On Nov 1, 11:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:35*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Nov 1, 10:03*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

You overstate your capabilities while trying to suggest you are a
professor. Your response is a normal one after the fact. Remember you
were one of those who decided Gauss's connection to Maxwells law on
radiation was solely via his magnetic input totally ignoring his
connection via statics which is also the basis of
the Maxwell equation. When did you ever point out the truth with
respect to particles versus waves for the root of radiation? Heck, it
was only a few weeks ago that you went on about the Gaussian
contribution via magnetics and so denounce his contribution via
statics.
You can jump on the train if you want but you were never qualified to
drive it. Next somebody will point out an error and again you will
state you knew it all along! *Why don't you contest some of the Nobel
prize awards with your prior knowledge or win one on your own? *Yes,
you certainly overstate your own abilities and knowledge of the
Universe.

yeah, well i file your patents right next to the faster than light
antenna in my humor file.

Just like your past employer you have convinced me that you are truly
a scientist and that title was justifiably yours.

well, i'm glad you finally understand my background... except they are
still my current employer, and i fought them to keep the scientist
part out of the title, i wanted to just be an engineer since engineers
really know how to make things work and scientists just think they do.