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.

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

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

On Nov 5, 5:08*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


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

I refute things you say quite often, but you ignore them.
As an example, you constantly state that an antenna should
be a full wave length in order to live a productive and useful life.
You claim such an antenna is in equilibrium. Whatever that is
supposed to mean to you. We don't know how equilibrium applies
in your case, as you refuse to tell anyone when questioned.
When I state that a full wave has no real efficiency advantage vs
a half wave, a statement which almost everyone knows is true,
you ignore it.
Of course, using a small antenna the size of two shoe boxes is
not really a full wave antenna. It's still a very small antenna fed
with a loading coil made up of a full wave length of wire, if I
understand what you are doing. And with your winding technique,
it's quite easy to see how this could be a very lossy method to
feed such a small radiator. You basically have a dummy load on
a stick.
A good 160m mobile antenna setup would tear it a new one.. :/

So I will assume that the program is accepted for Yagi' but not for
radiators in equilibrium.

How can a radiator be in equilibrium? You are talking about a
piece of metal.

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.

Change... Hummm.. A common Obama mantra..
Change can be good, or change can be bad.
Throwing a lot of the Wall Street CEO's in prison would be a
fairly good change.
A new president who thinks he can bend the constitution to suit
his personal agenda would not be a good change.
Ignoring proven data and replacing it with faulty unproven data would
not be a good change.
Using proven data and building on it to prove a new design or theory
would not be a bad change, if the new design or theory can pass
the scrutiny of rigorous testing over a period of time.
Using conjured up baffle gab to try to prove a new theory is
not going to cut it in the change dept.
BTW, I mention Obama quite a bit, and it's probably no secret I'm
no fan of his.
But I want to mention it is not on a personal level, or due to his
skin color, etc. I'm sure he can be a fairly decent guy at times,
but I still think he's a blatant socialist, and I have little use for
him.
He's a constitutional attorney who has no respect for the
constitution. IE: he'd like to take a big crap on the 2nd
amendment if he ever gets the chance for just one example.
This is not to say I really like McCain either..
I'm more of the independent Libertarian ilk.. If a politician can't
follow the constitution, I have zero use for them.

But back to the matter at hand..

Those who do not understand the rules of science with respect to
radiators say it is bafflegab because they don't understand the
sciences.

I understand enough to tell a turd from a diamond any day.
An Einstein level of reasoning is not required for this simple
task.

So I will let it go at that and assume that I am the one out of step.

You have taken the first step towards recovery.

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

Just more whining from a disenchanted pseudo inventer..
I don't even know how the poor Yagi got involved. The yagi
has zero to do with anything I have argued about.
A contra wound dummy load on a stick, and a yagi and
about as different animals as chipmunks and baboons.

Or are you know abandoning the dummy load on a stick,
and returning to the perverted array with skewed elements
you harped on quite a few months ago?
You know, the one that provided less performance than
the properly designed yagi with an equal number of elements..
You know, the one I called the cluster%#&* antenna..
Chortle.. :/

NM5K wrote:
"Of course, using a small antenna the size of two shoe boxes is not
really a full wave antenna. It`s still a very small antenna fed with a
loading coil made up of a full wave length of wire, if I umderstand what
you are doing."

Yes. It appears he has a dipole two shoe boxes long. The ARRL Antenna
Book has an interesting section on "Short Antennas" that starts on on
page 6-21 in my 20th edition. On page 6-30 it says:
"Loading is always a compromise; the best method is determined by the
amount of space available and the band(s) to be worked.
The simplest way to shorten a dipole is shown in Fig 53. If you do not
have sufficient length between supports, simply hang as much of the
center of the antenna as possible between the supports and let the ends
hang down.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI