On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
joe
I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?

Hi All,

This is not going to resolve issues. I have seen enough of Art's
details contributed in quotations (folks should be more selective in
both quotes and focus on one point) to see he claims ALL of HF at less
than 2:1 and specifically the 160M band - when he uses a tuner
continuously (an odd requirement adorning the claim in the advance
over conventional designs there). He also reports not hearing
anything on it. The two statements easily support each other in
revealing the inordinate loss due to the proximity of ground. This is
nothing that hasn't been reported for years by others as they
encounter the silent blessings of distributed loss.

The language of Faraday shields has been corrupted to suit a fantasy,
however. And Art has abandoned the arguments demanding length
efficiency; and no requirement for tilting the radiator (this one is
specifically described as being strictly parallel); and skewed
elements (aka guss's radiators)are gone; and contra wound coils have
disappeared; and what happened to paramagnetics?; and....

Well, Art's claims are like a long burning fuse that sparks for a
moment leaving a trail of ash behind. The mesh burns with a
sputtering flicker before it too is abandoned for the next fad when it
will be discovered that the sun's particels would go through the mesh
openings instead of hitting this peculiar antenna.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
joe
I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?

Hi All,

This is not going to resolve issues.

I can concur. I won't go so far as to say they won't "work" - whatever
work is defined as, but I don't see any new ground being broken.

ANother of Art's antennas, the rotatable coil on a stick is a tuned
circuit on a stick, and probably functions as a EH antenna. I'd guess
that most of it's radiation would be from the coax. Looking at the
instructions given, I figured that's what it was going to do, so didn't
take it any further.

This mesh device is either a wide dipole or a somethingorother worked
against ground. It will probably tune and put out a signal. I wonder how
things will work as it corrodes? Might get complex.

If you need to use a tuner, you might as well just put up as much number
12 THHN wire, and tune it. My doublet with an MFJ tuner works great.

- 73 de Mike -

On Mar 11, 1:12*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:48:18 -0600, "amdx" wrote:

Where are the technical details to support what you are syaing about this
antenna? Frequency of operation: unspecified. Performace relative to
known/understood reference antennas: unspecified. Feedpoint impedance:
unspecified. Test conditions/setup: unspecified.
* * * * * * * * *joe
*I'm with joe,
Some of us may be interested enough to actually build and test some
of the antennas you write about, but there is never enough detail for
anyone to attempt a build. And why don't you post a link to your site?

Hi All,

This is not going to resolve issues.

I can concur. I won't go so far as to say they won't "work" - whatever
work is defined as, but I don't see any new ground being broken.

ANother of Art's antennas, the rotatable coil on a stick is a tuned
circuit on a stick, and probably functions as a EH antenna. I'd guess
that most of it's radiation would be from the coax. Looking at the
instructions given, I figured that's what it was going to do, so didn't
take it any further.

This mesh device is either a wide dipole or a somethingorother worked
against ground. It will probably tune and put out a signal. I wonder how
things will work as it corrodes? Might get complex.

If you need to use a tuner, you might as well just put up as much number
12 THHN wire, and tune it. My doublet with an MFJ tuner works great.

* * * * - 73 de Mike -

Guys, I can't explain the antenna if you do not accept the basic
premise of adding a time varying field to the law of Gauss is the same
as Maxwells law for radiation. All of you state it is a false premise
which means nothing is acceptable! For my part I am dealing with known
laws of physics only which is what you are rejecting.Ask any body such
as a professor or anybody who teaches theoretic physics for an
opinion. At the same time find out what Gauss equation in cgs units
changes to when you add a time varying field!
To me it is obvious that as the old timers pass on they are being
replaced by operators of a hand mike who have absolutely no interest
in experimentation,how a radio works or the physics background of
same. Having one of the new licenses to hold a microphone does not
make one an expert of any sort let alone a major in physics. Nobody
but nobody has ventured forth the resulting equation or proffered
anything to justify allegations of radiation from the feed line or any
other scientific fact in rebuttal to what I propose. So based on your
postings I can only consider you to be microphone holders with
absolutely no interest in physics and only interested in the straw men
that you manufacture based on untruths to which you base your
arguements upon. Frankly none of you can handle the truth or change
from the past. I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end
as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine
and you now prefer to supply insults or spamming in line with your
fellow poster KB9QRZ who now appears to be using different calls to
attack to hide his identity based on the content of the posts.
Cheers and beers
Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg

Guys, I can't explain the antenna if you do not accept the basic
premise of adding a time varying field to the law of Gauss is the same
as Maxwells law for radiation.


Gauss and Maxwell have nothing to do with describing the areas I mentioned.


All of you state it is a false premise
which means nothing is acceptable! For my part I am dealing with known
laws of physics only which is what you are rejecting.Ask any body such
as a professor or anybody who teaches theoretic physics for an
opinion. At the same time find out what Gauss equation in cgs units
changes to when you add a time varying field!

The laws of physics were not questioned. I just wanted to know how you
made the antenna. You are evading the issue.

To me it is obvious that as the old timers pass on they are being
replaced by operators of a hand mike who have absolutely no interest
in experimentation,how a radio works or the physics background of
same. Having one of the new licenses to hold a microphone does not
make one an expert of any sort let alone a major in physics. Nobody
but nobody has ventured forth the resulting equation or proffered
anything to justify allegations of radiation from the feed line or any
other scientific fact in rebuttal to what I propose. So based on your
postings I can only consider you to be microphone holders with
absolutely no interest in physics and only interested in the straw men
that you manufacture based on untruths to which you base your
arguements upon. Frankly none of you can handle the truth or change
from the past.


So, you choose to throw more insults.


I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end

It comes to an end because you won't supply any details. It becomes
clear that you are NOT looking for any meaningful discussion.


as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine
and you now prefer to supply insults or spamming in line with your
fellow poster KB9QRZ who now appears to be using different calls to
attack to hide his identity based on the content of the posts.

.... and more insulting remarks.

Cheers and beers
Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg

Art Unwin wrote:

snip the normal nonsense, and on with the new...

I suppose this particular thread has now come to an end
as your understanding of physics results in different result from mine
and you now prefer to supply insults

snip more hallucinations

Cheers and beers
Art Unwin......KB9MZ.....xg

You nailed it. Your understanding of physics differs from mine. It
also differs from any physics professor you would care to speak to,
which is why none have shown up to support your nonsense. And differs
from everyone here that has designed (that is an important word) an
antenna that works as predicted. With real testable numbers and all
that silly stuff.

tom
K0TAR