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

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