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

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, 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

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

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.

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 -