On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 17:16:28 GMT, "aunwin"
wrote:

I feel I have to answer this diatribe

The usage of the word "diatribe" is an emotional attack on the simple
statements of fact.

Yes I made an error with regard to yagi elements, an
overcheck by somebody would have revealed that but I omitted to do that and
obviously these portions of a patent aplication didn,t bother the patent
office either.

Hence the Patent Office does not confer any judgement of validity to
poor interpretations of science.

So yes I made an error, I have stated
this many times on this thread but it is a usefull tool to attack me even if
not relavent.

Here we find the emotional crutch of "attack" (characteristically
without evidence). The relevance is in a lack of contrition. Your
preference to reduce these discussions into diversions of personal and
emotional outbursts with scatological and sexual innuendo simply
underlines the poor logic.

With respect to my comments on books and the portions that people extract
from them to present themselves as experts.

You, least of all, have no credentials to pass judgement on who and
what constitutes authority. You have mocked careered Engineers
trained in an art that is foreign to you (as evidenced by such
egregious errors illustrated in the patent extract offered). What is
more, you have rejected references in those books and their authors
who have material that bears against your claims.

Actually I found that high impedance
was not now a cast iron fact tho it did oftern result in high impedance hich
was manageble. I then bought a professional computor program which as large
enought to overcome errors that smaller programs can provide. The program
came out with the same answers.

Let me observe one significant quality of engineering and science that
is obvious to all in that community: it is the presentation of ideas
with data and references. Insofar as this "claim" to have done this
work with a program, we see nothing revealed in the nature or scope of
that design, nor the publication of that design, nor published data.
"Claims" in isolation of supporting material are not ideas.

So then I took even another step and made a
antenna with accordance to the figures and again the answers
proved O.K. I then computed another parallel circuit from a different filter
form to see if all of this was one large error and by golly that worked as
it should and I got on the air (160 metres)

This is called anecdotal evidence and within the engineering and
scientific community is viewed with suspicion when no further details
are offered. Does this sound familiar?

I agree that yagi directors are usually shorter than the driven
element and a reflector is usually longer
than the driven element, I was in error when I wrote otherwise.

And the error is compounded and propagated anew. USUALLY? This
admission has to be qualified? No single example that diverges from
the USUAL case is offered. Such statements as the one above
illustrate the extremely poor quality of reportage that is long on
unsubstantiated "claims" and totally devoid of any data.

Let's consider, the various issues of Q, Efficiency, Resonance and
such, have all been answered but are characteristically met with
silence or evasion in response. We have been repeating this cycle for
years and you provide no suggestion of amending, retracting, nor
explaining your stance with the care that is found in scientific
reportage.

I have no doubt that you will also continue to abuse those who are
held in higher esteem. I need only reflect on your recent outrageous
mistreatment of Richard Harrison, KB5WZI, with your disgusting tone
and vile gutter language. I then compare that to this gentleman's
recent appeal for a Power supply that was met immediately with rapid
responses from 5 different correspondents. You should be so lucky to
have such spontaneous, willing, and appreciative compatriots who
enthusiastically step forward to aid him.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC