On Sep 24, 4:52 pm, art wrote:

Art goes the other route. He talks a great storm, but nothing is
ever produced to actually test in the real world.
As far as I see it, that is no way to live.
MK

I have built them no problem but I am not going to give them away to
people who arenot interested in them.

They do make cameras... You can take one to a test range
and post the results.

It is no problem to me if you don't make one.

Thats good, cuz I prefer full size antennas...

Listen out for me when
it gets cold on 160 meters. I have a rotatable one about 2 foot square
that will be on the tower but at the moment I am adding to it to make
it an all bander maybe all frequency with two rotators for horizontal
and vertical radiation. But then if you can't hear me then you can't
work me.

If you put out a decent signal, I should hear you.
I'll be out in the country using big antennas.
Heck, I already have a full size 160m dipole up there.
I was there Sept 1... I converted my old 80/40 dipoles
to add two more bands. Now I have 160,80,40,20 dipoles
on a single feedline. I eventually plan some type of
vertical for transmitting. Probably a wire running up a
tall tree. And yes, I'll be using a few of those obsolete
old radials to ensure the ground losses don't eat my
lunch.
And as you have probably already noticed, I have plans for
beverages up there. I'll have a big small loop too..
If you operate, and put out any kind of decent signal,
I should be able to hear you with little trouble.

By the way large ground planes are not in vogue anymore since they
have lost their uses.

What? Ground loss has finally been done away with?
It's xmas in Sept... :/

No I anm not going to bring it to you so that
you can see the test or operate it so you will have to continue to
call me names as usual

As usual, you are not much help. BTW, I don't really recall calling
*you* any names. Only your posted "theory"... :/

By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives, he has not
removed it for people trying to find it.

I don't need to find it. I was here when it all went down.
As I recall, Richard asked him a few pertinent questions, and
he did a runner..
Myself, I think once he finally got a clue what you were proposing,
he decided to duck and cover his rear.. I know he has not been
back to answer the fairly simple questions posed to him.
BTW, if you do decide to get out on 160m to test this antenna,
please do us all a favor and ensure that the feedline is not doing
the bulk of the radiating.
I'll be going back up there in middle-late Oct when the trees
start turning colorful if you want to try it out.
MK

"art" wrote
By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives,
he has not removed it for people trying to find it.
________

A "John E Davis" Google search of this newsgroup shows nothing posted by
John E Davis himself -- only a lot of references to his name, mostly by you,
and none of that containing any mathematical proof of your beliefs.

Please refer us to the URL(s) for anything that you, he or anyone else ever
wrote and posted directly if such will, by mathematics, support your beliefs
that only 1-wave antennas have the required "equilibrium" for "efficient"
radiation.

This is your golden opportunity. Otherwise...

RF

On Sep 24, 5:38 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives,
he has not removed it for people trying to find it.

________

A "John E Davis" Google search of this newsgroup shows nothing posted by
John E Davis himself -- only a lot of references to his name, mostly by you,
and none of that containing any mathematical proof of your beliefs.

Please refer us to the URL(s) for anything that you, he or anyone else ever
wrote and posted directly if such will, by mathematics, support your beliefs
that only 1-wave antennas have the required "equilibrium" for "efficient"
radiation.

This is your golden opportunity. Otherwise...

RF

This is the thread in question...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r... bdc00f7e7cbcd
MK

On 24 Sep, 13:23, "Dave" wrote:
"art" wrote in message

ups.com...





On 23 Sep, 16:10, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...

Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do
that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write
a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage
to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite
obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when
you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown
himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in
terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull. A ham who holds a doctorate and works for MIT provided the
corroberating details.
It is not my fault that your mathematical knoweledge and education
could not keep up with him which is the same for all others on the
thread. Nobody but nobody could fault his mathematics and you call
that just "hand waving"?
David it was you who led the charge and consistently stated that you
can't apply a time varient to a static field and refused to
acknowledge that the math supplied that concurred with Maxwells laws
relying only on the fact that it came from your own mouth so it must
be correct. Now that I call "handwaving" all mouth and no facts
proffered to confirm your opinions or guesstimates. Now you say you
should be able to take a "challenge" well I invite any scientifically
based challenge some thing I have hoped for in a long while from the
self professeed experts and am still waiting.
I can understand opinions from hobbiests you have joined the ranks of
ham radio but for those skilled in the art and have gone thru the
reqimen of getting a degree or obtaining the rights of a professional
engineer one would expect a more factual debate on the subject. If you
don't understand the subject then you default your right to critisize.
Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.
Have a happy day to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ......ex UK.

ah well art... i guess i have riled you up enough this time, its not any fun
any more though. you don't have anything new to offer, just pointing to old
discreditted information and posts that don't exist. I have quoted enough
of my credentials that by now you should know i can follow whatever math you
may throw up, or puke up as the case may be, on this forum. and i'm not
going to bother to go search for your mythical patents and papers any more,
publish the full links here or forever be labeled a faker.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I porefer the faker one

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:52:19 -0700, art wrote:

By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives, he has not
removed it for people trying to find it.

Hi Arhtur,

Not worth repeating, is it? Such recommendations fall into a familiar
pattern, especially when you can't find your own page.

Well, still and all it bears visiting those archives to read how each
of your claims blows your last one out of the air as being the height
of stupidity.

Efficient directors are longer than driven elements.
("Time to Burn the books, the early tour.")

More efficient reflectors are shorter than the driven element. (Unless
you need two reflectors which are even MORE efficient.)

Short antennas are vastly more efficient because halfwaves are too
long. (Good by two reflectors.)

Long (halfwave) antennas are exceedingly more efficient because they
were blessed by a heretical disciple of Gauss. (Goodbye directors and
reflectors altogether.)

Longer (fullwave) antennas are fantastically more efficient because
they....
(Goodbye Gauss, here's another spade of mud in your face.)

Well, at least the jokes aren't all the same, but superlatives are
getting stretched thin.

Imagine the embarrassment of this mythical Dr. Phil whose name is
being pasted to every theory coming out of central Illinois!

OK, so he only dresses like Dr. Phil. Let's see what he actually had
to offer and we find that any support (the word Gauss misapplied) for
arT has been spun up out of whole cloth.

Arthru has discovered a button of Dr. Phil's, sewed it to a coat,
looked in the pocket of the coat and found a paper, on this paper aRt
writes his theory and puts it back into the coat to give us a glowing
reference of authorship to the grand Dr from MTA!

For discovery of a button a battle was one.

;-) ;-) ;-) Art spoiler, the following is a joke ;-) ;-) ;-)

These theories of "efficiency" are like the Republicans giving us back
our own money - meanwhile the prostituted dollar has plummeted, a
barrel of oil has nearly tripled in price, the deficit went sky-hi,
and Greenspan is spitting on the White House. Soon we will all be as
rich (oops, efficient) as sub-Saharan Africans. At least jobs have
picked up in this era of efficiency, it is now vastly easier picking
fly **** out of sand.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 24 Sep, 16:03, wrote:
On Sep 24, 5:38 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:





"art" wrote By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives,
he has not removed it for people trying to find it.

________

A "John E Davis" Google search of this newsgroup shows nothing posted by
John E Davis himself -- only a lot of references to his name, mostly by you,
and none of that containing any mathematical proof of your beliefs.

Please refer us to the URL(s) for anything that you, he or anyone else ever
wrote and posted directly if such will, by mathematics, support your beliefs
that only 1-wave antennas have the required "equilibrium" for "efficient"
radiation.

This is your golden opportunity. Otherwise...

RF

This is the thread in question...http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a/browse_frm/t...
MK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I just read that thread all again, even Richards which I have stopped
reading now.
One thing he says comes to mind" the antenna was invented some 100
years ago" but nobody asked where it is illustrated so that they can
see the proof. Rather than pursuing me for data and calling me names
get Richard to show where it is in the antenna books so you can see
the results for your selves. Ofcourse Richard is known for his lies so
I wouldn't hang around to long for his answer because as I stated he
is a liar. He also said he agreed with it all along from some prior
reading but David decided for the moment not to challenge him because
that infered that time can be added to BOTH sides of the equation
which David states one cannot do. O what a web one weaves when they
step down and try to deceiveI But he did get the Doctor to leave in
the same way he has got other experts to leave
purely on the smell of his retorts. I think I will drop out on this
one somebody will surely rake thru all the antenna books of old to
verify Richards fallacioes statments. I am gone for a while to do
things with the antenna before it gets to cold. After reading that
long thread people will never accept that any thing new can come
about
antennas which is why most have departed from that scene and moved to
agitating on newsgroups
Bye Bye, don't know when I will come back so you will have to decide
now who will be the recipient of your arrows and slander from now on.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....ex UK

wrote:

Just don't feed us a turd and call it a steak if one can't even
take the trouble to build a working example to test. :/

Although there appears to be a good attempt to polish this particular
one. ;^)


If I had some new whiz bang antenna cooked up, I would build
and test one first, and then talk about it later if it actually was
proven to work.


Absolutely. Build and test. Get on the air and work. Put one up on a
range and produce some numbers. Publish the numbers. Silence the
skeptics. Convert them.


I always kind of wondered about the accusations thrown about here. If
they are true, there there appears to be a sizable group of Hams (and
apparently EE's and physicists too) who want to be using antennas that
don't work very well. They want to use inferior antennas so badly that
they squash any attempts at advancing the technology by others.

Yeah, right!

If I could put out a better signal by sticking a wire in a bagel , I'd
be doing it in a minute. 8^)

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:52:19 -0700, art wrote:

By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives, he has not
removed it for people trying to find it.

Hi Arhtur,

I liked Arthru better.....hehe. Dunno why, but it reminds me of Carrie's
Father on King of Queens.


Not worth repeating, is it? Such recommendations fall into a familiar
pattern, especially when you can't find your own page.

Well, still and all it bears visiting those archives to read how each
of your claims blows your last one out of the air as being the height
of stupidity.

Efficient directors are longer than driven elements.
("Time to Burn the books, the early tour.")

More efficient reflectors are shorter than the driven element. (Unless
you need two reflectors which are even MORE efficient.)

Short antennas are vastly more efficient because halfwaves are too
long. (Good by two reflectors.)

Long (halfwave) antennas are exceedingly more efficient because they
were blessed by a heretical disciple of Gauss. (Goodbye directors and
reflectors altogether.)

Longer (fullwave) antennas are fantastically more efficient because
they....
(Goodbye Gauss, here's another spade of mud in your face.)

Finally I understand.



These theories of "efficiency" are like the Republicans giving us back
our own money - meanwhile the prostituted dollar has plummeted,

I was told that is a good thing.

Jimmie D wrote:

...
I really think Arts game is to try to get someone else to do his work for
him. If not that he is suffering from delusions of granduer. Sad thing is I
have heard Arts story before in another time and place. I knew a guy that
was truly a mechanical genius but wasted it repairing bank tabulating
equipment back in the 60s & 70s when everything was mechanical. When he
retired after everything was taken over by computers he got interested in
Ham Radio, particularly interested in antennas. Many of the mistakes he made
are the same as Arts. The same mistake about efficiency.

Jimmie

Jimmie:

Actually, you make a good point. But, I think we are all guilty of it;
or at least I am, I tend to try to focus attention on my personal
antenna endeavors/experiments/needs.

Not everyone needs a perfect, small, highly efficient, stealthy antenna
.... but then, not every needs a stacked pair of 5 element yagi-udas'.

And, mistakes? I am looking forward to the day I have made 'em
all--maybe then I will get relief from having 'em pointed out to me! ;-)

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
And, mistakes? I am looking forward to the day I have made 'em
all--maybe then I will get relief from having 'em pointed out to me! ;-)

You do realize that when you succeed in becoming an
all-knowing guru, you will have condemned yourself
to a state of arrested development, incapable of
acquiring new knowledge, thus instantly ignorant? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com