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.