On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:25:56 -0800, art wrote:

yuri I put my money where my mouth is, it cost me a lot to apply
for another patent.

Getting a patent merely proves that one is able to hire a competent
enough patent attorney to convince the patent examiners that the
application in question isn't the rehash of prior patents. Enough bogus
software patents are issued on an ongoing bases to bear this out. A
patent is not proof of sound engineering even though the public at large
has been hoodwinked into believing otherwise.

Without field strength/antenna range data, any other claims are akin to
shouting in the wind. Your money doesn't matter, show us the data.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

No I wouldn't call it "art" it is just science gone awry.
If you go back to 101 you will be one of many who
got into trouble with Divergence and Curl but chose to
believe the books because that is what you are being
examined for. Review Helmholts, Stokes and Gauss on
statics now that you are not compelled to suck up
everything. As far as a dish is concerned for HF
that is not really a problem anymore when you understand
how the misconceptions that took hold around "curl"
I'll give you a hint John look at a "conservative field"
where "vector value is zero" statement is made in
the books based on what the masters said and then
think it out for yourself ! As far as satellites are concerned
where circular polarisation is chosen via a turnstile, just
imagine what it will do for antennas when it is proven that
parallism is not the only way to go. You are quite correct
that all is not known and that is purely from
misconceptions about "curl" put out via faulty
mathematics from the masters.
Back to the dish antenna, yes that does appear to be
one of the best not because of its traditional nature
but because the dish can be formed in equilibrium
such that more than one vector points in the same direction.
You will understand that better when you read my write up
when I get around to it or my patent application is printed..

Regards
Art




John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:

...
of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term

Art:

I take the thrust of your previous text to say, "We have lost focus of
the antenna as a technical device. Some now think of it as a "magical
device" and some as a "work of art." I can see some truth in all of
that. Plus, I will go further, if anyone thinks we have discovered ALL
there is to know about antennas, they are simply wrong ...

Basically, I only have use for three types of antennas. Two of these
are for terrestrial use only and one is for non-earth use ("talking" to
satellites, NOT aliens.)

Of the two for terrestrial use, one is omni directional the other VERY
directional. Now omni is quite easy, most dipoles or monopoles can be
placed to work with varying success.

So that leaves the "beam" or directional antenna. Now, the best
directional antenna I have EVER found is the parabolic dish--there just
ain't any better! However, for HF (indeed vhf/uhf are VERY difficult to
construct) these are out of the question for most of us. So, the
question becomes, "How can we mimic the performance of the dish with
practical materials.

Now, that is what we are all looking for, isn't it?

Warmest regards,
JS

Nate I know what patents are all about. In this country alone
I have been involved with three patents for G.E where naturally
an attorney is hired. For patents outside the workplace I do
my own without hiring an attorney. As far as providing the
data up front why should I do that, as a former teacher I found
that when someone does homework memory alone is not enough.
it takes two people to share information and I am doing my part.

On this newsgroup I have given plenty of data that when pursued
by personal work will provide agreement, the dissent from couch
recliners is to be expected.
I have put my money down in earnest, I am not just waving my hands.


Nate Bargmann wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:25:56 -0800, art wrote:

yuri I put my money where my mouth is, it cost me a lot to apply
for another patent.

Getting a patent merely proves that one is able to hire a competent
enough patent attorney to convince the patent examiners that the
application in question isn't the rehash of prior patents. Enough bogus
software patents are issued on an ongoing bases to bear this out. A
patent is not proof of sound engineering even though the public at large
has been hoodwinked into believing otherwise.

Without field strength/antenna range data, any other claims are akin to
shouting in the wind. Your money doesn't matter, show us the data.

- Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

"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

"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
No I wouldn't call it "art" it is just science gone awry.
If you go back to 101 you will be one of many who
got into trouble with Divergence and Curl but chose to
believe the books because that is what you are being
examined for. Review Helmholts, Stokes and Gauss on
statics now that you are not compelled to suck up
everything. As far as a dish is concerned for HF
that is not really a problem anymore when you understand
how the misconceptions that took hold around "curl"
I'll give you a hint John look at a "conservative field"
where "vector value is zero" statement is made in
the books based on what the masters said and then
think it out for yourself ! As far as satellites are concerned
where circular polarisation is chosen via a turnstile, just
imagine what it will do for antennas when it is proven that
parallism is not the only way to go. You are quite correct
that all is not known and that is purely from
misconceptions about "curl" put out via faulty
mathematics from the masters.
Back to the dish antenna, yes that does appear to be
one of the best not because of its traditional nature
but because the dish can be formed in equilibrium
such that more than one vector points in the same direction.
You will understand that better when you read my write up
when I get around to it or my patent application is printed..

Regards
Art




John Smith I wrote:
art wrote:

...
of a three dimensional vector. The two dimensional term

Art:

I take the thrust of your previous text to say, "We have lost focus of
the antenna as a technical device. Some now think of it as a "magical
device" and some as a "work of art." I can see some truth in all of
that. Plus, I will go further, if anyone thinks we have discovered ALL
there is to know about antennas, they are simply wrong ...

Basically, I only have use for three types of antennas. Two of these
are for terrestrial use only and one is for non-earth use ("talking" to
satellites, NOT aliens.)

Of the two for terrestrial use, one is omni directional the other VERY
directional. Now omni is quite easy, most dipoles or monopoles can be
placed to work with varying success.

So that leaves the "beam" or directional antenna. Now, the best
directional antenna I have EVER found is the parabolic dish--there just
ain't any better! However, for HF (indeed vhf/uhf are VERY difficult to
construct) these are out of the question for most of us. So, the
question becomes, "How can we mimic the performance of the dish with
practical materials.

Now, that is what we are all looking for, isn't it?

Warmest regards,
JS

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

"art" wrote in message
ps.com...
No I wouldn't call it "art" it is just science gone awry.
If you go back to 101 you will be one of many who
got into trouble with Divergence and Curl but chose to
believe the books because that is what you are being
examined for. Review Helmholts, Stokes and Gauss on
statics now that you are not compelled to suck up
everything. As far as a dish is concerned for HF
that is not really a problem anymore when you understand
how the misconceptions that took hold around "curl"
I'll give you a hint John look at a "conservative field"
where "vector value is zero" statement is made in
the books based on what the masters said and then
think it out for yourself ! As far as satellites are concerned
where circular polarisation is chosen via a turnstile, just
imagine what it will do for antennas when it is proven that
parallism is not the only way to go. You are quite correct
that all is not known and that is purely from
misconceptions about "curl" put out via faulty
mathematics from the masters.
Back to the dish antenna, yes that does appear to be
one of the best not because of its traditional nature
but because the dish can be formed in equilibrium
such that more than one vector points in the same direction.
You will understand that better when you read my write up
when I get around to it or my patent application is printed..

Regards
Art






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

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

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

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