Richard Harrison wrote:
Art wrote:
"Einstein may well have been correct even tho not aware of discovries
found after his death."

Wouldn`t anyone like to be aware of all the discoveries made before his
death?

Einstein said something like: "Keep it simple, but not too simple!"

Scientists have in many instances followed Einstein`s advice and reduced
things to simplest terms. Maxwell`s equations as simplified and
explained by Heaviside have been used to successfully predict EM
behavior for a century. They give the answers needed so there has been
no great search for a replacement.
...
Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI


I love Einstein, but then, I have met few Germans I didn't like ...

However, gravity serves a prime example of what you suggest, here. We
know nothing about it, but a lot about its' affects and effects; we
have many formulas to tell us about those and a few theories to tell us
what it (gravity) actually is. So, I doubt it surprises anyone that we
stand at, almost, this exact situation with EM.

However, to lift the blanket and peer upon the true substance and nature
of these things would take us to a whole 'nother level of possibilities
in their uses ...

So, if your argument is going to become, "We already know enough of these
things, let us go no further"; well, some just may follow you--some not
.... personally, I'd "druther" not ...

Warm regards,
JS

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:35:33 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Nov 16, 8:01*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:18:44 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then a proper antenna?

Yes, I think you should. *I have yet to see a model, photo, prototype,
description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of
your antenna. *I would really like to see an antenna design based on
equilibrium, that ignores skin effect by having current flow in the
middle of a conductor, and that is any way superior to conventional
designs. *I'm quite open to radical new theories and implementations.
Hopefully, it will be built from something more common that
unobtainium.

I have applied for patent an as wilh the later forms as I learn more
they eventually will come to light.

Yep. This one? (Application No 20080231540)
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO %2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=%28Unwin.IN.+A ND+antenna%29&OS=IN/Unwin+and+antenna&RS=(IN/Unwin+AND+antenna)

Gaussian radiative cluster

A resonant radiating array comprising of a cluster of randomly
arranged resonant elements for producing a radiation field

Inventors: Unwin; Art; (Bloomington, IL)
Correspondence Name and Address:
ART UNWIN
15394 OLD COLONIAL RD
BLOOMINGTON
IL
61704
US
Serial No.: 655899
Series Code: 11
Filed: March 16, 2007

I also have a page which
is now empty as after a deluge of insults so
I took it off the web.

When and what was the URL? It should be on the internet time machine
http://archive.org

Have a happy day

Bah Humbug. T'is (almost) the season.

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

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:48:39 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Nov 16, 8:01*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:18:44 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then a proper antenna?

Yes, I think you should. *I have yet to see a model, photo, prototype,
description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of
your antenna. *I would really like to see an antenna design based on
equilibrium, that ignores skin effect by having current flow in the
middle of a conductor, and that is any way superior to conventional
designs. *I'm quite open to radical new theories and implementations.
Hopefully, it will be built from something more common that
unobtainium.

If a time varying current is flowing thru the center of a conductor
it cannot, I repeat cannot produce either a field from the applied
current
or provide an eddy current.
(...)

I'm really not interested in reading any more assertions, allegations,
accusations, theories, analysis, or repetitions of your previous
postings. Please re-read what I wrote. I would like to see a model,
photo, prototype, description, patent, test results, or other
physical manifestation of your antenna based on equilibrium and/or
whatever you're claiming about conduction through the center of a
conductor. Show me a *REAL* antenna that works according to your
rather unique principles. I'm open to proof and demonstration, but
not to furthur allegations and claims.


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

On Nov 16, 9:23*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:48:39 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Nov 16, 8:01*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:18:44 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin

wrote:
So you think I should succumb to those who diss me without foundation
and give then a proper antenna?

Yes, I think you should. *I have yet to see a model, photo, prototype,
description, patent, test results, or other physical manifestation of
your antenna. *I would really like to see an antenna design based on
equilibrium, that ignores skin effect by having current flow in the
middle of a conductor, and that is any way superior to conventional
designs. *I'm quite open to radical new theories and implementations..
Hopefully, it will be built from something more common that
unobtainium.
If a time varying current is flowing thru the center of a conductor
it cannot, I repeat cannot produce either a field from the applied
current
or provide an eddy current.

(...)

I'm really not interested in reading any more assertions, allegations,
accusations, theories, analysis, or repetitions of your previous
postings. *Please re-read what I wrote. *I would like to see a model,
photo, prototype, *description, patent, test results, or other
physical manifestation of your antenna based on equilibrium and/or
whatever you're claiming about conduction through the center of a
conductor. *Show me a *REAL* antenna that works according to your
rather unique principles. *I'm open to proof and demonstration, but
not to furthur allegations and claims.

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

Jeff you are not telling the truth again it is becoming a habit of
yours .
Sometime ago you asked me to confide with you some facts about the
antenna as you were of open mind
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. You immediately came back and dissed
the aproach without mathematical evidence so you could join others and
throw stones. I like to keep to the truth especially as I get older.
Apparently you are not afraid to show your true colours when your lies
are detected.
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. Apparently a lot
of hams do not
want to know the truth. 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
Art Unwin ...KB9MZ....xg ( UK)

On Nov 16, 6:30*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"JIMMIE" wrote in message

...

Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

yeah, but not like someone who is nasty, more like someone who is funny and
keeps blabbering on saying more and more ridiculous things.

The funny part is trying to figure out who is the commedian and who is
the straight man. Sometimes I think Art is just someone from the CB
groups bashing y'all around. There is just too much consistency to his
insanity.

Jimmie

On Nov 16, 10:06*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:30*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"JIMMIE" wrote in message

....

Isnt this all a little bit like acknowleging someone who is causing
intentional interference on the bands?

yeah, but not like someone who is nasty, more like someone who is funny and
keeps blabbering on saying more and more ridiculous things.

The funny part is trying to figure out who is the commedian and who is
the straight man. Sometimes I think Art is just someone from the CB
groups bashing y'all around. There is just too much consistency to his
insanity.

Jimmie

If you only speak the truth then consistency becomes the natural
outcome.
No need for me to apologise. Your measure of insanity is just
different from mine
Goodnight
Art

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

On Nov 16, 10:33*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

You can look in the archives for yourself to remind you of that
incident, you have not been on this newsgroup for any length of time
so it should be easy
As for requiring a demonstration I have other patents on antennas
which are purely for my personal record I did not hawk it around to
vendors but I did share it with hams. When at work samples are
required and the company attorney vets the application, as an
individual I can and do put down what is required to back up claims
leaving it to the examiner to provide suggestions of same such that it
has a tad of credability if challenged. I would add that I had to
provide a sample of one antenna to the PTO before a application award
was accepted. One person offered to provide the majority share of a
company if I would assist in a start up for one of my antennas. I
refused because my intent was to enjoy my retirement without the need
of obtaining more money when I have enough. Now I am doing a similar
thing with a different antenna that has broader academic appeal beyond
antennas and yes I paid the money to the PTO purely for my records,
and there is more to be revealed as per what I have disclosed
previously to this group.and nothing more.
I am what I am and do as I say and share it with all so they may
discard if they wish as it is my personal .satisfaction that I search
for,. If you or anybody else are offended I have no problem if you
block my posts which would then remove the need for offending comments
back and forth
Art Unwin....,KB9MZ....XG..(UK)
Art Unwin

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:14:32 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

You can look in the archives for yourself to remind you of that
incident, you have not been on this newsgroup for any length of time
so it should be easy

Oh? I have to do the searching to prove YOUR accusations? Forgive my
laziness but I'm a bit busy tonite defrosting the fridge (hammer and
chisel required).

As for requiring a demonstration I have other patents on antennas
which are purely for my personal record I did not hawk it around to
vendors but I did share it with hams.

These?

Constant impedance matching system
http://www.google.com/patents?id=hCMpAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,790,081

Variable capacitance antenna for multiband reception and transmission
http://www.google.com/patents?id=GEsbAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,625,367

Push button arranged for mounting to a panel
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qaY3AAAAEBAJ

Push button assembly
http://www.google.com/patents?id=YF0tAAAAEBAJ

Very nice. I like the motorized matching or tuning capacitor inside
the yagi boom idea.

and there is more to be revealed as per what I have disclosed
previously to this group.and nothing more.

I'm patient. Let me know when you have something substantial to
disclose.

I am what I am and do as I say and share it with all so they may
discard if they wish as it is my personal .satisfaction that I search
for,.

It's your right to do with your designs as you please. I asked you to
demonstrate one that uses equilibrium and/or conduction in the center
of a conductor. I guess that's not going to happen.

If you or anybody else are offended I have no problem if you
block my posts which would then remove the need for offending comments
back and forth

No problem. However, other than you calling me a liar twice (without
direct substantiation), I would be interested in which of my comments
offended you? I expend some effort in trying to be technically
accurate and non-offensive. Apparently, I've failed and would like to
know precisely where.

Art Unwin....,KB9MZ....XG..(UK)
Art Unwin

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

Richard Harrison wrote:
Charges are moved to the surface by reduced inductive opposition there.

From a QED standpoint, electrons at the center of a
conductor cannot absorb or emit photons and therefore
cannot radiate.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com