On 2 Mar, 08:30, (Rick) wrote:
Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

Does anybody disagree or agree for that matter that the expansion of
Gaussian static law to electro magnetic law is correct or in error,
Anybody. Why the reluctance to talk about the basics of radiation?
There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis. It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage. The basic laws of the
masters which is the under pinnings of NEC are specific and to the
point. It is the programer that is introducing the errors and he is
the checker of his own work. If the works of the masters reveal
something new when the formular is used who do we shoot, the
programmer, the masters or wait for somebody else to do some work and
add it to the program based on empirical work?
Well it appears that for the present all choose to ignore it because
lack of knoweledge is not hurting anybody.
Shame oh shame
Art XG

On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:23 -0800, "art" wrote:

It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage.

Hi Art,

Two things wrong with this statement:
1. You have no same results;
2. You have no NEC results.

There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis.

You refuse to discuss the obvious errors of:
1. Scale (explain how 6 inch elements resonate at 200 MHz);
2. Elements described as orthogonal to an axis (they are not);
3. Any number of gain claims through software you challenge as
inaccurate;
4. Ignoring historical work that has preceded you.

Shame oh shame
Congratulations! A comment like that, would probably get you
kill-filed from the new moderated group - which makes you a troglodyte
like the rest of us. ;-)

Have you though of cleaning up your act and doing a dog and pony show
for them?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 5 Mar, 16:24, Richard Clark wrote:
On 5 Mar 2007 12:53:23 -0800, "art" wrote:

It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage.

Hi Art,

Two things wrong with this statement:
1. You have no same results;
2. You have no NEC results.

There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis.

You refuse to discuss the obvious errors of:
1. Scale (explain how 6 inch elements resonate at 200 MHz);
2. Elements described as orthogonal to an axis (they are not);
3. Any number of gain claims through software you challenge as
inaccurate;
4. Ignoring historical work that has preceded you.

Shame oh shame

Congratulations! A comment like that, would probably get you
kill-filed from the new moderated group - which makes you a troglodyte
like the rest of us. ;-)

Have you though of cleaning up your act and doing a dog and pony show
for them?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 5 Mar 2007 17:59:10 -0800, "art" wrote:



;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"art" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 2 Mar, 08:30, (Rick) wrote:
Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

Does anybody disagree or agree for that matter that the expansion of
Gaussian static law to electro magnetic law is correct or in error,

it is in error, by definition. if you want a 'Gaussian' law that is
something other than as it is written, then write your own law, make some
predictions not covered by the existing maxwell's equations, and let the
papers get accepted by a peer reviewed journal. anything less than that and
all you are doing is blowing smoke.

Anybody. Why the reluctance to talk about the basics of radiation?
There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis. It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage. The basic laws of the
masters which is the under pinnings of NEC are specific and to the
point. It is the programer that is introducing the errors and he is
the checker of his own work. If the works of the masters reveal
something new when the formular is used who do we shoot, the
programmer, the masters or wait for somebody else to do some work and
add it to the program based on empirical work?

i do believe if you read all the literature that has been written using
results of NEC and the experimental results it has been compared to you will
find that it is not the programmer checking himself, the program has been
tested many, many different ways over lots of years now.

Well it appears that for the present all choose to ignore it because
lack of knoweledge is not hurting anybody.
Shame oh shame
Art XG

On 6 Mar, 14:14, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 2 Mar, 08:30, (Rick) wrote:
Congratulations Art, you are now in my killfile.
Don't bother responding - I won't see your posts anymore.

There's enough negativity in the world, I don't need it in an antenna
newsgroup. Man oh Man, anyone who slams Roy.......

73 forever,

Rick K2XT

Does anybody disagree or agree for that matter that the expansion of
Gaussian static law to electro magnetic law is correct or in error,

it is in error, by definition. if you want a 'Gaussian' law that is
something other than as it is written, then write your own law, make some
predictions not covered by the existing maxwell's equations, and let the
papers get accepted by a peer reviewed journal. anything less than that and
all you are doing is blowing smoke.

Anybody. Why the reluctance to talk about the basics of radiation?
There are no approximations or excuses or fudge factors pencilled in
the analyis. It produces the same results every time when adressed
which is not the same as in NEC program useage. The basic laws of the
masters which is the under pinnings of NEC are specific and to the
point. It is the programer that is introducing the errors and he is
the checker of his own work. If the works of the masters reveal
something new when the formular is used who do we shoot, the
programmer, the masters or wait for somebody else to do some work and
add it to the program based on empirical work?

i do believe if you read all the literature that has been written using
results of NEC and the experimental results it has been compared to you will
find that it is not the programmer checking himself, the program has been
tested many, many different ways over lots of years now.



Well it appears that for the present all choose to ignore it because
lack of knoweledge is not hurting anybody.
Shame oh shame
Art XG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Be patient Dave, Gene Fuller states in another thread that he has all
the answers and aparently is going to point out some writing that are
100 years old that apparently is going to tear me to bits. I do
believe that the answers I seek are now going to be made available.
Gene has three degrees is physics so he is not to be taken lightly. I
am looking forward to the upcoming education so I can see where I went
wrong. Gene is the first person to step forward with all the written
facts available to me.
Perhaps others will learn something also. Follow down and read what he
had to say.
Art

art wrote:


Be patient Dave, Gene Fuller states in another thread that he has all
the answers and aparently is going to point out some writing that are
100 years old that apparently is going to tear me to bits. I do
believe that the answers I seek are now going to be made available.
Gene has three degrees is physics so he is not to be taken lightly. I
am looking forward to the upcoming education so I can see where I went
wrong. Gene is the first person to step forward with all the written
facts available to me.
Perhaps others will learn something also. Follow down and read what he
had to say.
Art


Art,

You apparently are going to need a lot of patience. I have explained the
relationship of Gaussian "statics" to full electromagnetic theory at
least three times. I am sorry if you did not comprehend.

I cannot explain "Unwin's Law", and I will make no attempt to do so.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"You apparently are going to need a lot of patience."

Patience is a virtue that carries a lot of wait.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 7 Mar, 16:36, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Gene, W4SZ wrote:

"You apparently are going to need a lot of patience."

Patience is a virtue that carries a lot of wait.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard, why is it you get away with stating the truth and it is I
that get stoned? Gentlemen read posting number three by Richard and
rethink your positions
Art

Art wrote:
"Richard, why is it you get away with stating the truth and I get
stoned?"

The status quo is comfortable. You are the one who would shake things
up.

I think we will always need a patent office but the inventor will need
to promote his own work, unless the novelty obviously fills a desperate
need.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI