On 24 Sep, 04:15, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote in message
The tank circuit is a electrical circuit that is also the circuit
of a full wave radiator regardless of how the extended mathematics
and my work portrays. It clearly shows that release of energy by
shorting the energy source is how an efficient radiating system
works i.e two energy sources continuing a pendulum swing
as it were. Attack that if you wish since the books validate that
without reference to equilibrium or Gauss.
Much clippage, then
With all the above I rest my case especially since nobody has
refuted any of it in scientific terms which includes mathematics.

________

And, Art, you haven't posted the mathematics to prove or even illustrate
what you believe about this -- which would be valuable to you, as your
beliefs are so different from antenna engineering practice and field
experience.

You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date
Regards
Art

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 24 Sep, 04:15, "Richard Fry" wrote:
You will have more credibility and respect if you post your mathematical
proof so that others can investigate your beliefs using scientific
methods,
rather than persisting in your challenges for others to prove you wrong
based only on your prose.

RF

Already done all that on this newsgroup. Sweep for Gauss or gaussian
and it will get you up to date.
___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

From he

http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html

You act as if math is the oracle which tells no lies--has no false
visions ...

Uncounted times, math is reshuffled to come into line with present
knowledge--the reverse has NEVER happened--at least not to my knowledge.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein


So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna, but facts that only make for almost
impossible to read text in a Usenet group?

It doesn't define one as close minded to note that extraordinary claims
require proof at the same level.

wouldn't simple proof be a lot easier than declaring all who disagree as
enemies of one sort or another?

Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

Proof would shut us close minded ones up would it not? Then the antenna
will become status quo, and we will rush to defend it.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

___________

All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.

RF

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein

So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.
You could look in the archives for this year and look up the "Davis"
mathematical
solutions contribution once in a while so that you can upgrade in the
future
You can work everything that you hear now so hang around until
somebody makes the one I suggested
but then they may be competition minded and not tell you of the work
they have done for themselves!
Art

art wrote:
On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
___________
All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.
RF
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.

Sheesh, Art. How come every one who questions you is some kind of
dullard, or worse? Even those who aren't questioning you, such as
myself. Your antenna might be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm
not saying it isn't, I'm saying show me.

It must be an interesting world where only those who agree with you are
intelligent or clever, and all those who have the temerity to even ask
questions, wanting proof, are not.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On 24 Sep, 11:23, Michael Coslo wrote:
art wrote:
On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
___________
All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.
RF
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.

Sheesh, Art. How come every one who questions you is some kind of
dullard, or worse? Even those who aren't questioning you, such as
myself. Your antenna might be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm
not saying it isn't, I'm saying show me.

It must be an interesting world where only those who agree with you are
intelligent or clever, and all those who have the temerity to even ask
questions, wanting proof, are not.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Michael from the past I was called every name under the sun on
past patents
This time I gave the basis of the mathematics, I gave a array of full
wave
elements that was checked independently on this newsnet. I also put
up a page
with the data and drawings from a static field ala Gauss on to a
dynamic form
where it can be verivied by computor programs.
All I got was jeers and insults there is nothing more that I can do
other what I have done
I can't make you make one even with instructions and I am not giving
out gifts.
Oh and you got the benefit of Dr Davis's mathematical analysis to boot
before the group dissed him to.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

Proof would shut us close minded ones up would it not? Then the
antenna will become status quo, and we will rush to defend it.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

A million visions hit me where the status quo is unusable--college
dorms, hotel rooms, camping grounds in national forests,
secure-elite-gated communities where "keeping up with the joneses" is in
vogue (and, I am stuck in one--for a bit anyway :-( ), a beach, etc., etc.

I have already stated, canned antennas and the software to define them
have a REAL place ... it is only the idiots who shout down everyone else
who are in question! Personally, I need the art of small/stealth
antennas to expand ... I can't believe I am the only one; I am just
more vocal to their importance.

I have already had complaints about the American Flag flying on my 50
ft. pole, so far, NOT flying the flag has appeased the "complainers"--go
figure! Any day now, they will eventually notice the pole is still
there. Then I'll be stuck with the DLM posing as a drain pipe ...

And, there are errors and missing sections in our complete understanding
of antennas, em/photon radiation, etc.--those who will bother to examine
the evidence already know this--those who are either unable or unwilling
to do so never will.

Regards,
JS

On Sep 24, 12:04 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

I've told him that a hundred times... He won't listen.
How does he expect anyone to give his antenna much of a
chance when the "theory" he provides is generally caca, and
he refuses to build an actual working antenna to demo and test?
What a load of @#$%...
Art and his groupies just don't get it.
It's not that anyone is against new ideas, antennas, etc,
ad nausium.
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. :/
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.
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

On 24 Sep, 14:18, wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:04 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:



Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

I've told him that a hundred times... He won't listen.
How does he expect anyone to give his antenna much of a
chance when the "theory" he provides is generally caca, and
he refuses to build an actual working antenna to demo and test?
What a load of @#$%...
Art and his groupies just don't get it.
It's not that anyone is against new ideas, antennas, etc,
ad nausium.
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. :/
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.
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.
It is no problem to me if you don't make one. 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.
By the way large ground planes are not in vogue anymore since they
have lost their uses. 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
By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives, he has not
removed it for people trying to find it.
Art