Art wrote:
"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth. You will soon have to decide whether computor
programs with respect to antennas are complete garbage i.e. garbage in
garbage out or....... that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain. My guess that this will be shown first by a European since they
have a need for smaller antennas and still are willing to experiment
with antennas rather than declaring "all is known" Slowly the
correllation between static particles and Maxwell is being understood.
I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even
tho there are many who reject the fact. Now we have Richard ,not you,
David and myself on one side banded together against the antenna
bashers. The next move showing a tipped vertical generated by an
optimizer will bring another one over to my side. We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art
KB9MZ
unwinantennas.com/

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator, preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.


I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator, preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error
Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator,
preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and
hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he
must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error

From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.

Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??

On Jul 4, 1:27 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator,
preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and
hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense... art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so he
must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error

From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.

Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??

Wrong.
The chapter gives NO mention of the role of static particles in
radiation. Gauss never did apply an extension to his law of statics to
reveal that a radiator can be any size , shape or elevation as long as
the laws of equilibrium is in effect to make a dynamic field. This is
clear indication that a radiator must be of a wavelength or more that
is radiating which does not include the addition of a ground plane as
part of the radiator.
In addition, all laws only refer to distributed loads as a function
of radiation and equilibrium and where lumped loads have no part in
the equations. Equilibrium is also the datum proof where the charge
within a conductor must be zero so that the law of Newton can be
preserved ( action and reaction)
By using the law of statics you find the importance of ":equilibrium"
that
Maxwell purloined as well as a new aproach to the sequences involved
in radiation
There is no question that the laws of Maxwell are not correct because
each law he purloined
included this stipulation as well as the extension to the gaussian law
of statics which
supplies the picture that Maxwell's laws are lacking. It is these same
particles alluded in Gaussian law
that are the true carriers of communication in radio where they are
ejected from the radiator surface with spin provided by the opresence
of eddy currents. Without the applied spin you cannot have a straight
line trajectory.
Ofcourse you can supply another reason why nature included particles
in communication which would really thrill me to bits.
But I am very pleased you are returning to written laws for proof even
tho you misinterprete them. On the other hand you can verify that the
requirement of equilibrium is preserved within Maxwells laws and thus
antenna computer programs such that the tilted vertical
is not removed from the subject of antennas. It was me that
speculated that these same particles were neutrinos that are radio
active and thus subject to decay that obtain a weak magnetic field
from entry to the earth's magnetic field which are present in the
billions per square metre on our native earth. It is also the
wavelength data that supplies the information regarding the parallel
tank circuit which is a pertinent part of all radiation. All these
items I have found to intersect like a jigsaw puzzle that adequately
describes the mechanics of radiation which hither to was unknown.
Unless ofcourse you have studies that are contrary to the above. If
you have, take them to the International conference on small antennas
organised in San Diego U.S.next week by the American IEEE where you
can drink in the applause of the World's experts
Regards
unwinantennas.com/

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Jul 4, 1:27 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...



On Jul 4, 12:54 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 4, 11:04 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Why American antenna engineers continue to pursue small efficient
fractional antenna(s) I do not know(,) when the above (Unwin
Antenna)
presents the means of point radiation which leads to more efficient
radiators of smaller volume."

Enough bafflegab. As Sgt. Joe Friday used to say: "Just give us the
facts".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard after all your denials regarding tipped antennas which you
say
is a myth we are now getting close
to showing same via a computor program with optimizer which will
show
it is not a myth.

what is the myth? they will do something different than a true
vertical
antenna, but probably nothing really useful.

that antennas must be tipped for max vertical
gain.

if you want gain straight up then yes, you must tip the radiator,
preferably
by 90 degrees off vertical.

I never thought David would finally acknowledge the mathematics even

You haven't shown any mathematics to acknowledge... only bafflegab and
hand
waving.

We then will see
that the static particles that is part of Gauss is ejected from a
radiator like an elevated frog, used for novelty reasons, show that
radiatiation is by particles and not a wave will bring another
antenna
basher over to the Gaussian side. Then people will see how an eddy
current applies spin to a departing
particle such that it will attain a straight line trajectory for
communication and the change over will become a flood and you will
be
left alone as an old man who cannot accept change While others are
making small antennas now that it can be seen that a radiator can be
any size shape or varied elevation as long as it is in equilibrium
This being the start of this journey connecting a gaussian field in
equilibrium to the mechanics of communication
Art

a perfect example of bafflegab, doubletalk, and downright nonsense...
art
can't really believe this and still be functional enough to type, so
he
must
be still trying to pull our collective legs.

David check it out to show the World why it is bafflegab,
The same thing was stated when the Gaussian/Maxwell
mathematics was given on this newsgroup. Be a hero and show the World
why America is correct and I am in error

From "Fields And Waves In Communication Electronics" Ramo, Whinnery, and
Van
Duzer, 2nd printing 1967... ppg 237 they have just stated the 4 classical
Maxwell's equations in integral form and are explaining them in words.
equation (1) is the surface integral of the vector displacement = the
volume integral of the charge density.... which they explain as "Equation
(1) is seen to be the familiar form of Gauss's law utilized so much in
Chapter 2. Now that we are concerned with fields which are a function of
time, the interpretation is that the electric flux flowing out of any
closed
surface _at a given instant_ is equal to the charge enclosed by the
surface
_at that instant_" (emphasis shown by _ x_ is THEIRS not mine). Now
note
art, that this shows that the classical Gauss's law that you are trying
to
add into the Maxwell equations is indeed already there. Also, as they
point
out it implicitly accounts for time variation without the need to add a
specific time term to the equations.

Your chance to make the July 4 a day to remember for American hams
Ofcourse you can make an antenna where all lumped loads are cancelled
to form an antenna in equilibrium but that would mean getting up from
your
couch and putting your six pack down. Not very likely
Art

six pack! ugh, i haven't touched a six pack in years, i much prefer real
beer. is that your problem art, too many cheap six packs??

Wrong.
The chapter gives NO mention of the role of static particles in
radiation.

of course not, the aether was firmly debunked before they wrote that.

Gauss never did apply an extension to his law of statics to
reveal that a radiator can be any size , shape or elevation as long as
the laws of equilibrium is in effect to make a dynamic field.

of course not, his law is a static law, it was maxwell that brought together
the 6 equations necessary to describe waves and dynamics.

This is
clear indication that a radiator must be of a wavelength or more that
is radiating which does not include the addition of a ground plane as
part of the radiator.

bull. half wave radiators are just fine, and you can get any size conductor
to radiate.

rest of bull snipped... enough for today, i'm going to enjoy some nice old
scotch and enjoy the rest of the holiday.

Art wrote:
"On the other hand you can verify that the requirements of equilibrium
is preserved within Maxwell`s laws and thus antenna computer programs
such that the tilted vertical is not removed from the subject of
antennas."

The preceding confusion not withstanding, surely you must have aligned
antenna elements to vertical or horizontal positions to maximize signal.
I`ve done so countless times while optimizing microwave paths.

Terman quantifies (look it up for the math, Art) signal degradation
caused by misalignment on page 923 of his 1955 opus. I`ll extract one
sentence:
"It will be observed that the quantity
(E cos psi cos theta) is the component of the field strength which has a
wavefront parallel to the antenna and is polarized in the same plane as
the antenna."

The programs Art refers to don`t contradict either Maxwell or Terman.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Art Unwin wrote:

...
Art
KB9MZ
unwinantennas.com/

Art:

1) I am not including your text.
2) You have struck upon an area I sift for clues.
3) Einstein did, indeed, realize that in those "weak forces",
undoubtedly, lies some important clues/finds.
4) Einstein even noted that the properties of the ether where/are
"unknowable", at least at the time he made such statement(s) and to this
present day.

Take an aluminum disk with a hole in the center to match an old wax
record and the hole the size of an old records. Tape a magnet to the
phonograph arm. Place the magnet/phonograph-arm on the aluminum disk and
spin it up to 78 rpm. The magnet floats ...

Magnetic fields/fluxes--electric-currents generated in the aluminum disk
are using "work energy" to float the magnet and maintain it at a
respectable height above the disk. This is not a "negligible"
phenomenon, it is used to levitate magnetic trains in Japan.

In our antennas, a certain amount of power IS doing a "like"
affect/effect. It IS wasting some amount of power in doing this ... it
is DOING "something" we are NOT taking into account.

Is this all related to the "weak forces" mentioned by Einstein? Probably.

Are these forces ignored in most if not all antenna calculations (or,
hidden in "magic numbers?") Yes.

Will new breakthroughs in antenna design result from the exploration of
these forces. I would guess that answer to be anywhere from maybe to
probably ...

And, there are even more of our "calculations" which ignore, or cloak in
magic numbers, such "abnormalities" ... like the old maps of ancient
mariners--these are areas, on these maps (antenna books, antenna
software, formulas, charts, etc.) with areas which are marked with a
peculiar notation, "In these areas lie monsters!" And they are shunned
and made "fun" of by most the members of this newsgroup; strange, if you
ask me ...

The future holds the truths (much like the X-Files! grin)

Regards,
JS

On Jul 5, 10:20 am, John Smith wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

...

Art
KB9MZ
unwinantennas.com/

Art:

1) I am not including your text.
2) You have struck upon an area I sift for clues.
3) Einstein did, indeed, realize that in those "weak forces",
undoubtedly, lies some important clues/finds.
4) Einstein even noted that the properties of the ether where/are
"unknowable", at least at the time he made such statement(s) and to this
present day.

Take an aluminum disk with a hole in the center to match an old wax
record and the hole the size of an old records. Tape a magnet to the
phonograph arm. Place the magnet/phonograph-arm on the aluminum disk and
spin it up to 78 rpm. The magnet floats ...

Magnetic fields/fluxes--electric-currents generated in the aluminum disk
are using "work energy" to float the magnet and maintain it at a
respectable height above the disk. This is not a "negligible"
phenomenon, it is used to levitate magnetic trains in Japan.

In our antennas, a certain amount of power IS doing a "like"
affect/effect. It IS wasting some amount of power in doing this ... it
is DOING "something" we are NOT taking into account.

Is this all related to the "weak forces" mentioned by Einstein? Probably.

Are these forces ignored in most if not all antenna calculations (or,
hidden in "magic numbers?") Yes.

Will new breakthroughs in antenna design result from the exploration of
these forces. I would guess that answer to be anywhere from maybe to
probably ...

And, there are even more of our "calculations" which ignore, or cloak in
magic numbers, such "abnormalities" ... like the old maps of ancient
mariners--these are areas, on these maps (antenna books, antenna
software, formulas, charts, etc.) with areas which are marked with a
peculiar notation, "In these areas lie monsters!" And they are shunned
and made "fun" of by most the members of this newsgroup; strange, if you
ask me ...

The future holds the truths (much like the X-Files! grin)

Regards,
JS

Well you are spot on in general terms but the numbers are there.
Farady, newton and others recognised that the Universe is within a
bounday
and from this vectors form. Each of the masters used this theorem ie
thrust and counter thrust
in ALL oif l their work So they would calculate all forces around a
point until a polygon of vectors were formed and where it was a closed
circuit which signified equilibrium.Now all the masters aproached the
laws of electromagnetism in the same way and each with the final check
with respect to equilibrium as the final check. All of the masters
aproached electromagnetics from different perspectives and there were
a lot of them. But every one of them came up with a polygon of vectors
that did not complete the circle tho all had the same missing vector
space. So they included this space us a vector the creation of which
was unknown but certainly present otherwise equilibrium would not
prevail. Foucault showed the rotative force, Corriolis, in his work
with the long pendulum which is why on my page I used a ploy from the
pendulum to dampen the response of the antenna vibrations. IN YOUR
CASE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE AETHER. But the eather can never be found
since boundaries within the universe exist with each other like a
bubble bath since our universe is just one bubble of many just like a
mass of frogs spawn.
Getting back to the weak force which is a vector of small length and
angle in the big picture of things such as with eddy current brakes as
you pointed out, but in the bigger scheme of things the same forces
act on earth as with a tornado where magnetic fields are huge
where elevation easily occurres within the vortex. In England after a
heavy storm it is not unusual to find vlumps of frogs that had fallen
from the sky because they consist of water a diamagnetic material,
that is drawn up into the sky and fall when their temperature falls to
a certain point. So with electromagnetism it can now be shown that the
weak force searched for by physicist is a direct result from a
magnetic fieldor force always makes a reactionary magnetic field or
force but the originating magnetic field quickly overwelms the
reactionary field (eddy current) which mask their presence.
However ,when the fields are time varying as with high frequency
within the tank circuit the time constant of the circuit makes them
more apparent and thus must be included in any laws revolving around
equilibrium.
The importance of this finding to me is that where the yagi is formed
around collective coupling and recoupling to infinity,
radiators or arrays based on a border based on equilibrium achieves
maximum radiation as a system where the coupling system
can never get to infinity. A small difference ofcource but one has
finality where the other does not.
You may not follow my writing as it is always poor but hopefully you
will see a small smigeon of scientific discovery in what I am
presenting and how this weak force search by all finally comes into
play because of the inter phase changes that occur in a tank
circuit..Now I know it is impossible for some on this forum that
cannot possibly follow the above b ut I do take delight when they do
make a "authorative" posting as part of free speech which highlights
the degree of expertise they reallyhave despite the self perceived
qualities that they seek for to impress.By the way John I do have
problems with the validation aspect of posting possibly because of
spot eye problems. Does this affect you in any way?I can never get
thru ia just one try
Best regards
Art