On 26 Nov, 01:33, "Jimmie D" wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:57:57 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

For more than a year you have stated "it" has been done before and
none
of us know what "it" is.

US? You got a mouse in your pocket? Is his name Mickey Gauss?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

In a way I can feel Arts's pain. When I was 13 I thought I had discovered a
new way of rectifying AC, too bad the bridge rectifier had already been
invented. I was crushed.

Jimmie.

No. That is just Richard playing word games with his "it" just like
Clinton with
"is"
I say I have invented a 160M antenna that is rotatable and directional
and without the requirement of a ground plain. It could have been for
a different
frequency but I chose the worst case scenario.
No, you will have to wait for the PTO to print it before you can
duplicate it
Now Richard with his word games is playing with the word "it".
And he knows full well that hams are not using this antenna design at
the present time.
The day will come when he has to state what "it" is but rest assured
it will not be
the rotatable 160 M antenna.It took him and David several months to
even acknowledge
that you can add a time variable to static law. Now they both
insinuate that
they knew that all along. In a few more months Richard will conjure up
something
that fits his present posture. Until then it is word games that
insinuate but
does not actually state thus his befuddled postings that few
understand.
Art

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:27:22 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:
I say I have invented a 160M antenna that is rotatable and directional
and without the requirement of a ground plain.

Hi Arthur,

"It" is called a dipole. 'It" has already been done. There have been
extrememly long threads here for weeks discussing this design:
Rotatable 200M antennas that are half a meter wide! These rotatable
and directional designs have been around since the days of Queen
Victoria.

It could have been for
a different
frequency but I chose the worst case scenario.

Others figured out how to do "it" too. One of the first was some
bumpkin called Hertz. You probably haven't read about him in a book
unfortunately.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"It" is called a dipole. 'It" has already been done. There have been
extrememly long threads here for weeks discussing this design:
Rotatable 200M antennas that are half a meter wide!

According to the following IEEE paper:

http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

A 75m 6" dia. 4 tpi Texas Bugcatcher coil has a
VF of around 0.024 on 1.9 MHz. A self-resonant
160m dipole made from such coil stock would be
only about 6 feet long.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 26 Nov, 08:55, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"It" is called a dipole. 'It" has already been done. There have been
extrememly long threads here for weeks discussing this design:
Rotatable 200M antennas that are half a meter wide!

According to the following IEEE paper:

http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

A 75m 6" dia. 4 tpi Texas Bugcatcher coil has a
VF of around 0.024 on 1.9 MHz. A self-resonant
160m dipole made from such coil stock would be
only about 6 feet long.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

That may be true Cecil but it is a lousy antenna.
The conclusion of the article infers that lumped loads
can be equated to distributed loads which we all know
is an error.
One of the requirements for radiation is that the
radiators surface is not enclosed. A lumped load
does not accomplish that.Usually when Richard
posts on a thread it is usually a death knell
for any further communication.
With you replying to him in some way this thread
may stay alive for a while. You will notice that
he did not identify "it" that apparently was used
before Marconi came along.He also talks of long discussion
of this "dipole" of Queen Victoria which as you know is a
figment of his imagination.A replacement for it.
He is just a childish idiot looking for some sort
of recognition who cannot communicate.

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:47:36 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

On 26 Nov, 08:55, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"It" is called a dipole. 'It" has already been done.

he did not identify "it" that apparently was used
before Marconi came along.He also talks of long discussion
of this "dipole" of Queen Victoria which as you know is a
figment of his imagination.

Hi Arthur,

We can all appreciate how you rejected all things British when you
emigrated. Consult history to observe that Hertz (not a British
subject) invented the loop antenna during Victoria's reign.

Others may be equally ignorant of early RF work, but it was a simple
google of "Hertz" and "Queen Victoria" to arrive at:
"Marconi was giving wireless reports to the mainland from the
Kingstown Regatta, from distances of 5 to 10 miles out to sea.
And sending Queen Victoria reports concerning the health of
her son, the Prince of Wales, who was recovering from a
knee injury as he watched the regatta from the royal yacht."

And, as we are all well aware, Hertz did not design, build, and
operate his antenna after the reign of Victoria.

This is all very elemental stuff.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 26 Nov, 11:19, Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:47:36 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

On 26 Nov, 08:55, Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
"It" is called a dipole. 'It" has already been done.
he did not identify "it" that apparently was used
before Marconi came along.He also talks of long discussion
of this "dipole" of Queen Victoria which as you know is a
figment of his imagination.

Hi Arthur,

We can all appreciate how you rejected all things British when you
emigrated. Consult history to observe that Hertz (not a British
subject) invented the loop antenna during Victoria's reign.

Others may be equally ignorant of early RF work, but it was a simple
google of "Hertz" and "Queen Victoria" to arrive at:
"Marconi was giving wireless reports to the mainland from the
Kingstown Regatta, from distances of 5 to 10 miles out to sea.
And sending Queen Victoria reports concerning the health of
her son, the Prince of Wales, who was recovering from a
knee injury as he watched the regatta from the royal yacht."

And, as we are all well aware, Hertz did not design, build, and
operate his antenna after the reign of Victoria.

This is all very elemental stuff.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

And this is ........"it"?
An antenna for........ 160M?
The antenna you state that has been talked about at length
somewhere on this newsgroup at a yet unknown location?
I will have no problem with the PTO since your fiction does
not persuede them in any way.From the getgo you have stated
that my antenna is pre known when for months you would not
acknowledge that a time variable could not be added to static law.
A fact that you now readily admit. All elemental stuff that defies
description of any sort and which exists only in your twisted mind
which you refuse to describe. You have to much faith that "all is
known"
and a equivalent antenna will pop out of the fog that you generate.
End of discussion. You have nothing new to add to keep my attention.
I can see now why they tried to lose your patent
aplication some years ago. The question arises is the
examiner who "found it" is still employed.