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. :/