On Nov 5, 10:00*am, Art Unwin wrote:


Mark cannot debate the subject on its
technical merits however he can mount an assault
on any messenger based on emotions, he certainly is not equiped to go
thru the higher math of Maxwell and Gauss.

How can one debate an issue when the one offering
the new theory refuses to answer any questions posed to him?
And if I run across some math I can't handle, I can surely find
someone who can. No one is going to be able to know
everything, and that includes you.
It seems to me you are not equipped to handle the math
yourself. You sure haven't offered any at all. Zero.Nada. Zilch.
So how would you know if I can handle the math or not?
You haven't offered any to inspect.
And neither did the Doktor you constantly bring up. Not a bit.

This does not exclude him from any discussion but to mount a personal
assault in the place of knoweledge just gives exposure
to what a person he really is..

You are the one that started the personal assaults a long time
ago. You've had your knickers in a twist ever since I proved
your "loophole" antenna did not work as you claimed and
it's all gone downhill since then.
And that was a long time ago.
You are the only one that seems to be worried about my
level of education. No one else seems to care a whit.
If I'm such an ignorant dumbass as you claim, why did
it only take me about 30 minutes to disprove your "loophole"
antenna theory. You know, the dipole fed with a version of
a T match, with a variable cap that you claimed would
allow you to steer the pattern of the antenna.
A quick modeling of that antenna proved your claims to
be false as far as steering the pattern.
On your behalf, I did prove that the antenna was viable as
far as tuning for each band, but I disproved your claims of
steering the pattern. And I didn't need a spec of math to
do it. What was your response to this modeling?
Nothing at all... :/

Being as I shot that antenna out of the water, you quickly
dropped it, and decided to try other designs.
Very inefficient designs I might add. Of course you
disagree, but you refuse to actually do the real world
tests to prove or disprove these claims.
Instead, you attack the messenger. You whine about
other hams. You whine about England vs the USA.
You just whine. Period. I find it disgusting. Sorry if
that chaps your ass. I really could care less.


What kind of person am I? I'm a person who can't stand a
whiner, that's who I am. And all you do is whine, ****, and
moan about *other* hams that won't do *your* work for you.
On a personal level, you make me sick to my stomach.
If you were any kind of real scientist, you would have done
all this work on your own, and proved or disproved your
theory to *yourself* before braying like a jackass on this
group.

You supposedly gave an antenna to a ham on this group
to inspect and test. Did we ever hear about any results of
this test. Nope. Not a peep. Zero, zilch, nada..
Did he ever report back to you? He sure didn't report back
to us. Of course, you won't reveal if he did or not.

Leads me to believe that my quick analysis of your
antenna was pretty much right on, if you all are afraid
to post the results.
I don't need too much math to smell a turd.
I have enough real world antenna experience to know
what is bunk, and what is the real deal.
I have offered you a sure way out of this mess many
times, but you refuse to listen.
I said, build it and test it! If it actually works, and you
can prove it, your dilemma is over.

But you refuse. You would rather whine, ****, and moan
about all the other hams on the planet.
You claim that most hams think all is known about
antennas. But the only one I hear say that over and over
is *you*.
And to me, it's quite obvious that *you* have a long
ways to go before you could even be close to claiming
you know everything about antennas.
Myself, I know I don't know everything about antennas,
and I don't make claims hinting that I do.
You will notice I don't enter threads which are out of
my expertise. A man has to know his limitations.

On the subject of antennas I have put
thru a theory where a particular antenna is produced.

Where is the "produced" antenna? Have you tested it
against a radiator of known performance? Like a dipole?

Antennas produced in the past have been torn apart on its merits thro
out ham radio history but only after study and it is this study that I
am looking for.

Well, I hope you find that study wherever it is hiding and
put it out of it's misery.

As yet nothing that I have put forward has been scientifically
refutted not that I wish for that but I do relish a challenge

You wouldn't know how to respond to a challenge if it bit you
in the ass.
You refuse to answer logical questions posed to you. You refuse
to reveal any test results. You refuse to provide any math to
back up your claims. Of course, a horses ass like you will
claim I'm too freakin stupid to make heads or tails of said
math, which may or may not be true.
But like I say, I *do* know plenty of people that can handle
any math that might pose a problem to me, so that claim
is fairly mute.

Anything else you wish to whine or complain about
before you start another thread of useless bafflegab?

On Nov 5, 11:00*am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
Art wrote:

"Well Richard I don`t go along with that unless the definition of a wave
is made clear."

We deal with sinusoidal waves because all other shapes can be nade from
combinations of these.



The 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" says on page 904:
"They (computer program designers) could develop software to simulate
the performance of antennas. In general, these techniques either
numerically solve Maxwell`s equations by descretizing the problem using
integral techniques, such as Moment Methods (MoM) as discussed in
Sec.14-11, or differential technuques, such as finite elements or finite
difference-time domain."

Maxwell gave us everything we need.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I
have apothosized, nothing !
\When I mention antannas of a new desighn you say who needs them. When
I say that antennas should be tilted
with respect to the Earth you say BS. When I point to the
coirrelatioin between Gaus statics and Maxwell you remain silent.
Now you bring up Kraus by quoting what he said with respect to
computor programs. I was not happy with computor programs because of
the assumption
that they has about sino soidal current. My studies prove that I was
wrong in that determination. This allows me to review Kraus antennas
to see where he deviated from Maxwell. You point to a computor program
on antennas. Most if not all hams foicus on planar designs where
current is induced
progressively from one element to another in simple electromagnetic
coupling form, that relationship does not supply anything with respect
to radiation.
Programmers put that design as an addition to the program that
revolved around Maxwell you did not work around approximations.
Now I feel it is legitamate to apply the computor programs to my
deductions and Maxwell produces the antenna that I forcast and not the
lesser efficient yagi antenna.Same goes for Krauss's work on the helix
which like the plana designs are also a approximation. These fact are
indisputable if you believe the MOM methods used for computor
programs. Now we have the situation where a yagi or the helix is
pushed aside by the computor programs in favor of what I have
postulated. Now it is YOU who have a problem. I kn ow you do not use
computors but it was you that brought the subject up.Computor programs
duplicate what I am postilating with more efficient antennas and yet
you put computors forward to repudiate what I say.
So what are you going to do now? study computor programming to see how
a program based around Maxwellk could provide such incorrect answers,
deny the teachings of Maxwell or deny the viability of antenna
computor programs which puts ham radio back a generation?
Regards
Art

On Nov 5, 12:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I
have apothosized, nothing !

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for apothosized:

1. apotheosis 2. hypothesize

Spelling Help Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers

Now it is YOU who have a problem.

Yep, just like I said.. Always blame it on the other guy.
It's always his fault. Art is never wrong. What a horses ass.. :/

On Nov 5, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I
have apothosized, nothing !

*The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for apothosized:

* * *1. apotheosis * * * * * * * * 2. hypothesize

Spelling Help Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers

Now *it is YOU who have a problem.

Yep, just like I said.. Always blame it on the other guy.
It's always his fault. Art is never wrong. What a horses ass.. *:/

Look. Ham radio has a problem, a real problem that they refuse to come
to terms with.
Antenna computor programs that have entered ham radio with the full
acceptance
of it's members which takes up a considerable portion of antenna news
does NOT
provide planar antennas as the most efficient antennas based on the
compliance with Maxwell.
This is no small matter for ham radio. We can bury our heads in the
sand or we can
re examine the facts as accepted by science. If adherence to Maxwells
laws provides radiuators
that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore
it as Richards states
" we already have a design " or "who needs it"
Now I have shared my findings based on the laws of Maxwell as to why
this is, you need not agree with it
but surely for those who are inquisitive about antennas should be
curious about the parodox that I have exposed.
There are smarter people on this newsgroup whome I have brought this
to their attention so why the silence and the abuse with respect to
these findings
that Einstein pursued in a fruitless effort?
Art

On Nov 5, 12:45*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:31*pm, wrote:



On Nov 5, 12:01*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I
have apothosized, nothing !

*The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling
suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.
Suggestions for apothosized:

* * *1. apotheosis * * * * * * * * 2. hypothesize

Spelling Help Powered by Franklin Electronic Publishers

Now *it is YOU who have a problem.

Yep, just like I said.. Always blame it on the other guy.
It's always his fault. Art is never wrong. What a horses ass.. *:/

Look. Ham radio has a problem, a real problem that they refuse to come
to terms with.

No. *You* have the problem, not ham radio as a group.

Antenna computor programs that have entered ham radio with the full
acceptance
of it's members which takes up a considerable portion of antenna news
does NOT
provide planar antennas as the most efficient antennas based on the
compliance with Maxwell.

I don't fully accept *all* results obtained through the use of
antenna
programs. There are a few cases where the programs have problems.
Fortunately, most of these are known, and if you really understand
what you are trying to model, it's usually fairly obvious if something
is in error.

This is no small matter for ham radio. We can bury our heads in the
sand or we can
re examine the facts as accepted by science.

Be my guest. It's a free world. But don't feed me a turd
and call it a steak. I can tell the difference in most cases.

If adherence to Maxwells
laws provides radiuators
that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore
it as Richards states
" we already have a design " or "who needs it"

But so far you have been unable to do this.
You seem to think that a free lunch is hiding somewhere.
I'm here to tell you that you will likely starve to death
before you find it. Why? Because there is no free lunch.

Now I have shared my findings based on the laws of Maxwell as to why
this is, you need not agree with it
but surely for those who are inquisitive about antennas should be
curious about the parodox that I have exposed.

You haven't exposed anything except a bunch of baffle gab.

There are smarter people on this newsgroup whome I have brought this
to their attention so why the silence and the abuse with respect to
these findings
that Einstein pursued in a fruitless effort?

Well, obviously they don't seem to agree with your theories.
And who could blame them when the only "proof" offered is
conjured up baffle gab.
The ball is totally in your court. Either do the testing and
prove your theory, or accept the failure.
I know I'm not going to do any work on it. I don't like
compromised inefficient antennas. So there is no incentive
whatsoever for me to waste my energy on it when it's sure
to be less effective than what I use at present.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:01:24 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Richard you have not come up with anything that contradicts what I
have apothosized,

"Potential Energy is not in equilibrium."
so says Newton.

"Kinetic Energy is not in equilibrium."
so says Newton.

"Radiation that uses neither, is not radiation."
so says Gauss.

"Radiation is not in equilibrium."
so says Maxwell.

"An antenna receives or transmits radiation."
so says Einstein.

"An antenna is not in equilibrium."
so says Marx (of Hart, Schaffner & Marx).

The math has been proven, and the dead white scientists (and
haberdashers) have spoken from the grave. You have come up with a
contradiction only, and demonstrated nothing that will raise the dead.
No Lazarus Prize will be awarded this year.

In spite of your reference to having apotheosized anything, no, you
don't rise to the pantheon of deity either (not until you can get
those nails out of your hands).

To early for Easter.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art wrote:
"We can bury our heads in the sand or we can re examune the facts as
accepted by science. If adherence to Maxwell`s laws provides radiators
that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore it
as Richard states "We already have a design" or Who needs it."

Richard says: Hooray! Richard does not discourage novelty or the
computer which is a most useful tool. Show us the novelty and the data.

Art`s rant reminds me of an offhand remark by Jerry Chinski, Chief
Engineer of KXYZ when I worked there in 1949. It was not directed at me
when Jerry said: "You can have the best equipment in the world but if
knuckleheads are operating it, the product is likely useless."

Antenna modeling is well tested and accepted. If the computer operator
is a knucklehead, its output is likely useless (GIGO). The operator
likely needs help to get useful output. But, some operators blame the
system not their own ineptitude.

Many participants in this newsgroup use EZNEC to get good results when
evaluating prospective antennas. I`m sure some blame the system when it
doesn`t produce the desired results. I`d call them Chinski-ites.

My 20th edition of "The ARRL Antenna Book" includes a CD-ROM of the
entire book. Chapter 8 is "Phased Array Techniques" , written by the
EZNEC man, Roy W. Lewallen, W7EL. It is full of practical information in
print for all to see and criticize. Last line in the book is: We would
appreciate any feedback or bug reports you might have.

If Art would subject his data to such scrutiny, he might get more cheers
and fewer jeers.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Nov 5, 3:24*pm, (Richard Harrison) wrote:
Art wrote:

"We can bury our heads in the sand or we can re examune the facts as
accepted by science. If adherence to Maxwell`s laws provides radiators
that are more efficient and smaller than the status quo we can ignore it
as Richard states "We already have a design" or Who needs it." *

Richard says: Hooray! Richard does not discourage novelty or the
computer which is a most useful tool. Show us the novelty and the data.

Art`s rant reminds me of an offhand remark by Jerry Chinski, Chief
Engineer of KXYZ when I worked there in 1949. It was not directed at me
when Jerry said: "You can have the best equipment in the world but if
knuckleheads are operating it, the product is likely useless."

Antenna modeling is well tested and accepted. If the computer operator
is a knucklehead, its output is likely useless (GIGO). The operator
likely needs help to get useful output. But, some operators blame the
system not their own ineptitude.

Many participants in this newsgroup use EZNEC to get good results when
evaluating prospective antennas. I`m sure some blame the system when it
doesn`t produce the desired results. I`d call them Chinski-ites.

My 20th edition of "The ARRL Antenna Book" includes a CD-ROM of the
entire book. Chapter 8 is "Phased Array Techniques" , written by the
EZNEC man, Roy W. Lewallen, W7EL. It is full of practical information in
print for all to see and criticize. Last line in the book is: We would
appreciate any feedback or bug reports you might have.

If Art would subject his data to such scrutiny, he might get more cheers
and fewer jeers.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI * * * *

Ok Richard so I am inept, let us leave it at that. There are many
experts and guru's on this newsgroup
who pretty much agree with you and not one has come forward to refute
some of the things that have been stated against what I proffer
So I will assume that the program is accepted for Yagi' but not for
radiators in equilibrium.
All this is not unusual a lot of things that were found out were
delayed from the public because of people just couldn';t take change.
Those who do not understand the rules of science with respect to
radiators say it is bafflegab because they don't understand the
sciences.
So I will let it go at that and assume that I am the one out of step.
You and others have made your point and there is no such thing than a
better antenna than the Yagi and that all is known is about antennas
and nothing that is not printed in a book is acceptable to radio hams.
I get the message and that should make every one happy
Art
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ed Cregger wrote:
Allegedly, scientists have determined that the very foundation of our
universe is made of something that they call "quantum foam". Tiny sub
particles that pop into and then out of existence. To me, this is just
another way of saying "the aether".

Apparently Einstein agreed with you.

Yes, I suspect both of you are correct ... it peeves me, and NOT
SLIGHTLY, I can't even get my mind "wrapped about that."

But then, neither can you! :-P

Regards,
JS

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:08:33 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

nothing that is not printed in a book is acceptable to radio hams.

You got your ideas by reading headstones?

I get the message

Somehow I doubt that. You sound like today's concession speach as a
warm up for the next campaign cycle.

Art, if you were running for political office, your idea shelf life
would equal Lyndon Larouche's.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC