On Jul 11, 11:13 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:44 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:



"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 11, 8:20 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

On Jul 11, 5:41 pm, "Walter Maxwell" wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message

... Art wrote:
"The smallest diameter I have wound was on a hoola hoop and the
flatest
one I have made was 8" by 12" by a wire size which can be wound up in
a
roll and put in a sock no less."

From its size, I would expect its performance to be less than that of
a
dipole made from two "hamsticks". But, that may be enough.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Except for Richard H's academic approach this thread has been
hilarious--even
beats Leno. LOL.

Walt, W2DU

Fine Walter. Urge people not to make one based on your professional
experience.
With Richards pile of books on which to stand you can make a mighty
strong case
based on the antennas you have personally built. Experts said the
same about the
Rhode Island antenna but the ham in the street seems to be happy with
it.!
Ofcourse you can show your academic ability in telling the group WHY
it "cannot possibly work:"
or wait for another expert to state ":why" to save face. Both of you
state it can't work, won't work
or the whole thing is a myth. Don't you feel you owe the group a
professional explanation on which you are basing your findings?
And I don't mean because YOU said it but on the basis of mathematics
or something of similar kind. After all this time I have
been studying this thing I could still be in error and I would welcome
a professional expose if it would save trouble for the posters
and where I can sincerely apologise for my aproach to this antenna
which nobody has faulted with explanation as yet.
Is this "don't make it guys" a pure professional aproach designed to
save your fellow friends from harm
or is it an emotional thing that you are pushing in response to you
book writings being dissed? I presented a series of graphs that I
measured with this antenna on
unwinantennas.com
so you could comment about that even tho you may have been looking for
other information that was not there.You could also state to the many
naysayers
why you ,as a professional and a judge ,why it reflect a dummy load
and the implication of the oscillations. All these would earn you
respect that could overcome your anger at somebody daring to question
your writings in public and certainly would do something to negate
your present passion for hate.
Can you do that for your fellow hams or is there some delight in
seeing them struggle and spend while you are laughing at alll. Be a
real ham and help your fellow hams after all the hobby is more than
making money from them. As far as only Richard being academic I would
remind you he is only quoting from books all of which do not address
this design so his comments are speculative to say the least where he
does not share the professional underpinnings of his speculations
given with a sneer.

Art, I have never said your antennas don't work, and I have not seen your
graphs. In fact I've never commented one way of the other concerning your
antennas. I did make one negative comment concerning your dialogs with the
others, but I have not commented on the content of your rhetoric.
Furthermore,
I was not privy to any of the Dr. Davis posts, even though you have accused
me
of siding against him. If you doubt this just go back and check the various
posts around the era when Dr. Davis is said to have posted and you'll not
find
any of my posts concerning him or the discussions concerning him.

And you have mistaken one Richard for the other. Richard C is the one who
began
the comedy in this thread, while Richard H is the one who posted
academically.
Are you aware of these two distinguished posters on this thread?

Walt, W2DU

Are you saying that one of the Richards is responsible for the '
comedy that you are enjoying and not me? Then you should have the
courage to say so.
Richard C I know can stand on his own feet and respond rather than you
hiding behind ambiguety.
At the same time I do not remember the two Richards having a discourse
with each other on my antenna which if
so you could have made your statement more deffinitive.! Frankly your
response does not ring true and I certainly would not wish you to
continue with your anger against him. But again you are intent on
letting somebody know of your contempt because you haven't fully
vented your anger.
I suggest you put this sort of verbage to one side and view tomorrow
as a new day

Art, I'm not angry with anyone. What gave you that notion? I have not indicated
an anger, nor have I had any intent of letting anyone know of any contempt
(because I have none) or that I haven't fully vented my anger. What anger? Where
is this coming from? Certainly not from me. If you're addressing me with such
outrageous concerns you are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you
must have too many Gaussians between your ears that have addalpated your brain
cells.

Concerning the two Richards, check the recent posts on this thread.

Walt, W2DU

As I said I assumed that your hillarity was over my antenna. You
certainly did not make it clear
it was the other Richard. Maybe I am getting to sensitive to attacks
and thus showing I still have possesion of some testerone.
Apparently this time I can relax as I am not the one in the barrel tho
that is not a good thing to say.
Have a good week end
Art

Ok Walter I have now read RCs post, I don't normally read his posts
But I don't find his comment hillarious. I never mentioned Neutrons
or zip cord
and his use of zip cord does not show any evidence of the wires
crossing each other from one coil to another
so he is imposing a lumped load which is opposite to the intent of the
design! Then he stated he had achieved equilibriumwhat ever that word
means to him
All in all it just doesn't make sense to me as always. I rarely can
figure out what RC is trying to say
since he mixes truth with lies as with a Shakesperien play, which is
why I do not read him and thus hillarity has escaped me.
I certainly have no idea what Franks response to RCs post signifies
either
What a mess occurs when one solely tries to deceive!
I am ready for a couple of quiet days out of town despite the cost of
Gauss