On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:40:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I never mentioned Neutrons

You can't spell is why (neutrino).

It still amounts to the same thing: an antenna designed to suppress
the signal to optimize sub-atomic particles with their weak force.

Further modeling has borne out how weak: varying between the -30s dB
and -40s dB.

No other data has been submitted to contradict what has been witnessed
for three centuries by millions of operators. As I have offered
throughout this thread: proof positive that an antenna optimized for
the equilibrium of the Weak Force must suppress signal to qualify.

By the authur's intent, design, construction details, expressed logic,
and demonstration through models and in dependant testing, that
suppression has left only a Weak Force. Further improvement in
modeling and construction may yet achieve -60dB levels of signal
degradation to achieve a superior Weak Force antenna example.

This is truly deserving of a patent - except that the PTO mandates it
must have some commercial gain. Can one express it as -60dB$ ?

Would you be able to find a coin that small struck at the Denver Mint?
The tax mil would only be -30dB$. Would one need a 1000 bay
unwinantenna to equal on mil of monetary gain? What would its carbon
footprint be when a Henry fed it?

Ah, the infinite intrigue of Weak Force Antennas (hope the authur
realizes this may lead to a trademark infringement).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC