Richard Clark wrote

Hi Jaro,

I presume by this you haven't any idea how it could be proven
yourself?


G'day Richard

Why am i not surprised you jumped in. As i have
stated before i know very little about Antenna's, but i do consider
myself a reasonable judge of people.
I first came across this group about two years ago and what caught
my attention then was a post you made where you were attempting to
ridicule where Art had sugested putting a feed on an Antenna (i
believe it was a Moxon)and in a later post Ian White confirmed it was
the correct position.
Since then i have seen you and one or two others miss no
opportunity to attack and denigrate his posts and him personaly.
Over the same period i have seen Art gaining more and more
confidence with every post he made culminating in his last post to
this thread combined with his posts to the Q thread where he was
saying in my opinion, He knows what he has got and he knows what it
can do and what is more he can prove it,so he does not need to take
any more crap from you.
You ask for facts and figures,why should he supply them when
judging from your previous posts you have already decided whatever he
claims he is wrong.

The temperature here is 40c and is forecast to stay the same for
another three days,is it possible all this hot air is eminating from
your direction across the Pacific.

Jaro.

On 21 Mar 2004 06:13:13 -0800, (jaroslav lipka)
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote

Hi Jaro,

I presume by this you haven't any idea how it could be proven
yourself?


G'day Richard

Why am i not surprised you jumped in.
Nor I you. Thanx for that moment of irony. :-)
As i have stated before i know very little about Antenna's, but i do consider
myself a reasonable judge of people.

Hi Jaro,

That is a presumption not supported by any evidence much less
observable in your correspondence. You respond as a social critic
often, and to take me to task for that same office exposes your having
little talent for it.

As a social critic, you should examine the quality of your education
closer. For instance, English is one of the few, if not only,
languages that distinguishes and capitalizes the first person pronoun
- I. To a social examiner, the persistent usage of the lower case i
would suggest problems of either self perception, or over exposure to
the works of e.e. cummings. However, I am descending into technical
issues and diverging from your agenda of entertainment:

I first came across this group about two years ago and what caught
my attention then was a post you made where you were attempting to
ridicule where Art had sugested putting a feed on an Antenna (i
believe it was a Moxon)and in a later post Ian White confirmed it was
the correct position.

I've noted in that same span of time that, yes, you know very little
about antennas and have contributed nothing technical. We often
encounter correspondents slumming through our group in seek of
entertainment and pressing on for more discussion of personalities to
the abandonment of the theoretical (this post of yours is eminent in
that regard). Your support of Art certainly serves to relieve your
boredom - one of those decadent Old World problems of ennui?

You ask for facts and figures,why should he supply them when
judging from your previous posts you have already decided whatever he
claims he is wrong.

Why indeed, when it interferes with this decided preference for the
buffoonery of a soap opera. Facts and figures too quickly snuff the
ambiguity of martyrdom.

Jaro, please don't let this dissuade you from more entries here, their
quality heightens the contrast to real participation. This returns me
to the original observation you have not responded to:
I presume by this you haven't any idea how it could be proven
yourself?
Let's just say your prejudice has the same weight as Art's proofs you
fail to comprehend - could we say Ætherial?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in message




Hi Jaro,

That is a presumption not supported by any evidence much less
observable in your correspondence. You respond as a social critic
often, and to take me to task for that same office exposes your having
little talent for it.

I must admit it does not come naturaly, I do tend to struggle a bit.

As a social critic, you should examine the quality of your education
closer. For instance, English is one of the few, if not only,
languages that distinguishes and capitalizes the first person pronoun
- I.
Fair dinkum!

To a social examiner, the persistent usage of the lower case i
would suggest problems of either self perception, or over exposure to
the works of e.e. cummings.

None of the above, just put it down to a basic education and a lack
of observation when reading other posts, but I thank you for "your"
observation and I assure you I will get it right in future. Have
checked out e.e. cummings but I'm not one for poetry thanks.


Your support of Art certainly serves to relieve your
boredom - one of those decadent Old World problems of ennui?

You are right again, boredom is a killer,


Jaro, please don't let this dissuade you from more entries here, their
quality heightens the contrast to real participation.

Thank you for your invitation, I am happy to continue to post but
as I pointed out it does not come naturaly, so I will have to ration
them out. Is that ok with you?.

Let's just say your prejudice has the same weight as Art's proofs
you
fail to comprehend - could we say Ætherial

Oh dear! thats the second time I have had to check my dictionary in
this post. My interpretation of that is a bit "Airy Fairy"

G'Day Richard
I limit myself to learning one new word a day, so if
you decide to reply please don't over do it, thanks.

Jaro.

(jaroslav lipka) wrote in message . com...
(Mark Keith) wrote in message . com...

Art, Just quit all this whining.
Whine, whine, whine...Thats what gets my goat...And this whining
involved me....MK

G'day Keith
don't know where you get the idea that Art's whining
from,

Have they kept you stored in a closet? He whines about the NG, and
it's participants. He whines about his supposed lack of edjucashun. He
whines about his medical problems. He whines about antenna modeling
programs that he doesn't even own or use. He whines because no one
seems to take his antenna too seriously. He just whines....

but from the way i read his last post he write's like someone
who knows exactly what he has got, and what it will do and is
confident that when the time comes he can prove it,and to answer your
question "that" is what my money is on.

I wouldn't hold your breath. You, "or he" will die before he decides
what he has. He grabs at different straws about once every two months
trying to "explain" what he has. It's this constant straw grabbing
that attracts the attention of many.

Oh sure, he "knows" what he has, but whether what he has conforms with
reality and the laws of modern science is another thing entirely. I've
been watching him talk about the antenna for 2-3-4 years, and I still
see no indication he has ever actually built one for current use,
besides his little 160m thing, which seems somewhat unrelated to what
I modeled. He says he used to run one at some point in time....But
even making something and using it, does not automatically mean his
description of it's operation is factual. What FIRST got me to model
his "loopole" was his claim that you would see collinear gains with
this device.
That was the first thing I had to shoot down...Landed with a might
thud it did...His comments of that type ended quickly. But he won't
believe my claims that his loop/cap device is nothing but a simple
matching device. "others descriptions of linear resonator devices
non-withstanding" I'm not totally sold on that theory as far as
getting a match in itself. His views of "coupling" are very distorted
in my opinion. That why I asked him a few days ago to describe
coupling. He declined to answer...

To put it plainly far from whining i get the impression he
was telling you to "go take a jump",
Jaro.

He wants to tell nearly everyone on here to take a jump. Doesn't
bother me...MK

(jaroslav lipka) wrote in message om...
Richard Clark wrote

Hi Jaro,

I presume by this you haven't any idea how it could be proven
yourself?


G'day Richard

Why am i not surprised you jumped in. As i have
stated before i know very little about Antenna's, but i do consider
myself a reasonable judge of people.

This cracks me up....You say you don't know much about antennas, but
you feel fairly sure Art is right as far as his antenna is concerned,
because you are good judge of people. Thats truly priceless... :/ MK

Mark, NM5K wrote:
"What FIRST got me to model his "loopole" was his claim that you could
get collinear gain with his device."

Art`s unexplained claims amazed me so I jotted them down.

1) More gain than other antennas
2) Useable SWR`s also
3) Rotatable with under 200 ft turning space
4) No heavier than the lightest antennas on the market
5) Can be made wide banded
6) Can be made narrow banded
7) Can be made variable frequency operative
8) Can be automated for maximum gain
9) Can be automated for best SWR

As I recall, all those claims come from one posting but the list may be
incomplete.

I responded that the posting seemed an advert.

Art seems to ignore in his "loopole" that tight coupling means
resonances in the loop and pole are interactive, not independent.

Art should produce some numbers to back gain and SWR superiority claims.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On 22 Mar 2004 06:29:36 -0800, (jaroslav lipka)
wrote:
Have checked out e.e. cummings but I'm not one for poetry thanks.

That is too bad. e.e. cummings is one of our great populist poets who
would have had a rap sheet a mile long in the current administration's
Office of Homeland Scrutiny. Read "i sing of Olaf glad and big"; or
do a search of the archives here for my complete quote of it and to
observe I also offer equally profound technical leads in that same
post. I will admit that both paths are very dense. For instance,
note that e.e. cummings uses the lower case quite deliberately as a
stylistic slap in the face of convention. This is an inversion of the
low self esteem one would analyze, and instead is very aggressive and
dominates the material.

Thank you for your invitation, I am happy to continue to post but
as I pointed out it does not come naturaly, so I will have to ration
them out. Is that ok with you?.

Do as you wish. EVERY post made is a deliberate choice of topic and
concern by any poster. When the technical content about a technical
topic drops to zero, I too find relief from the consequent boredom by
then analyzing style. Any frequent correspondent who lacks
proficiency in both technical expertise and writing style is bound to
be disappointed by my attention.

... could we say Ætherial

Oh dear! thats the second time I have had to check my dictionary in
this post. My interpretation of that is a bit "Airy Fairy"

Well, perhaps that interpretation is a bit stretched, but it is fair
to say you had to go as far to match my own reach. The spelling I
used is archaic (for purposes of stylistic variation) but ultimately
it infers something that has so little substance as to be very light.

G'Day Richard
I limit myself to learning one new word a day, so if
you decide to reply please don't over do it, thanks.

Jaro.

Hi Jaro,

When writing for fun (such as for this forum), over doing it is my
specialty, be it in the technical arena, or the critical dialectic.
Otherwise (as in my professional writing) I can be quite terse. The
quality is the same. I am both a trained engineer through a dozen
technical schools (at which I have also taught) and hold degrees in
languages and the arts. For Art, this translates into "fractured
English" which in reality he should perhaps substitute the word
pompous or didactic. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC