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.