"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert

Art, I wish you'd get your facts straight before you post. To set the record
straight the 1st edition of Reflections sold out at 10,000 copies, the 2nd
edition at 3,000 copies, while the 3rd edition hasn't been published yet.
Nothing about anything pertaining to Reflections has been discredited. Who told
you it has been? If you'd like to look at a few of the chapters go to my web
page at www.w2du.com.

Walt

Wayne wrote:

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word
"reflections", you might get the answers to your questions. You
might also discover that it is related to antenna systems.

I don't care who the author thinks he is.

But if he posts to a public forum, asking for critique,
then getting ****ed because someone
"had the gall to post his denigration of my paper"
then I guess he's just not as important as he,
and you, think he is.


Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

On Jun 22, 6:52 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert

Art, I wish you'd get your facts straight before you post. To set the record
straight the 1st edition of Reflections sold out at 10,000 copies, the 2nd
edition at 3,000 copies, while the 3rd edition hasn't been published yet.
Nothing about anything pertaining to Reflections has been discredited. Who told
you it has been? If you'd like to look at a few of the chapters go to my web
page atwww.w2du.com.

Walt

I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

On Jun 22, 8:26 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jun 22, 6:52 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jun 22, 6:12 pm, "Wayne" wrote:
"Lumpy" wrote in message

... Walter Maxwell wrote:
Sorry if the posts offended you, Harold, but I'm flabbergasted that
Richard had the gall to post his denigration of my paper in the
newsgroup.

I'd simply like to know -
SNIP

Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke

www.n0eq.com

If you did a google on the author's name and perhaps the word "reflections",
you might get the answers to your questions. You might also discover that
it is related to antenna systems.
Yup. That is correct. this is the third time he has published this
book in the hope of finally getting it right
but apparently it is discredited before publishing by the antenna
group! expert

Art, I wish you'd get your facts straight before you post. To set the record
straight the 1st edition of Reflections sold out at 10,000 copies, the 2nd
edition at 3,000 copies, while the 3rd edition hasn't been published yet.
Nothing about anything pertaining to Reflections has been discredited. Who told
you it has been? If you'd like to look at a few of the chapters go to my web
page atwww.w2du.com.

Walt

I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Art, I'm not a constant participant on the newsgroup, I've missed it a lot of
the time. So I don't know a Dr. Davis, nor do I know anything about a lie. And
what position do you think I took that would make me an accessory to a lie that
I know nothing about? I read quite some time ago that there was a discussion
concerning Gauss and Maxwell, but I didn't get into it, so I don't even know
who were discussing them. So how could I be in a position to make a rebuttal on
the Gauss/Maxwell question? You say I disagreed in the face of Richard stating
that he lied? Sorry Art, you have me confused with someone else, because I know
nothing about what you're talking about.

Walt, W2DU

On Jun 22, 9:47 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Art, I'm not a constant participant on the newsgroup, I've missed it a lot of
the time. So I don't know a Dr. Davis, nor do I know anything about a lie. And
what position do you think I took that would make me an accessory to a lie that
I know nothing about? I read quite some time ago that there was a discussion
concerning Gauss and Maxwell, but I didn't get into it, so I don't even know
who were discussing them. So how could I be in a position to make a rebuttal on
the Gauss/Maxwell question? You say I disagreed in the face of Richard stating
that he lied? Sorry Art, you have me confused with someone else, because I know
nothing about what you're talking about.

Walt, W2DU

Yet you joined in Walter in the party and the destruction of the
theme of what I was offering!
You are now saying you joined in without being aware of what was
happening? You knew then that Richard was a lier but it wasn't you
that was being harmed so it was o.k. Now it is you that is in the pot
and you are indignant because of his !supposed lies as well as being
surprised.
I don't accept your excuses of not being aware of what was going on
when you mimiced an englishmans banter when you rediculed what I was
offering regarding Gauss's law of statics choosing now to saying you
were unaware. Richard has ridiculed your position and your book now
but you are fortunate, he gave the reasons why and you have yet to
defend your positions with conviction even tho you are convinced he is
lier. Now you realise how I felt where no reasoning was offerred for
rebuttal only thrown missiles.You were aware of the lie and did
nothing to correct it. I suggest you review all the postings that you
made because they are still there.You can't run and you can';t hide as
the truth is still there
prefering to jab at the heart. You know who you are and I know what
you are

Walter Maxwell wrote:


By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math. You never
apologised either
on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics. The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie. You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again
but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.
If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Art, I'm not a constant participant on the newsgroup, I've missed it a lot of
the time. So I don't know a Dr. Davis, nor do I know anything about a lie. And
what position do you think I took that would make me an accessory to a lie that
I know nothing about? I read quite some time ago that there was a discussion
concerning Gauss and Maxwell, but I didn't get into it, so I don't even know
who were discussing them. So how could I be in a position to make a rebuttal on
the Gauss/Maxwell question? You say I disagreed in the face of Richard stating
that he lied? Sorry Art, you have me confused with someone else, because I know
nothing about what you're talking about.

That's OK, neither does Art.

Expect a bunch of babbling, incoherent nonsense in reply from him.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 22, 8:48 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math.

Who cares.. You never gave any math to prove you are right.


You never
apologised either

Who cares... It's not his job to suck up to whiny little twits..

on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics.

I take this as an admission that your math may even be worse
than mine is? :/

The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie.

But does he really care if it was or not?
I suspect he had better things to worry about.


You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again

This statement makes a lot of sense.. Almost
as much as a page full of your blabber about
equilibrium...

but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.

I suspect he has little time to waste on sub par physics, and
thus sub par antennas..

If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Hey whiny one. I'm your huckleberry!!! I'm fairly bored at times.
I can keep you busy until next Christmas if you really feel the
need for discussion. I don't need any help from the others.
I'll brown your food just from shear logic, and I won't even need
no stinking math to do it.
IE: I'd still like to hear about how a "static" particle can move,
twist, and do the universal tango. And don't tell me that Gauss
or equilibrium had anything to do with it.
Doktor Davis.. Thats a laugh.. I remember everything about
that adventure, and Art, *you* are the liar about that case.
I've seen bumps on a persons ass that were more useful
than Doktor Davis was to your case.
Rather than answer a few pertinent questions posed to him,
he did the duck and run, and has never been heard from since.

Frankly, I kind of surprised at all the whining here.
I don't think Walters post, or articles, or even books are
out of the topic range of this group.
And neither do I consider Richard Clarks posts either.
For some reason they have a difference of opinion,
and I think they should work it out to hopefully come
to a conclusion.
They can do it in private, or right here. I could care less.
I haven't kept up with whatever led up to all this, so
I'm not taking sides at all. Both may have valid points.

Some of the comments seem a bit strong to me..
I find some of the comments to Walter as pretty tacky.
To me, the posts *are* on topic. A heck of a lot
closer than worries about the demise of Usenet,
perpetual motion theories, tennis shoes, touchtone
mikes, BIG BROTHER, etc, ad nausium..
Some of you all need to chill down and relax..
Go drink some vodka. That will help calm the nerves.
Works for me.. I like it with grapefruit juice...
But thats just my 29 cents worth.

On Jun 23, 5:26 am, wrote:
On Jun 22, 8:48 pm, Art Unwin wrote:





I have your book and I don't think much of it. With respect to facts
Richard lied about the mathematical connection between Gauss and
Maxwell. Most of you believed him without checking the facts and I was
dissed. Then a doctor Davis came aboard and showed you where you were
wrong but now everybody was committed and dissed him also. Yes, I was
discredited on a lie , which he admitted to after I was victimised by
all. Now he has discredited your book and you on the basis of what you
call" lies". I got no apologies and neither did Dr Davis
and the lie you were part of goes on to this day. You ask for facts
you got them and they are still in the archives. You are calling the
kettle black. Get back to antennas and stop promoting yourself and
your third book which you claim is now right.You at least got some
reasons as to why your postings were dissed, for my troubles I got
nothing.It is evident that the majority of this newsgro0up do not like
the move under way to change the subject of antennas so why not try to
get along with your fellow posters
or move on?

By the way Walt you never came forward with the math to prove me wrong
preffering a hatchet job instead of doing the math.

Who cares.. You never gave any math to prove you are right.

You never
apologised either

Who cares... It's not his job to suck up to whiny little twits..

on continuing what I am sure you knew was a lie because of your
continual position
of being superior in mathematics.

I take this as an admission that your math may even be worse
than mine is? :/

The position you took makes you an
accessory in the lie
because you knew it was a lie.

But does he really care if it was or not?
I suspect he had better things to worry about.

You and your book have been dissed even
if you can prove that Richard lied again

This statement makes a lot of sense.. Almost
as much as a page full of your blabber about
equilibrium...

but after the fact it is difficult to put things right. Instead of
telling me to read your page why not read
unwinantennas,com/ and the antenna group archives plus your own
history on postings to refresh yourself on the "facts" that you wish
for.

I suspect he has little time to waste on sub par physics, and
thus sub par antennas..

If you wish to make a rebuttal on the Gauss/Maxwell question be my
guest and point out why you disagreed even in the face of Richard
stating that he lied or are you committed to deeply now to reverse
course instead of revealing the truth because it may hurt?

Hey whiny one. I'm your huckleberry!!! I'm fairly bored at times.
I can keep you busy until next Christmas if you really feel the
need for discussion. I don't need any help from the others.
I'll brown your food just from shear logic, and I won't even need
no stinking math to do it.
IE: I'd still like to hear about how a "static" particle can move,
twist, and do the universal tango. And don't tell me that Gauss
or equilibrium had anything to do with it.
Doktor Davis.. Thats a laugh.. I remember everything about
that adventure, and Art, *you* are the liar about that case.
I've seen bumps on a persons ass that were more useful
than Doktor Davis was to your case.
Rather than answer a few pertinent questions posed to him,
he did the duck and run, and has never been heard from since.

Frankly, I kind of surprised at all the whining here.
I don't think Walters post, or articles, or even books are
out of the topic range of this group.
And neither do I consider Richard Clarks posts either.
For some reason they have a difference of opinion,
and I think they should work it out to hopefully come
to a conclusion.
They can do it in private, or right here. I could care less.
I haven't kept up with whatever led up to all this, so
I'm not taking sides at all. Both may have valid points.

Some of the comments seem a bit strong to me..
I find some of the comments to Walter as pretty tacky.
To me, the posts *are* on topic. A heck of a lot
closer than worries about the demise of Usenet,
perpetual motion theories, tennis shoes, touchtone
mikes, BIG BROTHER, etc, ad nausium..
Some of you all need to chill down and relax..
Go drink some vodka. That will help calm the nerves.
Works for me.. I like it with grapefruit juice...
But thats just my 29 cents worth.

I understand your frausteration with antenna discussions but it is
extremely hard to communicate the mathematical side of antennas for
anybody who did not reach the high school graduation point, especially
when you refuse to try to find out the meaning of equilibrium.
I just finished a explanation of my antenna work on Eham so you have a
chance to get up to speed on the subject rather than the spewing
remarks that reflect your fraustration especially when other more
experienced people are doing the same.
Regards
Art
unwinantennas.com/

On Jun 23, 10:07 am, Art Unwin wrote:


I understand your frausteration with antenna discussions but it is
extremely hard to communicate the mathematical side of antennas for
anybody who did not reach the high school graduation point, especially
when you refuse to try to find out the meaning of equilibrium.

Why would I need to know any math? You don't use or provide any
to inspect.
I know what equilibrium means to normal people. But you won't
provide any explanation for how you apply the term to antennas.

I just finished a explanation of my antenna work on Eham so you have a
chance to get up to speed on the subject rather than the spewing
remarks that reflect your fraustration especially when other more
experienced people are doing the same.

Yea, I checked it out.. What a hoot.. One ham invites you to provide
an on air test to check the performance of your antenna, but as
usual you ducked out with:
"I have no wish to get on the air to have a qso with you.
I have made antennas of all types using this aproach over the years
and presently have a 160 antenna made from multi interlaced wires to
make the antenna short physically."

You forgot to mention that you are either too lazy, or
basically too chicken @#$% to fire up the old rig and try it.
Pathetic...

Another requested plans so he could make one for himself.
You replied with:
"I will be happy to do so. But first the background.Antennas are
based
on Maxwells laws and the equations use the term root L.C."
But then had no further mention of providing any plans.

I also saw one thread where you were corrupting the mind of
some newby ham with your irrational drivel..
Shame on the mess...

Show me one place where you use math to explain your design.
You can't because you don't use any.
So explain to me how this would fraustrate me, whatever that
means. If anyone around here is fraustrated, it would be you.