On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:44:37 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure
that it does
when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency.

Hi Arthur,

Richard's example resonates from over a 10:1 region in the HF (in
other words ALL HF).

They have published their data, they have published their design. You
are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies,
specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific
radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 20 Dec, 13:30, Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:44:37 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

I not only THINK that limited band spread applies, I KNOW for sure
that it does
when considering impedance changes with respect to frequency.

Hi Arthur,

Richard's example resonates from over a 10:1 region in the HF (in
other words ALL HF).

They have published their data, they have published their design. You
are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies,
specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific
radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

No.
This group is for book followers. I have placed it in front of a
panel of my peers consisting of professors knoweledgable in the field.
You are welcome to follow the descriptions/instructions that I have
provided over the years if you have an ounce of inquisitiveness
but your niche in life is to mock and not enquire.
Go back to the thread of a thousand postings and go around the
circle once more while injecting snakes and ladders that go no where.
Remember, it took you several months to accept that the adition of a
time variable
to Gaussian law results in the same law stated by Maxwell. I haven't
got the time to
provide a thread of a 1000 postings to satisfy anybody that takes that
long to absorb
every step into new territory absent a book.
Art

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:05:54 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

They have published their data, they have published their design. You
are not going to do that, are you? I mean like specific frequencies,
specific SWR measurements, specific antenna dimensions, specific
radiation gains. You are not going to offer us that, are you?

No.

Hi Arthur,

Then you don't have anything to offer, do you? What a mooch.

**** IRONIC CONTENT FOLLOWS *****

Let's try this theory on for size.

Arthur, I have an antenna the size of a pin head that works 160M with
20 dB gain, when I operatered it from my basement. It uses the
Earth's magnetic lines of force to penetrate soil, rock, and
constructions. By using ultraminiature plates at right angles, the
Poindexter Vectrod takes on a helical twist that steers through
electron orbits to escape the resistorance of nucklei (wich everyone
nose is 100,000 times larger) thus reducing gain by 5 or 3 divisions.
It is provened by Faradsay laws which came before Gus the mangetic
plumber patended the north and south poles.

If you cannot prove this, then goe and warshipyour old dead gods and
put bernt oferings at there feeet because nonething isreally none but
low so eventhough fo' you to go say you no it, it no so - whoa! so
woe, how po'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Dec 20, 6:20 pm, Richard Clark wrote:


**** IRONIC CONTENT FOLLOWS *****

Let's try this theory on for size.

Arthur, I have an antenna the size of a pin head that works 160M with
20 dB gain, when I operatered it from my basement. It uses the
Earth's magnetic lines of force to penetrate soil, rock, and
constructions. By using ultraminiature plates at right angles, the
Poindexter Vectrod takes on a helical twist that steers through
electron orbits to escape the resistorance of nucklei (wich everyone
nose is 100,000 times larger) thus reducing gain by 5 or 3 divisions.
It is provened by Faradsay laws which came before Gus the mangetic
plumber patended the north and south poles.

If you cannot prove this, then goe and warshipyour old dead gods and
put bernt oferings at there feeet because nonething isreally none but
low so eventhough fo' you to go say you no it, it no so - whoa! so
woe, how po'.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dang.. This is scary.. You mimic Art's bafflegab to a tee...
MK