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.