"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 16 Mar, 16:25, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" quoting RF: All you need to do then is to prove it, and get the
FCC to accept it.

RF

What about the use of complex circuitry methods od design does that
present any advantage? We now can insert lumped constants ?

___________

Note the responsible party in this, which I re-post below with emphasis:

"All __YOU__ need to do then is to prove it,..."

If YOU, Art Unwin, want to be recogniz(s)ed for introducing a new
application or concept about "Irregular Gaussian Radiation Fields,"
shouldn't that first be based upon your own theoretical and experimental
research and proofs, which after your publication of same, are capable of
being proven true by other scientific investigators?

If both of those situations exist, then maybe you will have a chance for
the
commercial and governmental acceptance/success of your concepts, and your
personal recognition for the same.

But until then, you may wish to keep such revelations closer to your
vest.

With respect to your claimed English background, I wish you the best,
Sir,
and
remain your humble and obedient servant etc, etc,

RF

Thanks for the warning but the patent application is well along on
it's progress. Even if it wasn't the denial of it's possibility is so
strong I could wait another year before I processed it and I will
still be first in line. Frankly the Dr from MIT convinced most of the
group on the first part as being valid but they still have to be
convinced of the second part so time is very much on my side. When the
PTO office prints it industry will then take over and the people on
this newsgroup will be after my autograph instead of the blithering
idiot type comments.

the only autograph anyone will be after is the signature on the check for
the application fee.