"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

On 19 Jan, 09:43, wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe to you, but some people on this newsgroup have alluded to my
honesty.
I never played hooky from school in my lifetime( well maybe a couple
of times)
I am not a redneck so I had no fears that education would deteriate my
inbuilt intelligence
like you did. So I was able to tuck a few years under my belt until a
free trip came about for my family and I to Central Illinois. Didn't
bargain on staying so I had to sell my house in London for a song. It
now costs so much I can't hardly afford to buy it back! By the way the
U.S. also subsidized the trip over, so your tax money was really
appreciated.
A former immigrant who made so much money over here that he stayed.
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG(uk)

PS.
The company paid for trips to Italy,Germany,Swiss Alps and England as
well as Hispanola,PR and other Islands in the Carabbian while I was
helping the company to move manufacturing offshore. Ofcourse the
engineering jobs were transfered later and I was real sorry to see the
guys go.Now I am retired and rarely go overseas, it is cheaper to pay
relatives to do the travelling.

On 19 Jan, 06:45, 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

Derek.
I thought you would like to know that I made another 160M antenna
today which isvery much smaller than the one I have on my tower. If
somebody takes you up on your bet you will be able to afford a trip to
Central Illinois and I will give it to you to take home to Sydney or
what ever.
It is compact enough for carry on luggage so it will not be a
problem.It is below zero temps
here at the moment but it has resonant points either side of 160M on
the ground one of which is 200 ohms the other is outside the scope of
my MFJ 259 . I could measure it on a SA if I have to but it is best
now to wait until spring unless a bet is made. When it goes up one of
the resonant points will move to 160M.
My next antenna to make will be small enough to put on a dinner plate
for the broadcast band but I really do need to fix the plasma tv as
the wife likes watching the tennis from down under on the big TV. I
believe it got a lightning pulse from the cable line so I need to
change out a relay or a transistor amplifier /switch to get it going
again. Small relays are known to weld anf the front end transisters
are not made to handle a high current, hopefully it is one of the two.
My Best Regards and many thanks for your confidence in my honesty.
G,Day
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG(uk)

"art" wrote (sic):
Derek. I thought you would like to know that I made another
160M antenna today which isvery much smaller than the one
I have on my tower.
__________

Congratulations. Universal scientific accolades, a place in history with
the Great Masters whose names you often quote, and huge financial rewards
may be in order for you and/or the nominated beneficiaries of your estate,
"art."

But first, what are the proven/provable radiation characteristics of your
new 160-m antenna design as you believe them to be, in comparison to those
of a conventional, proven 1/4-wave vertical monopole with a broadcast-type,
radial ground system?

Please show your work.

Otherwise...

RF

PS: Derek, "JS," and any other of art's groupies -- please feel free to
chime in.

On 19 Jan, 17:00, "Richard Fry" wrote:
"art" wrote (sic): Derek. I thought *you would like to know that I made another
160M antenna today which isvery much smaller than the one
I have on my tower.

__________

Congratulations. *Universal scientific accolades, a place in history with
the Great Masters whose names you often quote, and huge financial rewards
may be in order for you and/or the nominated beneficiaries of your estate,
"art."

But first, what are the proven/provable radiation characteristics of your
new 160-m antenna design as you believe them to be, in comparison to those
of a conventional, proven 1/4-wave vertical monopole with a broadcast-type,
radial ground system?

Please show your work.

Otherwise...

RF

PS: *Derek, "JS," and any other of art's groupies -- please feel free to
chime in.

Get lost. You are not in the circle of a need to know,only the heckler
list.
You just can't handle the truth as I told you a ground plane is not
necessary.
They just supply unwanted noise anyway compared to a antenna away from
the ground surface.
If you want to be part of a bet then call Australia as I will not be
getting your posts anymore
because they are unproductive. But don't let that stop you in
arranging the bet to prove your points as I will still cooperate in
the adjudication.