"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant (
parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how
one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold
there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the
relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie


Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically
patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of applictions
on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an idea
is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we were
talking about antennas, not the value of patents.

Jimmie.

I responded to another person who posted his thoughts about patents
on this very same thread!
Art


Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant (
parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how
one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold
there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the
relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie


Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically
patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of applictions
on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an idea
is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we were
talking about antennas, not the value of patents.

Jimmie.

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
I responded to another person who posted his thoughts about patents
on this very same thread!
Art


Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
Atta boy Jimmy if only somebody pursued just a little bit of what I
present
we all would gain by a debate but nobody but nobody got off the couch
except one whose aims were dishonest. With respect to patents, very few
if any
is for a miracle it is only a platform for additional ideas to the
present state
of the art which is only generated by the micro steps of information
in any art.
When you apply that small piece of information you are suppling a basic
for the next patent application which is what is called progress
because it
was shared and without sharing achievement is retarded. When people
decry the idea of patents I think back to the fact that many engineers
decried them after the fact but never decried their importance on a
resume,
just like monday morning quarterbacks
Art

Jimmie D wrote:
"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
Before the mathematical equations comes about you must understand
the
concept,
it is that which requires an open mind . We are not back in college
where we take every
thing in so we can pass an examination. Ask your self why dx/dt is
nor
included
when a conservative field is described by the experts and then we
have
the
beginnings of a debate where you can explain your points. Don't
shoot
the messenger!
Art
\

craigm wrote:
how about some real math and equations. You should present some
technical
basis for your conclusions other than some verbal handwaving.

You also seem to make some assumptions which are irrelevant (
parallelism
being good for manufacturing being one) that may not be valid.


As an engineer I can say that elements in a varying three
dimensional
form
to each other is more difficult and more costly than parallism on a
single plane,
No amount of mathematical juggling will allow you to escape that
analysis,
but I am willing to debate around that point
Art




You are looking for open minds, but present nothing of substance.

If you are not willing to try and understand the concept then your
mind must be closed. Yes we can debate that to
Art


craigm


In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how
one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold
there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the
relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you
and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a
professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie


Patents are almost useless unless you actually build something. Basically
patents protect ideas and I know a guy who use to do hundreds of
applictions
on just ideas. It is not the purpose of a patent to establish that an
idea
is workable. It just establishes it as "your idea" Besides I thought we
were
talking about antennas, not the value of patents.

Jimmie.


So, lets get back to antennas, I really want to see your proofs of
mathematical a mistake the masters made.
Cant wait?

Sincerely Jimmie.

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jimmie D wrote:



Please explain the "faulty mathmatics from the masters"
Please show equations with proofs

Aw Jimmy I gave three names and the subject matter
when you find and declare it to the group they may listen
to YOU but frm ME they wont.UNTIL THEY READ IT IN A BOOK
WHICH IS WHERE THE PROBLEM STARTED
Regards
Art


Thats what I thought your answer would be.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:40:15 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 14:52:58 -0500, "Jimmie D"
wrote:

Please explain the "faulty mathmatics from the masters"
Please show equations with proofs.

Wow! From Hero to Zero in 12 minutes and 33 seconds.

Jimmie, you could have waited the obligatory 12 days, 33 hours and 54
thousand seconds to discover there are no facts to be had that
1. Contradict ordinary-as-mud modeling;
2. Reveal theories that would astonish the multitudes;
3. Offer a revelation of how statics can perform what dynamics do
daily. And certainly
4. No evidence of the comprehension that statics are a mathematical
fiction. Life does not allow them, and they are completely unknown
outside of a book or a classroom.

Art cannot even explain how he obtained a 50 Ohm non-reactive feed
into his five assorted wires, non of which could have possible
supported a fifth of that value (and jacked up with so much reactance
as to reject all power).

As for your first observation above about waiting. The poster is
entirely responsible for content, both its length and its purpose.
This can be as easily achieved in one posting as in 200. If the past
is to inform us of how efficiently that process has been successful;
then your cæsura || is entirely justified.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The reason for the original design was because in rarified locations
such as
Quito, Equador the yagi produces excessive corona at the element tips.

The quad solved the perceived problem. I say perceived because the
corona will eat away at the yagi antenna element lengths , In a
hazardous
area the quad is more suitable than any other antenna.
Art

Rick wrote:
On Tue, "Yuri Blanarovich" K3BU wrote:


Let's not forget this 3D champion that decimated Yagis and other inferior
contraptions by the antenna gurus and professoirs and scientwists. :-)))

73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors

Hey Yuri,
Is it true, I've heard you can't operate a Razor over dry land, or
where there is flamable material nearby because of the fire hazard?

How about we put one up over a salt marsh, would that be safe enough
to not endanger the population?

Rick K2XT

Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art



John Smith I wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

...
In antennas the math is the concept. No one will ever have a clue how one
works without understanding the math. May I suggest that everyone hold there
responses until you say all you have to say encluding posting the relevant
equations with references. This will be the only route fair to you and
prevent the normal bickering. Your ideas if presented in a professional
maner will recive a professional response.

Jimmie



Geesh! Something we finally stand in total agreement with.

However, like most things in science, usually what we are hunting is
first "discovered" in a "practical" form, then the math is "found" to
explain, describe, and "predict" it and its "properties" ... such has
always been mankinds' lot--or, thanks for those goofy guys in their
basements with their goofy ideas ...

Still, an excellent and valid statement.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Rick" wrote in message
...
On Tue, "Yuri Blanarovich" K3BU wrote:
Let's not forget this 3D champion that decimated Yagis and other inferior
contraptions by the antenna gurus and professoirs and scientwists. :-)))

73 Yuri da BUm da father of Razors

Hey Yuri,
Is it true, I've heard you can't operate a Razor over dry land, or
where there is flamable material nearby because of the fire hazard?


Very, very true. Razors were designed and customized over hard clay of
Scarborough, ON and I had to wait for maple leaves to fall, otherwise it was
fireworks. It was also reported that if I beamed power lines, the turbines
in Niagara Falls started to spin in reverse and pumping up water from lake
Ontario to Erie (even Tesla could not account for this). Another effect that
expert matrimorticians can not formulaed it. Wide open field for basement
scientwists.


How about we put one up over a salt marsh, would that be safe enough
to not endanger the population?


Salt marshes call for different breed of arrays, we are ploting some dual
(mutli really - all) polarization three dimensional arrays firing and
skimming the salty perfect waves jus' like pebbles, using wave
ampliphication and Van Allen Belts for reaching the dark side of
un-enionosferried territories utilizing resonant freakvencies of bridges as
parasited elements for local coverage of QRPeers. This will be so far out in
the salty mud, that I do not consider even getting patent for it, maybe some
fuzzy pictures like of Razors. Looks like we will rearange all US records
jus' like with Razors I decimated all Canuk records. So get your high vaders
water proofed and get in shape.

Rick K2XT


73 Yuri da K3BU/m

three dimensional arrays firing and
skimming the salty perfect waves jus' like pebbles,

So when we see the mud a bubbling it isn't marsh gas, it's the power of the
Mighty Razor beam? Skimmin' the salt marsh, slippin under the Bay Bridge,
grazing the Atlantic Ocean, then blasting the ionosphere, and next stop is
Europe. Smashing S meters against pegs all across Europe. Oh, yeahhhhhh,
now this is living, this is what antennas are all about !!

Rick K2XT

art wrote:
Odldy enough Jim I found out all about this by accident some years ago
and tho I proved what I was seeing was correct the hardest part was
why
this was occurring when the subject has been studied to death over the
years
It was when I reviewed past works of the masters I came across this
error
and you must realise that in the old days decades passed before it was
studied by others. George Green like others such as Gauss had a niche
in mathematics a lot of which came from non uniform studies such that
later reiterations of what they had deduced was shaken around and
rehashed
after death such that if an error was introduced there were few who
could
refute it. Let's face it, if it is seen in a book in present day how
many would
be alert or foolhardy enough to refute it without changing context,
the naysayers
would immediatly shout, not pounce, from their lazy boys knowing full
well it
is easier to ridicule than to think things out for themselves.
Have you ever heard a monday morning quarterback prophesising two days
before the match and repeating it again on monday morning?
Art


Art:

We may be two of the three blind men who went to see the elephant.

I know for a fact the spinning of the earth (time) has no place it our
equation on radio frequency vibrations. However, I do accept the
possibility of a "universal time frame" which does--but, someone SHOW it
to me first!--universal time frame.

I do accept that the "mysterious 377 ohms" seems to "work" in our
equations. However, I do NOT believe it is "real", but I do believe it
is acting as a "mysterious placeholder" for something unknown, unseen
and undiscovered by us ... and, I do not know what this is.

So, in the end, I am viewed as a kook--just like you. But, with what
you have described, it only leaves me with me with more questions--at
least at the present time ... I am patient, perhaps one day you find the
right words and I will have a revelation ...

Regards,
JS