A herd of two:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:16:44 -0800, art wrote:

On 7 Nov, 07:07, John Smith wrote:
a 160m antenna can be difficult to vertically polarize!

No it isn't.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:23:03 -0800, John Smith
wrote:

Even a vertical DLM antenna can be a challenge
....
the DLM being a notable exception.

You two crack me up. Do you guys butter your toast on both sides so
when it falls to the ground only one side gets fuzzy? At least the
fuzzy side doesn't degrade masticating efficiency by sticking to the
roof of your mouth.

Richard Clark wrote:

...
You two crack me up. Do you guys butter your toast on both sides so
when it falls to the ground only one side gets fuzzy? At least the
fuzzy side doesn't degrade masticating efficiency by sticking to the
roof of your mouth.

As Richard Fry has pointed out, the Navys' data is available to all ...

Regards,
JS

On 7 Nov, 07:46, Richard Clark wrote:
A herd of two:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:16:44 -0800, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 07:07, John Smith wrote:
a 160m antenna can be difficult to vertically polarize!

No it isn't.

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 07:23:03 -0800, John Smith



wrote:
Even a vertical DLM antenna can be a challenge
...
the DLM being a notable exception.

You two crack me up. Do you guys butter your toast on both sides so
when it falls to the ground only one side gets fuzzy? At least the
fuzzy side doesn't degrade masticating efficiency by sticking to the
roof of your mouth.

You crack me up too
I was just reading all your posts to John E Davis on the
gauss statics law all over again.
All handwaving about mathematics but you presented
nothing that over rides his math.
No math or is it no mass?
You got your adults degree based on your journeys in the Navy
but that didn't provide you with a mathematics regimen
to fault Davis did it?
You never wrote anything that wasn't "fuzzy"
Whant to prove my initial post in error
or return to your fuzzy logic suitably scrambled
so that it cannot be deciferred?
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error
but then you can't so you will resort to handwaving.
Yes, Krauss, Maxwell Gauss and many many others support it
but you, you are not equipped to oppose

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:

Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :



On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:41:47 -0800, art wrote:

On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

So no mass and bluffing shows the error of
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²
?

No one doubts that from you Arthur. Do you know what mathematics is?

To this point, your theories lack equations, and lacking equations
they lack results. You often fail to provide the minimum enumerated
characteristics of
1. frequency;
2. wavelength;
3. angle;
4. gain;
5. resistance;
6. reactance;
7. Q;
8. voltage;
9. current.
Yet and all, you claim to have a theory of RF that lacks values for
each and everyone of these specifics that are rudderless in your brand
of math without equations. True, you line up all these words in all
the possible combinations and permutations (and sometimes even spell
them right), but not always in coherent sentences and rarely
punctuated correctly. Enlarge your word palette and you may one day
script "Hamlet" through the same random process.

However, I am glad to see you still read my comments! So that
inspires me to happily slog on through your murky postings. ;-)

Forge on for Queen and Country!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 7 Nov, 10:04, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:41:47 -0800, art wrote:
On 7 Nov, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:18:26 -0800, art wrote:
Try proving my initial post on this thread is in error

In one sentence with fewer words than? :
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 11:04:38 -0800, art wrote:
Shorten your post and just type one line. I Richard, can show the error of your mathematics
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

Exactly, bluffing again no mass

So no mass and bluffing shows the error ofRr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²

?

No one doubts that from you Arthur. Do you know what mathematics is?

To this point, your theories lack equations, and lacking equations
they lack results. You often fail to provide the minimum enumerated
characteristics of
1. frequency;
2. wavelength;
3. angle;
4. gain;
5. resistance;
6. reactance;
7. Q;
8. voltage;
9. current.
Yet and all, you claim to have a theory of RF that lacks values for
each and everyone of these specifics that are rudderless in your brand
of math without equations. True, you line up all these words in all
the possible combinations and permutations (and sometimes even spell
them right), but not always in coherent sentences and rarely
punctuated correctly. Enlarge your word palette and you may one day
script "Hamlet" through the same random process.

However, I am glad to see you still read my comments! So that
inspires me to happily slog on through your murky postings. ;-)

Forge on for Queen and Country!

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Get to mathematics. Prove me wrong by your own hand.
Nobody has yet and nobody can.
Words don't trump mathematics

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:33:10 -0800, art wrote:

Words don't trump mathematics

And yet you haven't produced a lick of equations, or solutions.

Do you still maintain
mass and bluffing shows the error of
Rr = 80 · pi² · (length/wavelength)²
?

You asked for a simple, one-sentence equation you could prove wrong
with mathematics. Feel free to fill in the variables and show how the
solution is wrong. [Hint: the same formula can even be found in a
book you own, page 12 of chapter 2, of J&J, if you haven't colored
over it on the page.]

Note, that if you prove this wrong by your mathematics as you said you
would, you simultaneously impeach your only reference book that you
have used to prove your theory. Quite a paradox isn't it? I don't
think Johnson and Jasik ever show that mass and bluffing like yours
proves the error of their own work.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC