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?