"art" wrote:
No.I do not carry telephone poles on my vehical.
________

But aren't you claiming the effects you noted for a mobile antenna near
other conductors for your 160-m, time-variant Gaussian, diamagnetic,
cosmic-particle-levitating, compact, full-wave, tank circuit, tilted antenna
in equilibrium that you have described as installed on top of a short tower
in your back yard?

BTW, do you have means to change the tilt of your antenna when you want to
get best coverage in various different directions?

RF

On 18 Jan, 10:18, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote:
No.I do not carry telephone poles on my vehical.

________

But aren't you claiming the effects you noted for a mobile antenna near
other conductors for your 160-m, time-variant Gaussian, diamagnetic,
cosmic-particle-levitating, compact, full-wave, tank circuit, tilted antenna
in equilibrium that you have described as installed on top of a short tower
in your back yard?

BTW, do you have means to change the tilt of your antenna when you want to
get best coverage in various different directions?

RF

No. I have a radio in my Mercedes and I can tune to the local radio
stations for the music.
Yes I have a a motor like the ones used on dishes.I put in on just as
the snow started to fly
and in my haste altered the antenna some what. In the spring I will
correct that plus wire up
the rotator and tilt mechanism. Why all the questions? As one of the
adjudicators on this group
that determine all that is correct and all that is not you have
identified all that I do as a failure so why the pursuit?

"art" wrote
... Why all the questions? As one of the adjudicators on this group
that determine all that is correct and all that is not you have
identified all that I do as a failure so why the pursuit?
________

To give you, and others in your camp the chance to recognize how your
unsupported/unproven beliefs appear to those having specific education and
knowledge based on the proven results of many decades of antenna design, and
the many decades of proven, practical experience with such designs.

RF

On Jan 19, 8:39 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote ... Why all the questions? As one of the adjudicators on this group
that determine all that is correct and all that is not you have
identified all that I do as a failure so why the pursuit?

________

To give you, and others in your camp the chance to recognize how your
unsupported/unproven beliefs appear to those having specific education and
knowledge based on the proven results of many decades of antenna design, and
the many decades of proven, practical experience with such designs.

RF

Hi Richard

Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

Derek

On Jan 19, 8:39 am, "Richard Fry" wrote:


To give you, and others in your camp the chance to recognize how your
unsupported/unproven beliefs appear to those having specific education and
knowledge based on the proven results of many decades of antenna design, and
the many decades of proven, practical experience with such designs.

RF

All experience based on yesterdays knowledge which does not allow for
new discoveries, because you are an expert and there is nothing for
you to learn that you do not know already.
Some expert!

Derek

"Derek" wrote:

Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
methods.

All experience based on yesterdays knowledge which does
not allow for new discoveries, because you are an expert
and there is nothing for you to learn that you do not know already.

Not at all. Discoveries continue to be made in the sciences. And when they
are, they are supported by natural law, are thoroughly documented and
presented in such a context, and those discoveries and their results can be
replicated by others.

If Art could followed that course he would get a better response to his
concepts, if he still chose to present them.

RF

On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's weard.

Derek

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's weard.

Derek

i have a very small 160m antenna that 'works'. How well art's antenna
works, and in his case, the more important question is how he can prove or
demonstrate to someone that the cosmic equilibrium static particles that
levitate from it when he uses it are the real questions.

On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:45:35 -0800 (PST), Derek
wrote:

The fact that it work's would count for nothing?.

Hi Derek,

What fact?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jan 19, 8:45 am, Derek wrote:
On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:

"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's weard.

Derek

Define "works"...
Nearly anything will radiate to some extent. Even many dummy loads
and light bulbs. How much better than a dummy load would be the real
issue in the case of his small antenna.
If he did not test the antenna according to accepted methods commonly
used, this would not matter to you?
At the very least he could put up a full sized reference dipole,
chase the spiders from the innerds of his radio, and compare
them. He doesn't even have to actually transmit to do these simple
comparisons for himself.
But in order to prove an antenna to the big wide world out there, he's
going to need to test it on an excepted antenna test range, and then
provide all the data if he wants anyone pay much attention.
This would apply to anyone, not just Art.
It seems you would except his word on it, without actually seeing any
proof of this claimed full sized lunch from a dinky radiator.
That would be weird to me.
MK