"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