On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On May 1, 7:37*pm, "Dave" wrote:

"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

David, the antenna covers the distance covered by a mfj 259 b which is
1.7 to around
175 mega hz. Obviously it therefore has no limits above .Below I
cannot measure unless I modify my radio outside the amateur bands, ie
reflect swr outside the ham *bands. Beam widths I can't determine as I
do not have enough segments available on my optimizer program . But I
believe that can be accomplished.

but wait... you have built it.. you can measure the swr, so why can't you
measure the beamwidth? *pick an AM broadcast station and turn it and see how
wide the pattern is.

I dont know if Dave built it or not but I did and tested the beamwidth
just as you said and got 360 degrees. Rotating it had no effect at all
on signal strength. I tried it on 2M and couldnt hit the local
repeater with 1 watt normally I can reach it with 100mW. I would say
this classifies the antenna as a dummy load.

Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine. I don't mind if you think it is
a dummy load since I do not know the merits of your education. You may
well be the same person who was argueing at the same time who admitted
to never graduating from high school.
David
I have ordered some remote relays so that I can operate the camera
scan and rotate
mechanism that I use to carry the antenna and every thing takes time.
I would also remind you that beam width can only be determined in
terms of point to point transmissions and grazing angles on ground
level antennas can create havoc.
Either way, you never did concur with the mathematics presented on
this antenna so
I thought you should drop the subject all together since you seem to
be my superior in these matters and feel you have proved my
mathematics in error. Suffice to say I have described the abilities of
my antenna and care not whether you can believe it or not until you
delve more into Maxwell's laws in light of what I have stated. Rest
assured that Richard still agrees with your assesment a judgement you
should feel confident about. Grin
Let us move on and let somebody else take over this thread for their
own use which is now coming to be the norm.
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
snip again
Art

Art

You have claimed time and time again that you have told us all we need
to know to make this antenna and its brethren.

So what have you invented now? Something new and double secret I'd bet.

tom
K0TAR

On May 1, 9:09*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35 pm, JIMMIE wrote:
snip
Jimmie

But Jimmie I have not divulged the full story. It is up to you to
determine the merits of antennas that you make without posessing the
full instructions. I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
snip again
Art

Art

You have claimed time and time again that you have told us all we need
to know to make this antenna and its brethren.

So what have you invented now? *Something new and double secret I'd bet..

tom
K0TAR

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you. You have not yet recanted your position on
Maxwell's laws and I told you everything. Without recanting your
position on Maxwell then all I state obviously goes in one ear and out
the other. From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you. From your stand point I am a
liar with respect to my antenna as you have deemed it impossible. From
a person who knows all that there is to know about antennas you
discussing it more seems quite sense
less. And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.
If one did so and me knowing that I have such an antenna I would have
to rethink my logic as to why it works the way it does. It is small
and light enough to hold out on one hand and works on 160 which you
say is impossible. And you are correct at least in your own mind since
you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

Art Unwin wrote:

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you.

I am sorry to hear that you have perforarated eardrums. I know it's
painful.


From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you.


And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.

I have said nothing about Maxwell here. Ever.

And you are correct at least in your own mind since
you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

You have not even a tiny idea of my antenna designs, especially since
most that have been even hinted at on the internet were under my old
callsign.

tom
K0TAR

On May 2, 5:12*pm, Tom Ring wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

Many times things go out one ear and out the other, perforated ear
drums does that for you.

I am sorry to hear that you have perforarated eardrums. *I know it's
painful.

From what you stated on Maxwell it is obvious that my logic
on every thing is not acceptable to you.
And yet thru the years nobody has pointed out an error in my
statements.

I have said nothing about Maxwell here. *Ever.

* And you are correct at least in your own mind since

you have stuck with planar designs despite its contradictions with
Maxwell.

You have not even a tiny idea of my antenna designs, especially since
most that have been even hinted at on the internet were under my old
callsign.

tom
K0TAR

Then why are you here. Are you a judge? You always appear depressed or
mean spirited. Maybe when you hinted on your designs you got slammed.
I am fairly sure that they did not follow the edicts of Maxwell.

Art Unwin wrote:

Then why are you here.

I assume that was a question. You have continuing issues with punctuation.

I am here to learn about antennas. Unlike yourself.

Are you a judge? You always appear depressed or
mean spirited.

Nope on the judge. I merely apply "common physics" to know you are
thinking in the "imaginary plane".

And mean spirited? What have I ever said to you, as opposed to Richard,
that could be presumed to be mean spirited? Google has all of it
recorded forever more. SHOW ME!

Maybe when you hinted on your designs you got slammed.

My designs have taken first place in several antenna competitions in the
"non-commercial" category. And sometimes first second third and fourth
in the same one. Almost always first place in every band I entered one
which was as many as 3 at an event. For lousy common style engineered
antennas,as opposed to your whizbang revolutionary ones, I've done okay
I guess.

I am fairly sure that they did not follow the edicts of Maxwell.

I wouldn't know, since you seem to be the only one who has a copy of his
edicts.

tom
K0TAR

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. net...
My designs have taken first place in several antenna competitions in the
"non-commercial" category. And sometimes first second third and fourth

please cite the competition dates and locations, sponsors, and provide a
link to results.

On May 1, 8:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
I don't mind if you think it is
a dummy load since I do not know the merits of your education. You may
well be the same person who was argueing at the same time who admitted
to never graduating from high school.

You know damn well who is who around here.
I could come back with my meager formal training and bitch slap
your theory into submission, but it gets really boring arguing a
subject with the crack spiders bitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

On May 1, 9:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
- Show quoted text -

...I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine.

Yes, I remember the "Dr." (or perhaps doctoral candidate) from MIT who
jumped in and remarked that according to his model, when you
mathematically 'freeze' the motion of charge to a single point in time
(t = x seconds), that, glory be, Gauses law of statics (preservation
of charge) still holds true according to his computer results.

This may be of mild interest to scientists who question if the charge
would be preserved statically (perhaps some energy must be lost to the
dynamic motion of charge for example), it had nothing to do with what
you were writing. Once the "poor Dr." saw what you were up to, he
politely decided to exit stage right never to return again.

On May 2, 3:00*pm, wrote:
On May 1, 9:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On May 1, 7:35*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
- Show quoted text -
...I was intent on sharing all with my fellow hams but
after the pilloring of the Dr who came on board so that he could help
with the problems that the group were having with mathematics and
Maxwell it appeared to me that most thought all was known about
antennas thus all is known about mine.

Yes, I remember the "Dr." (or perhaps doctoral candidate) from MIT who
jumped in and remarked that according to his model, when you
mathematically 'freeze' the motion of charge to a single point in time
(t = x seconds), that, glory be, Gauses law of statics (preservation
of charge) still holds true according to his computer results.

This may be of mild interest to scientists who question if the charge
would be preserved statically (perhaps some energy must be lost to the
dynamic motion of charge for example), it had nothing to do with what
you were writing. Once the "poor Dr." saw what you were up to, he
politely decided to exit stage right never to return again.

Why do you keep coming back with different names and different packs
of lies
John E Davis can be found at his home page @space,mit edu where he can
himself
tell you that you are lieing. Better still, read the archives of this
newsgroup for the truth
We all know who and what you are. You can run but you can't hide.
plonk