On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:05:49 GMT, "Frank's"
wrote:

Hi Richard, I was not really serious

Hi Frank,

Neither is Art - only passionate.

His being convinced is one thing, but it does nothing to convince
others - except for possibly two more like him on Golgotha. Inevitably
whenever anyone like these two try to chime in, Art pounds more nails
into them.

Art, you can certainly name your critics, and you aren't shy to
enumerate huge lists either. Can you name one poster who can explain
your web page here? It would certainly make for a fresh change - like
the polar cap expanding back out or the Greenland glaciers returning.

Problem here is Art offers this as "PROOF." I note that no one has
bothered to point out that proofs necessarily have a premise to be
proven. When we have to dig for the premise, does it become OUR
proof? Or does the original author then expand his chest and proudly
proclaim "That is what I meant to say!"

When I examine the page at its most fundamental facts, namely that
described as "THREE ELEMENT GAUSSIAN CLUSTERED RADIATING ARRAY" I find
that the picture of the elements is not the same as those described as
the elements. A simple glance reveals the two at the top of the
illustration are orthogonal to the X axis, reviewing the coordinates
proves none are. There is a proof for all that is easily
demonstrated.

When I review the claims of "drive impedance" I find element 1 claims
to be resonant at 200 MHz when it is only 5 or 6 inches long. It
doesn't take computer analysis to destroy that proof. It doesn't work
if the length is in inches, feet, meters, centimeters, yards, chains,
rods, or any "usual" form of linear measurement.

These being technical details, appropriate for discussion in a
technical forum, they will sit cold on the table while flagons of
passionate wine are splashed around filling cups of remorse against
our failure to acknowledge genius.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:05:49 GMT, "Frank's"
wrote:


Hi Richard, I was not really serious


Hi Frank,

Neither is Art - only passionate.

His being convinced is one thing, but it does nothing to convince
others - except for possibly two more like him on Golgotha. Inevitably
whenever anyone like these two try to chime in, Art pounds more nails
into them.

Art, you can certainly name your critics, and you aren't shy to
enumerate huge lists either. Can you name one poster who can explain
your web page here? It would certainly make for a fresh change - like
the polar cap expanding back out or the Greenland glaciers returning.

Problem here is Art offers this as "PROOF." I note that no one has
bothered to point out that proofs necessarily have a premise to be
proven. When we have to dig for the premise, does it become OUR
proof? Or does the original author then expand his chest and proudly
proclaim "That is what I meant to say!"

When I examine the page at its most fundamental facts, namely that
described as "THREE ELEMENT GAUSSIAN CLUSTERED RADIATING ARRAY" I find
that the picture of the elements is not the same as those described as
the elements. A simple glance reveals the two at the top of the
illustration are orthogonal to the X axis, reviewing the coordinates
proves none are. There is a proof for all that is easily
demonstrated.

When I review the claims of "drive impedance" I find element 1 claims
to be resonant at 200 MHz when it is only 5 or 6 inches long. It
doesn't take computer analysis to destroy that proof. It doesn't work
if the length is in inches, feet, meters, centimeters, yards, chains,
rods, or any "usual" form of linear measurement.

These being technical details, appropriate for discussion in a
technical forum, they will sit cold on the table while flagons of
passionate wine are splashed around filling cups of remorse against
our failure to acknowledge genius.

It is your failure to acknowledge what it actually is that is most
remarkable. A visit to Art's website tells the story. Little more
need be said, for that would quite literally be kicking the crippled
man. Consider what John Bradford had to say, Richard.

73, ac6xg

On Feb 22, 3:01 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:

It is your failure to acknowledge what it actually is that is most
remarkable. A visit to Art's website tells the story. Little more
need be said, for that would quite literally be kicking the crippled
man. Consider what John Bradford had to say, Richard.

73, ac6xg


Jim
Apart from John Bradford's words your post was a bit too
cryptic for me, could you elaborate

Derek