Physics forums censor ship
 

Art Unwin wrote:

David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations.

Babbling nonsense.

snip remaining nonsense


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Physics forums censor ship
 

Mike Kaliski wrote:

Richard

I have a personal preference for discone and log periodic antennae for
the wide frequency coverage. Which is kind of why I suggested the
interpretation of Art's design that I did. It is difficult to picture
some of his designs from the descriptions at times.
snip

Mike

One thing you need to understand is that Art has no designs. Even his
patent applications contain the written and drawn versions of bafflegab.
He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that
performs like his claims. All he does is pontificate. And he ain't the
pontiff.

tom
K0TAR

Physics forums censor ship
 

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:59:34 -0000, "Mike Kaliski"
wrote:

Your points are well made although some of the first transmitting and
receiving antennae were parallel plates coupled across a spark gap. From
photographs I have seen, they look to be resonant somewhere in the current
VHF band, not that it was of any consequence as the experiments were only
conducted across about 8 feet. Could have just been magnetic induction
coupling from the transmitting and receiving coils... Now there's an idea
for a novel antenna.

Hi Mike,

Quite true as to band and dimensions. However, those are balanced
(dare I say in equilibrium?) in comparison to all capacitor and no
inductance with currents bucking each other.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Physics forums censor ship
 

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:50:47 -0000, wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations.

Babbling nonsense.

Actually there is much sense: there is no acceptance by anyone that
equilibrium "must" prevail (whatever that means) but by the author and
that Arthur stands alone.

Such tests as these pride of authorships statements are, fall into the
same category as oaths of allegience during the commie scare.

"Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Gaussian Party?"

"My attorney advises me that I have the right to remain
equilibrated."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Physics forums censor ship
 

On Jan 10, 11:58*am, tom wrot


* He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that
performs like his claims. *

Tom

As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it",
or is you claim as empty as you head.

Jaro

Physics forums censor ship
 

On Jan 10, 5:08*am, jaroslav lipka wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:58*am, tom wrot

* He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that
performs like his claims. *

Tom

* * As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it",
or is you claim as empty as you head.

Jaro

He head not empty. The truth in he claim is quite obvious for all
to see. If old man Unwin had an antenna that actually performed
with even half the gusto of his claims, he would not have to resort
to pseudo science mumbo gumbo in order to try to convince people
that he has.
In fact, he wouldn't really have to explain a thing. He could just
mount it on a pike and let it do the talking.
But it's hard to claim radiation efficiency of 100% when you
are using a contra wound dummy load. He might beat out
Mike's light bulb dummy load, but by only a slim margin.
My calculations show that any minor increase over the
efficiency of a coax fed light bulb are not sufficient to cause
the delusions of grandeur which seem to possess Unwin.

So what say Jaroslav, o man o vision.. Can *you* prove that Art
has designed, built and tested any miracle whip that performs
as he claims?
Hold my breath not, sayeth Yoda.. Chortle..

Physics forums censor ship
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:50:47 -0000, wrote:

Art Unwin wrote:

David, the acceptance that equilibrium must prevail for toatal
accountability states that one cannot use a 1/2 wave radiator as a
basis for the application of Maxwells equations.

Babbling nonsense.

Actually there is much sense: there is no acceptance by anyone that
equilibrium "must" prevail (whatever that means) but by the author and
that Arthur stands alone.

Such tests as these pride of authorships statements are, fall into the
same category as oaths of allegience during the commie scare.

"Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Gaussian Party?"

"My attorney advises me that I have the right to remain
equilibrated."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Nonsense; Maxwell's equations always apply and "equilibrium" is just
babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Physics forums censor ship
 

****** tear on dotted line and return ****************

Have we gotten any practical contra-example to the simple dipole being
100% efficient? You know, a real design that describes frequency,
length, and width of wire?

Well, no response as far as I can tell which means that Art cannot
produce a simple description of wire gauge, wire length, and wire
excited frequency (admittedly a pretty difficult demand to place upon
a guru) for an antenna that is in equilibrium and displays efficiency
better than the 100% which is commonly available from a simple dipole.

From the Laotse Tao te king:
"More words count less."

Physics forums censor ship
 

On Jan 10, 11:08*am, jaroslav lipka wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:58*am, tom wrot

* He has never designed, never built, and never tested anything that
performs like his claims. *

Tom

* * As you are so fond of saying, "you made the claim, you prove it",
or is you claim as empty as you head.

Jaro

How precious of Art to have a Slovak sock puppet.

Physics forums censor ship
 

Richard Clark wrote in
:

From the Laotse Tao te king:
"More words count less."


Hmm, on the subject of Chinese kings...
"A king was pleased with the help of a warrior, and asked what the warrior
would take as reward. The warrior said, a grain of rice on the first square
of a chessboard, on one day, two on a second square, and the second day,
until the board was used up. The story goes that with every doubling to 64
squares, the warrior bankrupted the king within two months."

But I ask: how much rice CAN you fit on a chessboard?

I wonder if Art might recognise that little homily, and my question, as a
parallel to the effect that an antenna need not pointlessly strive for 100%
efficiency, but instead to get a practical and useful propagation or low-
noise collection. If you really want a tiny antenna, never mind inefficiency,
catch what you can and use it. Ok, too many words from me.