| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 12:58:41 -0000, "Richard"
wrote: I'm really surprised that after giving these details lower down in the thread, the antenna cannot be figured. I'm gobsmacked. Hi Richard, You would be even more so if you had sat through a cycle of correspondence of trying to make sense of the Patent for that same antenna. We get a lot of that too, and at that point, some may respond briefly because Patents don't have to make sense. Would you care to delve into the mysteries of a Faster than Light antenna? Just needs magnets in the right place (or was that for better gas mileage?). Some details just don't add up to better understanding. We even get Patent holders who come here to proclaim their latest invention, and then ask us how it works - or worse, proclaim it does work and it is our bound obligation and duty to prove it. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
| Mobile Ant L match ? | Antenna | |||
| Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
| QST Article: An Easy to Build, Dual-Band Collinear Antenna | Antenna | |||