On Mar 4, 7:44*am, wrote:
On Mar 2, 10:10*pm, Bill wrote:

On Mar 3, 3:17*am, Art Unwin wrote:

This time I will respond to your silliness. I will try to put it as
simply as possible as you have stated your highest achievement was
junior high school after which you stumbled and thus did not go any
further.





the arguement and insults went on for a few months. Then a Phd from
MIT chimed in and stated I was correct and explained why. He also was
then trashed by all.

Wasn't he from BU with a degree from Cornell?

He was the one that took off running when he saw the light.
Never to return. Nada..zilch.. zip..
He showed mathematically that I was correct. Theoretical physicists
use the cgs system of units the same as I was taught. When a book
along while ago decided to us SI units he made a mathematical error
which changed the whole concept of the law Because of plagarism all
school and college books now print this same error.


He never amounted to more than plastic filler in the overall
scheme of things. And the filler didn't stick too well.. *:/

Art is like a dog that chases it's tail. He's trying to validate
an antenna that doesn't exist. If one could build a decently
radiating dummy load on a stick, it would already be on the
market.

No it would not be on the market has I hold the patent and it is based
on the cgs standard
which is known to be correct





In this area, an Isotron would be a close example
of what he thinks he has. But note that the builders of the
Isotron do not proclaim it to have magical properties, nor
do they try to explain it's operation using mumbo gumbo
technobabble.

I have nev er claimed magical properties. When the cgs system is
applied to modern days antenna designs the results show higher
efficiencies in being sensitive to ALL SIGNALS
that arrive and where the same array needs a smaller volume than the
yag and is not limited to a single polarity signal. In other words
the computer programs are now proven to follow the laws of Maxwell
where all forces are accounted for.

Even they seem to realize that the feedline
is doing a large part of the radiating. :/

This has certainly been the case for many frauds foisted onto the ham
community but it is not applicable to all arrays that differ from the
Yagi and it is not applicablke in this case according to the accepted
NEC programs





The same could be said for directive arrays using cockeyed
skewed angle radiators. If there was some magical property
to these designs, they would already be on the market.

It would be great if they were as I would have a piece of that cake
but I have not taken on any commercial deals.


There has been some uses of swept back radiators in the
past, but not quite the same thing as Art proposes.
And they do not try to proclaim they break or ignore the
rules of science.

Tis not I who is breaking the rules of science but academia in
Universities and schools!


Art gave one example of a skewed angle yagi months back.
I modeled one in about 4 minutes using conventional
yagi elements that handily beat his design in both gain
and F/B ratio. His designs are inferior. *


I and the others on the group would love to see a model of your
sampling so this whole question of whether the NEC programs are in
error as well as my judgement.
As an engineer I passed well beyond the point of junior high school so
I take your limited education for what it is and try to decifer what
you really mean. But you are so far off with your deductions that I
can only assume the true reasons for your postings is insult and spam
where the true use of this forum is to educate one self regarding
amateur antennas.
Some may not agree with that format but free speech always rules.


He is good entertainment though.