Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
On Jun 23, 10:07 am, Art Unwin wrote:
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/ I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis ! He has only made a few posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable. He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA. He made several attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the newsgroup. He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he did it extremely well. Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was true. No. He said of course it was true. Others that followed Richard in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and apologize |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
On Jun 23, 1:10 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis ! I'll send you a quarter and you can call someone who gives a @#$%.. He has only made a few posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable. I'm well aware of his posts. I've retrieved them for others at least once or twice. He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA. I don't care if he's Navin R. Johnson, he was still useless to your cause. He made several attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the newsgroup. I don't recall him giving out any math at all. He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he did it extremely well. Then why couldn't he answer the simple questions posed to him? He did what he set out to do, which was to cover his ass, and he did it extremely well. Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was true. No. He said of course it was true. I'd have to let Richard speak for himself. I recall no such thing. Others that followed Richard in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and apologize You are not in a position to suggest anything. You can't even get off your rear to fire up a rig and test an antenna when requested to do so. If this were not the case, you would know your antenna is a pseudo dummy load from prior experience, and we wouldn't be having this usenet QSO. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
wrote in message ... On Jun 23, 1:10 pm, Art Unwin wrote: I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis ! I'll send you a quarter and you can call someone who gives a @#$%.. He has only made a few posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable. I'm well aware of his posts. I've retrieved them for others at least once or twice. He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA. I don't care if he's Navin R. Johnson, he was still useless to your cause. He made several attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the newsgroup. I don't recall him giving out any math at all. He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he did it extremely well. Then why couldn't he answer the simple questions posed to him? He did what he set out to do, which was to cover his ass, and he did it extremely well. Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was true. No. He said of course it was true. I'd have to let Richard speak for himself. I recall no such thing. Others that followed Richard in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and apologize You are not in a position to suggest anything. You can't even get off your rear to fire up a rig and test an antenna when requested to do so. If this were not the case, you would know your antenna is a pseudo dummy load from prior experience, and we wouldn't be having this usenet QSO. Not that this is particularly relevant, but while training to be a Marine Radio Officer many years ago in central London, a message was received from the coast station at Dover requesting that we cease test transmissions on 480 kHz as we were causing interference to maritime coast station operations. The transmitter was running less than 80 watts CW into a fully screened dummy load at the time! This is a distance of around 70 miles as the crow flies. Art's antenna apparently contains what would be several wavelengths of helically wound conductor at any HF amateur frequency (I recall seeing a figure of 2000 feet mentioned). I see no reason why it wouldn't radiate considerably better than a dummy load in an earthed screened box. If lack of real estate means you have to use miniature antennas, it doesn't matter what you use if it gets a signal out. As I see it, Art is claiming that his antenna is a no tune, all band antenna which is very compact and efficient for it's size. Experience suggests to m that the radiation efficiency is nowhere near as good as a full sized resonant or beam antenna and I doubt that new physical principles are involved. Experience also suggests that the sheer amount of wire in the antenna will present an acceptable match to most transmitters at HF frequencies and above. Dummy load or not, if it is radiating even a quite modest signal at low horizontal angles, it will suit many urban dwellers and give relatively good DX performance for its size. It really doesn't matter what the maths are or whether exotic new physics is involved. If you stick a couple of thousand feet of wire up in the air (even wound in a coil) the system is going to put out a signal. This forum often degenerates into meaningless discussions as to the exact meaning of a word, phrase, or measurement and specifications used. While this might be necessary for a rigorous scientific analysis, the clue is in the name rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Don't get bogged down in meaningless minor theoretical details. Does it do what is claimed? Yes or no. Job done. Regards Mike G0ULI |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
On Jun 23, 6:03 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jun 23, 1:10 pm, Art Unwin wrote: I dislike the way you slandered John E Davis ! I'll send you a quarter and you can call someone who gives a @#$%.. He has only made a few posts on this newsgroup which are readily obtainable. I'm well aware of his posts. I've retrieved them for others at least once or twice. He posted on this newsgroup purely to provide the equality of mathematics of Maxwell and Gauss for which he is qaulified with a doctrate from MIT working on astral matters for NASA. I don't care if he's Navin R. Johnson, he was still useless to your cause. He made several attempts to explain the math even in the face of caustic comments from this group. After he had supplied the mathematics he then left the newsgroup. I don't recall him giving out any math at all. He did not cut and run. He did what he set out to do and he did it extremely well. Then why couldn't he answer the simple questions posed to him? He did what he set out to do, which was to cover his ass, and he did it extremely well. Since that time, months,Richard admitted that what Davis said was true. No. He said of course it was true. I'd have to let Richard speak for himself. I recall no such thing. Others that followed Richard in that lie have never recanted preffering to continually to pljunge the knife. I suggest you recover John's posts on the mathematics and apologize You are not in a position to suggest anything. You can't even get off your rear to fire up a rig and test an antenna when requested to do so. If this were not the case, you would know your antenna is a pseudo dummy load from prior experience, and we wouldn't be having this usenet QSO. Not that this is particularly relevant, but while training to be a Marine Radio Officer many years ago in central London, a message was received from the coast station at Dover requesting that we cease test transmissions on 480 kHz as we were causing interference to maritime coast station operations. The transmitter was running less than 80 watts CW into a fully screened dummy load at the time! This is a distance of around 70 miles as the crow flies. Art's antenna apparently contains what would be several wavelengths of helically wound conductor at any HF amateur frequency (I recall seeing a figure of 2000 feet mentioned). I see no reason why it wouldn't radiate considerably better than a dummy load in an earthed screened box. If lack of real estate means you have to use miniature antennas, it doesn't matter what you use if it gets a signal out. As I see it, Art is claiming that his antenna is a no tune, all band antenna which is very compact and efficient for it's size. Experience suggests to m that the radiation efficiency is nowhere near as good as a full sized resonant or beam antenna and I doubt that new physical principles are involved. Experience also suggests that the sheer amount of wire in the antenna will present an acceptable match to most transmitters at HF frequencies and above. Dummy load or not, if it is radiating even a quite modest signal at low horizontal angles, it will suit many urban dwellers and give relatively good DX performance for its size. It really doesn't matter what the maths are or whether exotic new physics is involved. If you stick a couple of thousand feet of wire up in the air (even wound in a coil) the system is going to put out a signal. This forum often degenerates into meaningless discussions as to the exact meaning of a word, phrase, or measurement and specifications used. While this might be necessary for a rigorous scientific analysis, the clue is in the name rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Don't get bogged down in meaningless minor theoretical details. Does it do what is claimed? Yes or no. Job done. Regards Mike G0ULI I am in full agreement except it needs clarification regards the tuning portion. Yes it has a reasonable impedance at scource for all frequencies and thus will radiate on all frequencies. For amateur use they would want to choose a wavelength as the basis for equilibrium because of gain and bandwidth effects. So for a spot frequency it is better to jumper to the wavelength of the frequency of choice. I by choice have several jumpers while at the same time using a variometer to accommodate frequencies that do not exactly match the jumper positions.Computer programs show that you can obtain gains with multiples of wave length similar to a helix where the windings must continue back to the feed point so that external lumped loads are cancelled to bring the array into equilibrium, which means that multiple wavelength unit can be used to advantage., I still haven't found out why Maxwell did not emphasize the equilibrium status when all that provided formulas for his work all emphasised Newtons laws. I do know that he wrote a paper on equilibrium in his later years but I have found no evidence he went back to add it to his prior law( possibly he wanted to place his own mark on the formulae that he garnished from others) One last thing I want to emphasise. For TOTAL gain it matters little if you use a yagi or a non planar arrangement the difference comes into play where the need is for a maximum gain of a particular polarity where equilibrium comes to the fore. Regards Art Unwinantennas.com/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
Mike Kaliski wrote:
...it doesn't matter what you use if it gets a signal out. That's been my theory since my earliest experiments with transmitting. But that theory seem to get lost on the pseudo-intellectuals who claim "Oh you can't do that, it doesn't fit my understanding of how it should work". I work QRP SSB into a random wire or a horribly mismatched non-symmetrical dipole, almost exclusively. I have hams on some lists tell me they think I'm lying when I claim to make contacts because I "broke the laws of physics". Ham radio! Talk to the world! Or skip the talk part and just go tell other hams how much you "know". Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke www.n0eq.com |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
On Jun 23, 8:43 pm, "Lumpy" wrote:
Mike Kaliski wrote: ...it doesn't matter what you use if it gets a signal out. That's been my theory since my earliest experiments with transmitting. But that theory seem to get lost on the pseudo-intellectuals who claim "Oh you can't do that, it doesn't fit my understanding of how it should work". I work QRP SSB into a random wire or a horribly mismatched non-symmetrical dipole, almost exclusively. I have hams on some lists tell me they think I'm lying when I claim to make contacts because I "broke the laws of physics". Ham radio! Talk to the world! Or skip the talk part and just go tell other hams how much you "know". Craig 'Lumpy' Lemke www.n0eq.com Hi Lumpy you are a blast of fresh air! On this group a common remark is "I wish you would check out the facts first" This is in other words is the expert telling you that you must agree with him. This is really the basis of this actual thread where a book writer is angry because people publicly disagree with him and his writings. Read my book it is authoritative, no I don't need to read other peoples pages or work! or "I don't recall that" which parallels cover for lies in Congress and in talk groups. I have been a big gun with a 80 foot long multi element yagi but now the talking side lags behind the design of small antennas so all can enjoy"I was always told that you must supply the math first before you make a claim. Now I find that when the math is supplied they state they don';t understand or are convinced that one plus one is three! There is no way a ham (self perceived expert) on this group will accept that all is not known and I am the one who knows it all. Which is why they dissed that Doctor from MIT and NASA who provided some mathematical data that they disagreed with. Ofcourse one and one equals three, the majority on this newsgroup agrees on that so you MUST be wrong. On top of that we are the experts no less! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Rebuttal to Richard Clark's comments on my Chapter 19A
On Jun 23, 6:03 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
Don't get bogged down in meaningless minor theoretical details. Does it do what is claimed? Yes or no. Job done. Regards Mike G0ULI Thats the whole problem. If he just offered the design as what it is, instead of what he fantasies it to be, I would have no problem. It's no secret that almost anything will radiate to some degree. Many people have made QSO's using nothing but dummy loads. I have no problem with this. Why? Because they didn't build a dummy load, and then proclaim it as some new breakthrough in science. It Art designed and built this antenna, and offered it to the public as is, without all the pseudo science bafflegab, he would never hear from me. I wouldn't even care that he never actually tests the antenna. But nope.. Art doesn't play the game that way. He uses a modeling program to conjer up all kinds of weird designs, and then uses the optimizer programs to try to get maximum gain, or whatever he is trying to find. He cooks up a particular design, decides he likes it, and then reveals it to the world as some exotic new design, which uses exotic theory, which only Art and some obscure doktor from MIT can understand. He can not explain these designs using known theory, so he cooks up page after page after page of nothing but pure unadulterated bafflegab to try to explain how they might work. *This* is the problem as I see it. Heck, I might not even have a problem with that alone, he wasn't so insistent that his "theory" is indeed fact. I check all his pages and he provides NO math at all. But he continues to whine about math. I have read the Doktor Davis thread several times since it was posted, and he provides NO math to explain Arts design. And he did duck and run when it was suggested that he was misreading the data. Instead of giving an answer one way or the other, he vanished, never to be heard from again. Art refuses to do real world tests. He refuses to actually try the antenna on the air to do comparisons with a known antenna such as a dipole even when invited to do so by other hams. He'll always offer some lame excuse as to why he refuses to do so. Either that, or he reverses the invitation to make it appear as an attack on poor old Art, the man who the phrase "woe is me" was apparently written for. .. I've told him several times to just build the thing and let the chips fall where they may. He seems to build a few, but he never gets to testing how the chips may fall. He sent one to a ham on this group, and we never heard a peep since. If it was the "miracle whip" it was made out to be, seems to me the word would be out by now. Well, excuse the @#$% out of me if I don't fall in line and do the goose step along side of him in an orderly military manner. :/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL | Shortwave | |||
REBUTTAL TO COMMENTS ON RX-340 BY DAVE ZANTOW | Shortwave | |||
Richard Pryor | Shortwave | |||
Richard Pryor 6925 USB | Shortwave | |||
Richard S. Garner---Any one know--- | Swap |