Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
Old June 23rd 08, 07:10 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,339
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 23rd 08, 09:40 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 757
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 24th 08, 12:03 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: May 2007
Posts: 182
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 24th 08, 12:34 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,339
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 24th 08, 02:43 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 53
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 24th 08, 03:42 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,339
Default 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   Report Post  
Old June 24th 08, 11:15 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 757
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
REBUTTAL TO RX-340 COMMENTS BY PHIL mike maghakian Shortwave 26 December 8th 06 09:22 AM
REBUTTAL TO COMMENTS ON RX-340 BY DAVE ZANTOW mike maghakian Shortwave 8 November 20th 06 03:26 AM
Richard Pryor Sanjaya Shortwave 40 December 12th 05 10:18 AM
Richard Pryor 6925 USB Brian Hill Shortwave 1 December 11th 05 01:37 AM
Richard S. Garner---Any one know--- AL G. Swap 0 January 21st 04 02:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017