Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 7:24 pm, tom wrote:

Hmm, my antennas, and probably everyone else's here, tend to be over 98%
efficient.

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

That's a silly question Tom it is the pattern that matters to me.
Anyway it was 100% and the pattern was a ball which to me is what I
snip
Art

So your antenna, including losses, is 100% efficient. I find that a bit
tough to believe. Ok, impossible to believe.

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

Dale Parfitt wrote:

I think Szczepan can take Art in best out of three falls. Neither seems to
have an interest in real world antennas. Perhaps there is a
rec.radio.magicalphysics group they could move to?

Dale W4OP



Well if you took them and added Chris from s.p.fusion, you'd have an
amazing trio. Chris, to be fair, actually builds things and truthfully
reports the results, makes modifications when it again fails, does more
calculations, tries agains, fails again. He just thinks, similar to
Art, that he's the only one that knows the "secret". Well sort of,
you'd have to read his stuff.

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

On May 30, 9:05*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 7:24 pm, tom wrote:

Hmm, my antennas, and probably everyone else's here, tend to be over 98%
efficient.

How much better are yours?

tom
K0TAR

That's a silly question Tom it is the pattern that matters to me.
Anyway it was 100% and the pattern was a ball which to me is what I
snip
Art

So your antenna, including losses, is 100% efficient. *I find that a bit
tough to believe. *Ok, impossible to believe.

tom
K0TAR

Well it depends on what the programmer refers to as efficiency. It
could also mean all forces accounted for and when summed equals zero
as reflected by the radiation ball
and as you say it also accounts for losses. I'll wager that is what
all antenna programs refer to as efficiency. Either way it is only 2%
higher than the figure you were boasting about and yet you believe
yours. Selective analysis?
Art

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
antennas. I just can't make them out. Now we have Tom competing for
the top spot because he has made antennas to work and is anxious to

Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great
Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even trying.

You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But
don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong.

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

Sal M. Onella wrote:

Just a guess, but maybe it deals with the Wullenweber [or Wullenwever]
antenna, described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wullenweber and
elsewhere.


Actually, unlike Wullenweber, they have multiple concentric rings of
verticals in the array with a complex phasing system. My guess is that
this may have been a contributor to the methods eventually used in
phased array radars. But also something that was an engineering study,
and not necessarily practical.

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

On May 30, 9:20*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
antennas. I just can't make them out. Now we have Tom competing for
the top spot because he has made antennas to work and is anxious to

Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great
Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? *Nonsense. *Not even trying.

You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. *So don't stop. *But
don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong.

tom
K0TAR

Then quit judging people

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 9:20 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
antennas. I just can't make them out. Now we have Tom competing for
the top spot because he has made antennas to work and is anxious to
Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great
Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even trying.

You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But
don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong.

tom
K0TAR

Then quit judging people

Engineers get to judge. It's part of our job. It's why eventually we
learn enough make buildings and bridges that don't fall down.

And it's why we don't allow people like you design things that need to work.

That's the way it is. You may not like it, but that's just too bad.

tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

On May 30, 9:20*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
antennas. I just can't make them out. Now we have Tom competing for
the top spot because he has made antennas to work and is anxious to

Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great
Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? *Nonsense. *Not even trying.

You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. *So don't stop. *But
don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong.

tom
K0TAR

Nobody has proved that

Sun Spots
 

Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 9:20 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
antennas. I just can't make them out. Now we have Tom competing for
the top spot because he has made antennas to work and is anxious to
Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great
Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even trying.

You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But
don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong.

tom
K0TAR

Nobody has proved that

No, you haven't proved anything. That's the way science works. We don't
have to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are right.

You seem to have missed that part.

Be specific. Give detailed test conditions. Give exact design
specifications of the test antennas. Give detailed results of your test
measurements. Then someone else can confirm your results or not.

Are you afraid your antennas don't really work? You certainly could
prove prior art if they do. You've been claiming they do for long enough.

Quit hiding behind words and give concrete things that can be tested.

S--t or get off the pot.

tom
K0TAR


tom
K0TAR

Sun Spots
 

tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On May 30, 9:20 pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
antennas. I just can't make them out. Now we have Tom competing for
the top spot because he has made antennas to work and is anxious to
Me? Compete with people like the Richards, or Roy or the late great
Cebik or any other of the other real pros here? Nonsense. Not even
trying.

You are amusing in a kind of Lewis Carroll way. So don't stop. But
don't think the criticism will either, because you are just plain wrong.

tom
K0TAR

Nobody has proved that

No, you haven't proved anything. That's the way science works. We don't
have to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are right.

You seem to have missed that part.

Be specific. Give detailed test conditions. Give exact design
specifications of the test antennas. Give detailed results of your test
measurements. Then someone else can confirm your results or not.

Are you afraid your antennas don't really work? You certainly could
prove prior art if they do. You've been claiming they do for long enough.

Quit hiding behind words and give concrete things that can be tested.

S--t or get off the pot.

tom
K0TAR

HELLO?

tom
K0TAR