Szczepan Bialek wrote:

(I have trouble
with understanding Art's idea - he is using very sophistcated terms).


There is a clue in there. Use of the terms does not indicate
correctness, just useage.

While for any given case of Art's antennas, whether the theory, or the
actual described antennas - I just don't understand the theory, and the
antennas, which are usually explainable by other, less abstruse and more
well known methods.

In at least one case, the coil on the end of a mast 160 meter antenna,
well, it's a tuned circuit on the end of a stick. No doubt it works in
similar fashion to the other antennas of the same ilk, relying on feed
line radiation. Nothing new, and no need for new theory in the case that
the old one describes it well.

In any event, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Art
is not willing to provide, we are supposed to believe him based on it
being him.


Wrong-o-freaking-rama! Just about anything can be explained in some
fashion to just about anyone, and the onus is on the one trying to
explain. I've never had a problem understanding anything else the
experts have offered. That brings us back to my first sentence.

- Mike -

On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:19:32 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

An ordinary proof would be more than adequate. It is the
"extraordinary" proof (aka radiating particles on diamagnetic rods
enclosed in the equilibrium of a faraday shield to induce the
Luxembourg effect) that is probably the surest indicator of deception.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010 10:19:32 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote:

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

An ordinary proof would be more than adequate.


I suppose you are right there Richard. Its just that we don't often get
the chance to use extraordinary twice in one sentence very often, I just
got carried away.



It is the
"extraordinary" proof (aka radiating particles on diamagnetic rods
enclosed in the equilibrium of a faraday shield to induce the
Luxembourg effect) that is probably the surest indicator of deception.

I was thinking his explanations might involve the Stockholm effect.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -