On Jan 18, 3:36 am, "Ed Cregger" wrote:

Yet the same young/old coots are in here argueing day after
day that what they learned in the 1940's and 50's, 60's,
70's, 80's, 90's and now the 20's, is the Gospel Truth. I
wish you could see just how silly you appear to others. I'm
not pointing the finger at anyone in particular.

But on the other hand many of those theories have been tested
over and over again in all those years. If they pass the continued
test of time, I trust them more than I do bafflegab that usually
breaks these fairly well proven theories with no prior testing done
of the new theories.
I have nothing against trying new ideas, but they should at
least be tested and proven in the real world before they are
unleashed as "fact", or that I need to "recognize" something
that is obviously not the case, already proven through years of
repeated testing.
I've told Art many times... If you build it and it works, they will
come. He refuses.
When a person proclaims that they have a new theory which will
likely break the laws of older proven theory, it's that persons
obligation to prove his case, not the other way around.
And to do that requires getting off ones rear to build and test
the real deal, in the real world and letting the chips fall where
they may.
Art claims to have an 18 ft antenna for 160m on his tower,
but on the other hand he says he does not operate.
So how is he going to test it?
And if it's going to be a fair test, he needs a reference antenna.
If I claimed to have a small antenna that was equal in efficiency
to a full size antenna, I would A/B compare it to a full size
antenna.
If the chips fell in an undesirable manner, I would scrap the
thing, and move on to something else.
It's not like it would be the end of the world.
Art never gets this far. So due to a lack of actual testing, it's
like a dog chasing it's tail, while barking at the moon at the
same time.
I'm all for new ideas, and I surely know that in the history of
the world, people will likely see things much differently 200
years from now, than they do today.
That's a given..
All I'm saying is... Don't feed me a turd and call it steak,
without tasting it first. I can smell the difference in most
cases just from my own prior experiences.
If I thought a 18 ft element could equal a full size element
on 160m, you can bet I would already have one in the air.
But I know just from prior testing with just half size dipoles
using efficient Hi-Q loading coils at optimum locations, that
even they couldn't quite match up. I had to go to a "Z" dipole
to get close to full size efficiency.
So when I hear stories of small radiators wound with thin
22 gauge wire in a "to me" perverted contra wound method,
and this is supposed to be the answer to all our prayers,
please excuse me if I don't rush out to nominate Art for the
Nobel prize in physics without a little real world
demonstration. Using a real full size antenna to compare
it with would be nice.
I would expect no less from even an alien if he promised a
free lunch deal like that. Or myself for that matter.
MK