knowing unless someone gave us a test.
Heck, you went to college, and I was expelled from high school,
but as I general rule, I spell better than you do.
Not perfect, but I bet my rate of error is a good bit lower than
yours.

How do you explain that? And if that is the case, how can we be
sure that your lofty college education in mechanical engineering is
actually helping you to rise above that nasty ole dumbass NM5K
when it comes to antenna talk?

There are many here that know much more than I do, but as
far as I can tell, you ain't one of them. :/
You can telling a fetching yarn to reel em in, but when it comes to
producing the real goods, you vanish every time after a mind numbing
barrage of pure baffle gab.

Most of my antenna work is with real antennas in the real world.
I don't spend much time letting modeling programs run wild, and
then proclaim that the resulting designs they spit out require new
baffle gab theory to explain their operation.

So it's not really required that I be some rocket scientist here.
I'm not the one having to defend baffle gab.

But you on the other hand propose that you are going to rewrite the
books with your new theories.
And that most everyone here, except you of course, is a dribbling
idiot
not to swallow everything you say, hook, equilibrium, and weak force.
Being that is the case, I'd be a lot more worried about your education
than mine if I were you.
You are the one that needs to prove your case, not I.