christofire wrote:
I'd be willing to bet, say, 100 UK pounds that Professor Unwin can't create
an antenna in hardware that radiates isotropically, ...

For those types of proof, it is impossible to prove a
negative. It would be akin to the police knocking
on your door and demanding that you prove that you
are not a terrorist. The onus of logical proof is
upon the one who makes the positive assertion.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
christofire wrote:
I'd be willing to bet, say, 100 UK pounds that Professor Unwin can't
create an antenna in hardware that radiates isotropically, ...

For those types of proof, it is impossible to prove a
negative. It would be akin to the police knocking
on your door and demanding that you prove that you
are not a terrorist. The onus of logical proof is
upon the one who makes the positive assertion.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com


The one who has made the positive assertion is the one who has claimed that
by his new theory an antenna can be made that has a spherical radiation
pattern. I don't believe in the theory as he has laid out and I don't
believe that such an antenna can be built and demonstrated. My wager is in
respect of whether or not the protagonist can build and demonstrate such an
antenna to back up his own positive assertion.

It is in the nature of a challenge for him to take up if he wishes, and if
he does then his bet will be in respect of his positive assertion, but, of
course, he hasn't taken it up yet. If he doesn't take up the challenge then
nothing new is proved - whichever way you care to interpret that.

Chris

On Sep 12, 8:25*am, "christofire" wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message

...

christofire wrote:
I'd be willing to bet, say, 100 UK pounds that Professor Unwin can't
create an antenna in hardware that radiates isotropically, ...

For those types of proof, it is impossible to prove a
negative. It would be akin to the police knocking
on your door and demanding that you prove that you
are not a terrorist. The onus of logical proof is
upon the one who makes the positive assertion.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

The one who has made the positive assertion is the one who has claimed that
by his new theory an antenna can be made that has a spherical radiation
pattern. *I don't believe in the theory as he has laid out and I don't
believe that such an antenna can be built and demonstrated. *My wager is in
respect of whether or not the protagonist can build and demonstrate such an
antenna to back up his own positive assertion.

It is in the nature of a challenge for him to take up if he wishes, and if
he does then his bet will be in respect of his positive assertion, but, of
course, he hasn't taken it up yet. *If he doesn't take up the challenge then
nothing new is proved - whichever way you care to interpret that.

Chris

Google... small efficient antenna steven best

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

Google... small efficient antenna steven best

and just what are we supposed to get out of all the links that it returns?
that someone else built some other kinds of antennas that actually work? or
that Dr Best knows more than you do?

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:23:17 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Google... small efficient antenna steven best

http://www.cst.com/Content/Applications/Article/A+Small,+Efficient,+Linear-polarized+Omni-directional+Antenna
The antenna fits inside a sphere of radius 0.0415 wavelengths.
However, the antenna pattern is not spherical and more closely
resembles the torus produced by a dipole than of an isotropic antenna.
http://www.cst.com/CMS/images/article105/CPU05_047_600_481.jpg

An isotropic approximation, which doesn't really qualify for the prize
because the pattern is not polarization and phase insensitive.
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/antennas/isotropic/index.html


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

christofire wrote:
It is in the nature of a challenge for him to take up if he wishes, and if
he does then his bet will be in respect of his positive assertion, but, of
course, he hasn't taken it up yet. If he doesn't take up the challenge then
nothing new is proved - whichever way you care to interpret that.

Sorry, Chris, I misread your posting. You were not asking
Art to prove a negative which I falsely assumed.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com