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