On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:56:12 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Jeff you are not telling the truth again it is becoming a habit of
yours .

I ask for a real antenna, and you call me a liar. Somehow, the
connection is difficult for me to establish. Even if I were a liar,
how does that affect your inability to produce a working antenna?

Sometime ago you asked me to confide with you some facts about the
antenna as you were of open mind

I don't recall any such request. Please not that you are making the
claims and allegations. I'm merely suspicious and curious if there is
anything substantial behind your claims. I do have an open mind and
am willing to accept some rather odd theories as possible. I've made
some rather bad mistakes in the past by pre-judging various
technologies. For example, at first glance, I declared MIMO to be
impossible. Such mistakes make me more tolerant of your theories, but
only to a point. I've been reading some of your postings for several
months, and have yet to see a real antenna.

I am rather impressed that you would go through the effort of applying
for a patent on a random array of elements. If granted, it should
give you the rights to most ham radio antennas that were assembled
without a clue or calculation.

I then gave you the Gaussian extension information which you could
then compare with Maxwells laws mathematics or alternatively
place it in a Pointings circle.

There is no Pointing circle. It's a Poynting Vector:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector

You immediately came back and dissed
the aproach without mathematical evidence so you could join others and
throw stones.

It's not my position to supply equations for your theories. If you've
found some mathematical extension, principle, or approach that is
based on Gauss, Maxwell, Heaviside, or Poynting, it's your
responsibility to supply those equations. I haven't read all your
postings, so it's conceivable I've missed them. Could you provide a
searchable reference to those equations so I can decide for myself if
they make any sense?

I like to keep to the truth especially as I get older.

Personally, I find it easier to lie as I get older. Credibility and
authority tend to improve with age.

Apparently you are not afraid to show your true colours when your lies
are detected.

That's the 2nd time you've accused me of lying. I don't care. I'm
only interested in your theories on antennas. If you find it
necessary to divert your production of suitable evidence of your
antenna, I'll gladly cooperate by admitting to lying at all times,
about all things, and for any reason, simply so that you do not feel
compelled to avoid the question. Where's your antenna design?

Frankly I can't see me going out of my way to provide a demonstration
thus leaving it to real open minded hams to pursue.

Frankly, that the only thing I'm interested in seeing. You've done
everything EXCEPT provide such a demonstration.

Apparently a lot
of hams do not
want to know the truth.

Would my lies suffice as a reasonable substitute? It really doesn't
matter. The only thing that is important is whether a real antenna
can be built, analyzed, and demonstrated.

As Richard has stated we already have an
antenna so there is no need for another one, seems like he is not
alone in that thinking
when one is not proficient enough to do the math

Ummmm.... this one?
http://www.k8gu.com/webpost/unwin-antenna.jpg

Art Unwin ...KB9MZ....xg ( UK)

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558