Art,

You'd get a lot more people who would be able to listen to what you're
saying if you drew a picture and posted it somewhere.

Dan

wrote:
Art,

You'd get a lot more people who would be able to listen to what you're
saying if you drew a picture and posted it somewhere.

Dan


Dan:

I think we have arrived at the quantum/nano level here, you know,
entangled particles, particles which can be in two places at once,
particles which exceed the speed of light, it is a no mans land.
Indeed, it takes guts to just attempt a discussion on the subject ...

We tend to think at large levels, wavelengths traversing long stretches
of conductors, whole capacitor plates, etc. Naturally, even if one is
stating correct facts on a quantum level he is going to called an
idiot--if he attempts to even advance a theory which encompasses the
above, who can resist laughing? None-the-less, it is true, the world of
physics becomes upside down (apparently, with our present
understanding.) Who can tell a "nut" at this level, everyone is going
to look the same here. grin

Regards,
JS

John, about being a"nut" when you think out of the box people havent
got a book to study up on you So many people in the past were labelled
"nuts" long after they had passed away.
George Green a mathematicician from Nottingham was not in with the no
alls and yet nowadays his work is still in use in engineering but
others have polished up some of what he found and laid claim to it.
Very few people now a days knows of this George Green.
Then there was that guy more than two thousand years ago who found a
round stone that was flat on both sides and the guy wheeled that thing
around while his friends called him "nuts"
One day he tried rolling the thing uphill until a dinasaw came along
and ofcourse he ran like hell but the stone cought up with him and
killed him. So the guy who invented the wheel and was called a "nut"
passed away And the name of the man that invented the wheel remains a
mystery for ever, even tho his nuts were preserved to be used a few
centuries later to make a vehicle by Henry Ford.

There is no glory to be obtained by thinking outside the box!

John Smith wrote:
wrote:
Art,

You'd get a lot more people who would be able to listen to what you're
saying if you drew a picture and posted it somewhere.

Dan


Dan:

I think we have arrived at the quantum/nano level here, you know,
entangled particles, particles which can be in two places at once,
particles which exceed the speed of light, it is a no mans land.
Indeed, it takes guts to just attempt a discussion on the subject ...

We tend to think at large levels, wavelengths traversing long stretches
of conductors, whole capacitor plates, etc. Naturally, even if one is
stating correct facts on a quantum level he is going to called an
idiot--if he attempts to even advance a theory which encompasses the
above, who can resist laughing? None-the-less, it is true, the world of
physics becomes upside down (apparently, with our present
understanding.) Who can tell a "nut" at this level, everyone is going
to look the same here. grin

Regards,
JS

art wrote:
John, about being a"nut" when you think out of the box people havent

Art:

Lighten up. I am not afraid to be termed a "nut", if there is some sort
of evidence there is something which needs to be looked at, discussed,
thought about--I'll be right there up to my arm pits.

The nay sayers, those who claim everything has already been discovered,
those who claim we already have all the answers and all is
understood--they stand as chaff in the wind to me.

Many you deal with here are technicians. They are well versed in
standard formulas, techniques and methods. I hear them saying, "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it!" To a certain extent, they are quite correct.

Thinking is just a hobby with me, as is amateur radio and electronics.

I work in software for a living, thinking out of the box is a not a
luxury here, it is a requirement. Unless there is good reason you do
something unique/different/quicker/shorter/more efficient/more
compact/etc. they will hand your job to china or india!

Take all I say with a grain of salt ...

Regards,
JS

You obviously do what I and my son do. He works as a consultant at
Southern Cal and he was the one that got Biology work bench off the
ground where others could not bring it together when he was at Illinois
U. Now he really thinks outside the box. On the otherhand my sisters
boy who is a director on the Rupert Murdock set up is about strictly
following a particular line
Go figure

John Smith wrote:
art wrote:
John, about being a"nut" when you think out of the box people havent

Art:

Lighten up. I am not afraid to be termed a "nut", if there is some sort
of evidence there is something which needs to be looked at, discussed,
thought about--I'll be right there up to my arm pits.

The nay sayers, those who claim everything has already been discovered,
those who claim we already have all the answers and all is
understood--they stand as chaff in the wind to me.

Many you deal with here are technicians. They are well versed in
standard formulas, techniques and methods. I hear them saying, "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it!" To a certain extent, they are quite correct.

Thinking is just a hobby with me, as is amateur radio and electronics.

I work in software for a living, thinking out of the box is a not a
luxury here, it is a requirement. Unless there is good reason you do
something unique/different/quicker/shorter/more efficient/more
compact/etc. they will hand your job to china or india!

Take all I say with a grain of salt ...

Regards,
JS

Dan, all of that is in the PTO application which I have held back on
because of all the nasty comments I got from the experts before I lift
a finger. When I last explained a patented idea I has some time ago
stones were coming from all directions from those who thought of me as
a person who thinks outside the box must be looney. When I first
starterd to turn the subject around to this new aproach for radiating
antennas the harping started not only from those without a contribution
but also from experts that are much wiser than I with repect to
radiation. This time whether thru hell or high water I am going to
explain it in the simplest way possible because I know that there are
some hams throwing stones who haven't got the faintest idea about
radiation other than arranging elements in spear shape fashion and
point it where you want. Now I will tell you something, this aproach
works out using a antenna program that is related but not the same as
standard formd i.e. AO professional. A separate individual took my
figures and applied them to the NEC4 program which is more universally
accepted and where it validated my findings. Ofcourse nI could have
used the computor program incorrectly so I dug into the books to find
what I thought constituted a reasonable mathematical sequence to
explain what I found. Ofcourse By doing this I am opening myself to a
lot of name calling because over the years it has been assumed that
everything about antennas was known and the Yaqgi was king. Well I look
at things differently like looking at the cutting room floor to see
what was discarded by the producers even tho they are clips from
experts. I then take hold of these clips to try to get into the minds
of those who produced them and by learning this I apply there work
where the producer didn't. So In a way
I am trying to duplicate the originators mind and take things to the
next step which is sometimes called thinking outside the box since the
text is unwritten and one is not learning by rote....I might aded that
I offered all this to RADCOM of England of which I am a
member..........didn't see the light of day so it can still prove to be
a gastly idea from a blithering idiot
..UMMMM enough said
wrote:
Art,

You'd get a lot more people who would be able to listen to what you're
saying if you drew a picture and posted it somewhere.

Dan

art wrote:

[snip]

this aproach
works out using a antenna program that is related but not the same as
standard formd i.e. AO professional. A separate individual took my
figures and applied them to the NEC4 program which is more universally
accepted and where it validated my findings.

[snip]


Hi Art,

I don't want to get into the details of your new antenna concept.
However, consider this.

Your antenna, whatever it is, seems to be modeled correctly by both AO
Pro and by NEC4. Both of those programs are based on completely
conventional electromagnetic theory that has been in use for over a
century. In that case it is most unlikely that you have discovered any
new electromagnetic science.

It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, and it is
even possible that your method of informally describing the antenna is
new and useful. However, new science it ain't.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene the programs are different tho created by similar means. For
instance sharp corners in elements creat different things, uneven
distribution of measurement point of closely aligned elements also can
creat differences. By using NEC$ to double check illuminates problems
created by an individual programmer Now as far as a new science Ive
previously stated that I
concentrate on what the masters have found and try to take things
further in that it supports what I found by accident. No Iam not
introducing anything that is new just something that has been bypassed
for over 100 years. As far as not getting in to details wide statements
can mean anything but in life it is the details where the difficulties
come to light
Gene Fuller wrote:
art wrote:

[snip]

this aproach
works out using a antenna program that is related but not the same as
standard formd i.e. AO professional. A separate individual took my
figures and applied them to the NEC4 program which is more universally
accepted and where it validated my findings.

[snip]


Hi Art,

I don't want to get into the details of your new antenna concept.
However, consider this.

Your antenna, whatever it is, seems to be modeled correctly by both AO
Pro and by NEC4. Both of those programs are based on completely
conventional electromagnetic theory that has been in use for over a
century. In that case it is most unlikely that you have discovered any
new electromagnetic science.

It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, and it is
even possible that your method of informally describing the antenna is
new and useful. However, new science it ain't.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
It is quite possible that your antenna configuration is novel, ...

I'll bet it can't hold a candle to my 24 dBi omni at:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ

:-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I'll bet it can't hold a candle to my 24 dBi omni at:

http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp/SUPRGAIN.EZ

Wow! EZNEC average gain test shows +18dB... lessee... that means it's
about 630% efficient! Good work!