On Sep 14, 2:22*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Bottom line is.
If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are
just a follower and not a true Engineer.

I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of
antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were
and are much more likely to understand and respect those first
principles.

Anyone can develop and publicize a theme about the operation of
antennas.

Scientifically PROVING that such a theme is correct takes a true
"Engineer."

RF

On Sep 14, 3:30*pm, Richard Fry wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:22*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Bottom line is.
If you can't develop a theme from first principles you are
just a follower and not a true Engineer.

I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of
antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were
and are much more likely to understand and respect those first
principles.
Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has asked
for the salt
when it was right in frony of them?




Anyone can develop and publicize a theme about the operation of
antennas.

I consider that a difficult task without running into trouble with
existing laws.



Scientifically PROVING that such a theme is correct takes a true
"Engineer."

When you deliver a theme or paper in front of college graduates,
professionals and
above, one assumes that they are fully aware of the basic laws
involved. Since your only connection to antenna engineering is the
repetitive pushing the "on" and "off" button at a local radio station
as its resident engineer it is more than possible that you have not
had a academic training. Your past posts gives some truth to that
statement, tho it is possible that I will have to stand corrected if,
as with many, age has taken its toll.
As you have stated in the past
.. "your move"!
Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia. Alternatively
ask the question from your local academic centre where interllectuals
reside who have more knowledge of such things than either of us will
ever attain.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is
presented.


RF

On Sep 14, 4:11 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

(Fry) I submit that industry-recognized, expert sources on the subject of
antennas such as Kraus, Balanis, Johnson/Jasik, George Brown etc were
and are much more likely to understand and respect those first
principles.

(Unwin) Yes that is normally true but how many people at the table has
asked for the salt when it was right in frony of them?

So YOU have the salt compared to the names I mentioned, and their
published documents? Not very likely.

You would be better off, Art, and create less animosity for yourself
if you relied more on their work, and less on your own "themes."

RF

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements.
For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in
complience of existing laws.
You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying
field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position
where no body provided academic proof.
Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its
legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space
Agency gives him some what of a track record. I then found out that
one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school.
True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault!
Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give
you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in
independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a
book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no
understanding.
Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which
follows the existing laws
of Classical physics. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory
with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing
laws. If you have doubts then contact your alma
to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for
the PTO printing of my
present concluding patent request such that all details are available
for inspection.
This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution
is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can
then continue the discussion.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.
then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements.
For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in
complience of existing laws.
You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying
field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position
where no body provided academic proof.
Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its
legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space
Agency gives him some what of a track record. I then found out that
one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school.
True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault!
Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give
you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in
independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a
book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no
understanding.
Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which
follows the existing laws
of Classical physics. At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory
with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing
laws. If you have doubts then contact your alma
to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for
the PTO printing of my
present concluding patent request such that all details are available
for inspection.
This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution
is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can
then continue the discussion.

So Art again fails to step up when asked to prove something.

"I'M RIGHT!!! PROVE ME WRONG!!!" is Art's continual wail. No Art, you
have to prove you are right, and just claiming it isn't even a start.

FRAUD == ART

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:45 pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong
force can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range
of effect is confined to the nucleus.

And why not? You keep shooting from the hip on baseless statements.
For me I have supplied a trail for examination that I believe is in
complience of existing laws.

And someone has pointed out something is wrong. As is typical, you avoid the
point and ignore the conflict with your position.

You were the first to state I was in error by applying a time varying
field to Gauss's law of Statics and the group followed your position
where no body provided academic proof.

You provided no proof of you assertion.

Then Dr Davis came along and provided academic proof per its
legitimacy. Having a Doctorate from MIT and working for the Space
Agency gives him some what of a track record.

All Dr. Davis stated was the relationship between Gauss and Maxwell. You
claimed to come up with something new, and it was there all the time. He did
not say anything about the validity of your ideas regarding antennas.


I then found out that
one of the prolific antagonistic posters did not survive high school.
True, he was suspended, so it was not really his fault!
Obviously such things are not the norm in this group but it does give
you thought regarding a antagonistic track record when lacking in
independent thought shoots from the hip or extract a paragraph from a
book like a copy provided by a copying machine of which he has no
understanding.
Nope, I have provided details of my independent work all of which
follows the existing laws
of Classical physics.

Any details you have presented are minimal.

At this time I see it as a worthwhile theory
with merit and possibly more if there is no violation of existing
laws.

"if there is no violation" means you aren't even convinced.


If you have doubts then contact your alma
to provide consistency in your allegations. Or alternatively wait for
the PTO printing of my
present concluding patent request such that all details are available
for inspection.
This newsgroup is available for free speech but for the reader caution
is advised. Reverse your position on the Gaussian extension so we can
then continue the discussion.

If you extension to Gauss is just a re-iteration of Maxwell, then you have
presented nothing new.

Time and time again you have shown that you are not willing to discuss. You
do a lot of verbal handwaving, but there is no substance.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

....

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
The question is why is adding a time varying field to the Gaussian law
of statics illegal ?
Or stated another way, what is it illegal by changing a static field
into a dynamic field?
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong. This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling? If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it . I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal. Until then......

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

On Sep 14, 9:35*pm, Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin



wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

Point to a law that I have violated *of which you learned about in
academia.
As for me I am at peace with my offering and thus can move on until a
violation of law is presented.

then don't you dare go away until you explain how your weak and strong force
can have any effect on conduction band electrons when their range of effect
is confined to the nucleus.

And why not?

If you're going to go away just go away. I don't understand why you
would expect anyone to accept your fancies as fact based upon the
rambling, incoherent explanations you provide. Your only success is
the audience you have gathered while acting as troll.

No. "Success" is showing up the self perceived experts.
So says the only self-proclaimed expert.
- snip -
This is not trolling. I am exposing people for what they are and they
are fraustrated
The only person you're exposing is yourself and not in a good way. It
is extremely difficult to take your arguments seriously or even
understand them given your posts' poor spelling and grammar along with
the abysmal formatting.The spelling variants are understandable, my
schooling started on the banks of the Devon river. Words like
"fraustrated' are something else altogether. That isn't a fat-fingered
error.

Don't blame it one the web interface you post through.Your posts could
be composed and spell-checked in a text editor before the content is
pasted into a web interface. You could
also let
the web interface handle word-wrapping
instead of inserting
seemingly random cr/lf pairs in your
posts.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to present your theories
and arguments in a rational, cohesive manner.

in their inability to show me as wrong or even having a book that
states where and why I am wrong.
This is equaled and exceeded by your inability to clearly state and
detail your theories without the use of circular logic. Many times
when a question is asked rather than answer you choose to start a new
thread.

This is not rambling. Since when is
the truth rambling?
What makes any of your ramblings the truth? Was your post on GB
standing alone (3 Sept 2009) the truth? You conveniently ignored the
fact that GB's declaration of war came about because Germany had
attacked GB's ally Poland. GB stood beside Poland and not alone.

If you are an expert take up the challenge in
terms of academics or consult a professor for an answer Either is
acceptable for the purposes of debate of what is true or not
true.Everything I have stated
stands upon this very point
I have previously suggested that you present your theories directly to
those in the academic community. Why not obtain validation there and
then come back and say 'I told you so'?

So guys, direct yourselves at the root
instead of floundering around in a aimless fashion.
And as far as the size of the audience the bigger the better the
exposure and the more success I have against those who rely on
slander. I want this to be as wide spread as possible instead of
running away. Live with it .
Yet you always run to a new thread.

I am quite sure that many hams around the
World is following this augument looking for that first person you
will take up the challenge
and provide closure with an answer to this very simple question,
without the fear of recrimination from the group all of which say it
is illegal.
Did I mention something about spelling, grammar and formatting?

I'm not certain how "many hams around the World is following this
augument" but that number is insignificantly small relative to the
world-wide amateur community. The size of the amateur community is in
turn insignificantly small relative to the world-wide academic
community. You choice of venue is as questionable as anything else.

selah