On Apr 13, 5:54*pm, Richard Clark wrote:

We have since seen this word salad Art's offered garnished with
particals seasoned with a weekend farce.


I fear there has been a disturbance in the week farce.
Woe is Art... :/

wrote:


#2 You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.


But you can roll it in kitty litter and call it a Zagnut!


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Apr 13, 5:32*pm, wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:28*am, "Dave" wrote:



Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism
he just gave up. *You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American
education. *I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism
wherever it is that you hail from.

73, ac6xg

no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other
suckers he could get to agree with him. *check out:http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz
but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there.

Good grief.. *:/ *I read through about 75% of that.. You can't debate
a subject
with Art. Tom asks him to simply show one device he has designed using
this new fangled Gaussian theory, then Art claims Tom is "dissing"
him,
kicking sand in his face, or whatever other assault Art conjures up in
his
mind. *:/

But he also alters facts to suit his whim, conjures non events out of
the
thin air, and other feats of internet skill.
He whines because we ask him to define how he uses the term
equilibrium
in respect to antennas.
But then he runs off to web page Q and whines that everyone asks him
the definition of the word itself.. This is an oft used tactic of many
that
wish to confuse the audience at hand.

He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from
MIT
laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory.
This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange
and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all.
In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the
great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again.
And he never gave any math at all as far as Art's design.
So this event can be labeled as "the big lie" as far as I'm concerned.

I'm all for antenna experimentation, but after several years of
tinkering I have learned a couple of things.
And so far they have never been proved wrong. Even by Art, or
even the great wizard from MIT.

#`1 There is no free lunch.
#2 *You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.

Art claims to do both, but as always, refuses to provide a working
model that can be tested against known benchmark antennas,
or he provides a design which does not work as claimed.
Like the short "contra wound" contraption I've seen a picture of.
He claims it is a viable antenna for 160m, and will be quite
efficient.
Heck, I don't even have to test it. I can just look at it and tell
you it will be a dud compared to any decent antenna.
But this is OK. It's not my design, and it's not my job to prove
the design actually works.
That is Art's job, but Art refuses to do it.

If I had a design, I would want to test it against antennas with
known properties. Art refuses. This is why he thinks many of
these off the wall theories and designs work.
He will never actually do the tests to confirm the performance.
I bet he doesn't even have any reference antennas on his
property, like say a 160m dipole, or a 1/4 wave monopole.
How can one advocate a design or theory without even testing it?

To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. * :/
That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it.

Arts design is not origonal, it was around in the 60s and 70s as a CB
radio joke. It rated up there along with burying a dipole a 1/4 wl
deep in the ground.. Unlike the buried antenna this joke was
especially good because sometimes it wold work just well enough to
work some skip and then you would hear the guy talking about this
great antenna he had

Jimmie

On Apr 14, 11:39*am, JIMMIE wrote:
advocate a design or theory without even testing it?

To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. * :/
That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it.

Arts design is not origonal, it was around in the 60s and 70s as a CB
radio joke. It rated up there along with burying a dipole a 1/4 wl
deep in the ground.. Unlike the buried antenna this joke was
especially good because sometimes it wold work just well enough to
work some skip and then you would hear the guy talking about this
great antenna he had

Jimmie

Normally I wouldn't care less if someone wanted to design an
RF load with inferior qualities. It's a semi-free country..
But Art insists on making up new theory to promote these
wonders of mutt UK/Ill. technology. That's the rub..
But I imagine your testing scenario could apply to him.
IE: He hears a station using his wonder stick as a receiving
antenna, so he decides it surely must be as efficient as a dipole.
Course, on those low frequencies almost anything can be used
for a receiving antenna.
I've come to the conclusion that calling Art an antenna designer
would be akin to calling Festus Hagen a speech therapist. :/

On Apr 14, 8:29*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
#2 *You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.

But you can roll it in kitty litter and call it a Zagnut!

* * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI -

Didn't Carl Spackler dig one of those out of a swimming pool
and eat it? :/

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer is
anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him drunk
and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?
B

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
JB wrote:
BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation
isn't required.

That contradicts the Old Testament. Which is true?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is
true.
The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery.
B

Brian Oakley wrote:
As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what
is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery.

So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible
if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
On Apr 14, 8:29 am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:
#2 You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond.
But you can roll it in kitty litter and call it a Zagnut!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Didn't Carl Spackler dig one of those out of a swimming pool
and eat it? :/

Funny you should mention it, that was on TV this past weekend. A true
classic.

"Darling, could you loofah my stretch marks?" I still cringe during
that part.

On the topic:


When I was a little kid, 9 or 10 I think, I had an old cathedral radio
that had shortwave on it. Found it in the attic.

I wanted to experiment with antennas. First I put the typical short
straight wire on it. Then I saw a science book that had a big dish
antenna on it.

I thought "Wow - if this thing can hear signals from satellites millions
of miles out in space, imagine what it can do with those shortwave signals.

So I made a little dish antenna out of copper wire and aluminum foil,
around a foot in diameter, and put it on top of the radio. It worked,
kinda. Continuing to learn, I found what a longwire antenna could do for
performance.


Point is, some 40 years later, I see something sort of like what I did
as a 9 year old kid being talked about again. I suspect it will work
just about as well now as it did then. Which is to say - not very well.

I had an excuse though.

Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an
adulterer is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take
the women as slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters
to get him drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -