On Jul 10, 11:32 am, Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jul 9, 7:27 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

So where in the hell are
you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?

Hi Art -

Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
your condition. Since then, I have advised some of your antagonists
in the group by email that it might be the better part of valor to
take it easy on you and just let you have your say. Mostly, I just
wished for you pursue your interest and to avoid embarassing yourself.

Not that it matters, but my main expertise as it pertains to this
discussion is in the design and construction of electronic equipment
and scientific apparatus used for the measurement of various physical
phenomena. e.g. US Pats 5,018,382 and 7,119,588. In the '70's and
80's I was in the business manufacturing guitar amplifiers. Among
other things, I am an amateur radio operator and a musician.

For the record, although I have disagreed with you, I have never been
personally disrespectful to you. I believe gentleman should be able
to disagree without being disagreeable (or insulting).

ac6xg

Please accept my apologies because I have disrespected you
Regarding my findings they have been partially checked over by
qualified people
and it has taken a long while to get to this point.
If you will accept it I would like to send you an antenna as a gift
but I do not want personal favors of any kind.
Frankly it is the responders that need thought as they do not present
any scientific underpinnings for their statements
that I can respond to in kind Unfortunately I do sometime get caught
up in the hate and respond in kind which I should not do
Believe me Jim all those that poo hoo what I am sharing will rethink
their motives when it is recognised by academia which is really the
only road for acceptance available to any lay person with respect to
ham radio. As the numbers of silent keys mount the majority in ham
radio will not be comprised of people with open minds and curiousity
and changes will reflect the change in demeanor as has already
happened on this newsgroup. I don't think the days will ever come back
where antenna science can be discussed civilly and logically anymore
per the intentions of the formation of this newsgroup founders since
lack of civility is truly a virus that can over take us all
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 10, 11:32 am, Jim Kelley wrote:

On Jul 9, 7:27 pm, Art Unwin wrote:


So where in the hell are
you comming from and where does your main expertise dwell?

Hi Art -

Where am I coming from...well, a cab driver in London sent me a note a
year or two ago after I came to your defense in this newsgroup. He
confided to me about something that I had already suspected regarding
your condition. Since then, I have advised some of your antagonists
in the group by email that it might be the better part of valor to
take it easy on you and just let you have your say. Mostly, I just
wished for you pursue your interest and to avoid embarassing yourself.

Not that it matters, but my main expertise as it pertains to this
discussion is in the design and construction of electronic equipment
and scientific apparatus used for the measurement of various physical
phenomena. e.g. US Pats 5,018,382 and 7,119,588. In the '70's and
80's I was in the business manufacturing guitar amplifiers. Among
other things, I am an amateur radio operator and a musician.

For the record, although I have disagreed with you, I have never been
personally disrespectful to you. I believe gentleman should be able
to disagree without being disagreeable (or insulting).

ac6xg


Please accept my apologies because I have disrespected you
Regarding my findings they have been partially checked over by
qualified people
and it has taken a long while to get to this point.
If you will accept it I would like to send you an antenna as a gift
but I do not want personal favors of any kind.
Frankly it is the responders that need thought as they do not present
any scientific underpinnings for their statements
that I can respond to in kind Unfortunately I do sometime get caught
up in the hate and respond in kind which I should not do
Believe me Jim all those that poo hoo what I am sharing will rethink
their motives when it is recognised by academia which is really the
only road for acceptance available to any lay person with respect to
ham radio. As the numbers of silent keys mount the majority in ham
radio will not be comprised of people with open minds and curiousity
and changes will reflect the change in demeanor as has already
happened on this newsgroup. I don't think the days will ever come back
where antenna science can be discussed civilly and logically anymore
per the intentions of the formation of this newsgroup founders since
lack of civility is truly a virus that can over take us all
Regards
Art


There's a profound old saying that I'm occasionally reminded of:

There, but by the grace of god, go I.

It has a sobering effect. And I hope there will be a kinder and more
patient soul than I to help me stay on track someday when I need it.

I would be honored to have one of your antennas, Art. I promise I'll
try to figure it out.

ac6xg

On Jul 10, 1:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Believe me Jim all those that poo hoo what I am sharing will rethink
their motives when *it is recognised by academia which is really the
only road for acceptance available to any lay person with respect to
ham radio.

Negative contact on that Artmobile... Breaker 19
for a radio check!
Academia means little to me in the case of "new science".
Real world tests with real word results of the tests are the
only thing I care to see when concerning "new science" antenna
schemes.
You can't brown the food if you refuse to stick it in the oven.

Believe me Jim all those that poo hoo what I am sharing will rethink
their motives when *it is recognised by academia which is really the
only road for acceptance available to any lay person with respect to
ham radio.

Art,
I can say that you've finally gotten something right. If academia
does recognize and second your theory, I know that I would be more apt
to consider it. Why? Because 'academia' is going to include those
who know what the @#$$ you're trying to say. They are not likely to
'condone' something that's not 'right'. And providing the usual
proofs to academia would seem like the smart thing to do (like it or
not). Is that the most absolutely bestest way of doing things? Toss-
up on that, but certainly better than what you are doing now.
- 'Doc