On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

On Nov 1, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

You overstate your capabilities while trying to suggest you are a
professor. Your response is a normal one after the fact. Remember you
were one of those who decided Gauss's connection to Maxwells law on
radiation was solely via his magnetic input totally ignoring his
connection via statics which is also the basis of
the Maxwell equation. When did you ever point out the truth with
respect to particles versus waves for the root of radiation? Heck, it
was only a few weeks ago that you went on about the Gaussian
contribution via magnetics and so denounce his contribution via
statics.
You can jump on the train if you want but you were never qualified to
drive it. Next somebody will point out an error and again you will
state you knew it all along! Why don't you contest some of the Nobel
prize awards with your prior knowledge or win one on your own? Yes,
you certainly overstate your own abilities and knowledge of the
Universe.

On Nov 1, 10:03*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

You overstate your capabilities while trying to suggest you are a
professor. Your response is a normal one after the fact. Remember you
were one of those who decided Gauss's connection to Maxwells law on
radiation was solely via his magnetic input totally ignoring his
connection via statics which is also the basis of
the Maxwell equation. When did you ever point out the truth with
respect to particles versus waves for the root of radiation? Heck, it
was only a few weeks ago that you went on about the Gaussian
contribution via magnetics and so denounce his contribution via
statics.
You can jump on the train if you want but you were never qualified to
drive it. Next somebody will point out an error and again you will
state you knew it all along! *Why don't you contest some of the Nobel
prize awards with your prior knowledge or win one on your own? *Yes,
you certainly overstate your own abilities and knowledge of the
Universe.

yeah, well i file your patents right next to the faster than light
antenna in my humor file.

On Nov 1, 5:35*pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:03*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Nov 1, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

You overstate your capabilities while trying to suggest you are a
professor. Your response is a normal one after the fact. Remember you
were one of those who decided Gauss's connection to Maxwells law on
radiation was solely via his magnetic input totally ignoring his
connection via statics which is also the basis of
the Maxwell equation. When did you ever point out the truth with
respect to particles versus waves for the root of radiation? Heck, it
was only a few weeks ago that you went on about the Gaussian
contribution via magnetics and so denounce his contribution via
statics.
You can jump on the train if you want but you were never qualified to
drive it. Next somebody will point out an error and again you will
state you knew it all along! *Why don't you contest some of the Nobel
prize awards with your prior knowledge or win one on your own? *Yes,
you certainly overstate your own abilities and knowledge of the
Universe.

yeah, well i file your patents right next to the faster than light
antenna in my humor file.

Just like your past employer you have convinced me that you are truly
a scientist and that title was justifiably yours.

On Nov 1, 7:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:35*pm, K1TTT wrote:





On Nov 1, 10:03*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

You overstate your capabilities while trying to suggest you are a
professor. Your response is a normal one after the fact. Remember you
were one of those who decided Gauss's connection to Maxwells law on
radiation was solely via his magnetic input totally ignoring his
connection via statics which is also the basis of
the Maxwell equation. When did you ever point out the truth with
respect to particles versus waves for the root of radiation? Heck, it
was only a few weeks ago that you went on about the Gaussian
contribution via magnetics and so denounce his contribution via
statics.
You can jump on the train if you want but you were never qualified to
drive it. Next somebody will point out an error and again you will
state you knew it all along! *Why don't you contest some of the Nobel
prize awards with your prior knowledge or win one on your own? *Yes,
you certainly overstate your own abilities and knowledge of the
Universe.

yeah, well i file your patents right next to the faster than light
antenna in my humor file.

Just like your past employer you have convinced me that you are truly
a scientist and that title was justifiably yours.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Unwin can sure stir up the petty bickering with his technical posts.

On Nov 1, 11:20*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:35*pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Nov 1, 10:03*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:29*pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:02*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru. I used a three element as my sample
illustration which in essence points to a maximum of two elements for
max efficiency. It will take an optimizer type program to explore the
intricasies of this design especially with focusing from outside the
boundary. Tho' any element can be chosen for feed but feeding all at
the same time is not really advantageous. Note that two elements
superimpose their patterns which resolve in to one. One for the Earths
circulation and you can guess what the other reflects. Note pattern
changes when mounting a vertical less than 90 degrees to the ground
surface
for all round observation. Rotation and spin can be seen as the
amalgamation of ALL the Standard Forces of the Universe as shown by
the DNA helix. The same is shown in radiation where particles resting
on a diamagnetic surface are made into a accelerated charge with spin
by applied varying current in association with displacement current
where the vector is seen as circulating thru the capacitive and the
added magnetic field contained inside the circulating displacement
current similar to that seen with a 'scope. Again we see the
observations by Gauss where the accelerating charge is the imposed
action
on a static particle inside a Gaussian boundary which is the root of
radiation and where a wave is the resulting pattern developed by the
flux movement or quanta.
Art KB9MZ...xg

another worthless patent... nothing new.

You overstate your capabilities while trying to suggest you are a
professor. Your response is a normal one after the fact. Remember you
were one of those who decided Gauss's connection to Maxwells law on
radiation was solely via his magnetic input totally ignoring his
connection via statics which is also the basis of
the Maxwell equation. When did you ever point out the truth with
respect to particles versus waves for the root of radiation? Heck, it
was only a few weeks ago that you went on about the Gaussian
contribution via magnetics and so denounce his contribution via
statics.
You can jump on the train if you want but you were never qualified to
drive it. Next somebody will point out an error and again you will
state you knew it all along! *Why don't you contest some of the Nobel
prize awards with your prior knowledge or win one on your own? *Yes,
you certainly overstate your own abilities and knowledge of the
Universe.

yeah, well i file your patents right next to the faster than light
antenna in my humor file.

Just like your past employer you have convinced me that you are truly
a scientist and that title was justifiably yours.

well, i'm glad you finally understand my background... except they are
still my current employer, and i fought them to keep the scientist
part out of the title, i wanted to just be an engineer since engineers
really know how to make things work and scientists just think they do.

Not yet issued as of October 26, 2010.
Application is: 20080231540

73, Mac

--
"K1TTT" wrote in message
...
On Nov 1, 10:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 4:29 pm, K1TTT wrote:



On Nov 1, 8:02 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru.

On Nov 1, 9:16*pm, "J. Mc Laughlin" wrote:
Not yet issued as of October 26, 2010.
Application is: *20080231540

73, * Mac

--"K1TTT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 10:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:29 pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:02 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru.

Good to hear you again Mac. You are essentially correct
The PTO states that the patent application above
(which is 11/655,899) has been examined and is allowed for issuance as
a patent.
Prosecution on the merits is closed(underlined)
Of course, they can withdraw this notification anytime for various
reasons. Naturally this is accompanied by a request for maintenance
fees as they are a cash cow.!
Best regards
Art

On Nov 1, 9:16*pm, "J. Mc Laughlin" wrote:
Not yet issued as of October 26, 2010.
Application is: *20080231540

73, * Mac

--"K1TTT" wrote in message

...
On Nov 1, 10:03 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

On Nov 1, 4:29 pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Nov 1, 8:02 pm, Art Unwin wrote:

The above has gone thru.

Mac, as a matter of fact my other patent request is on hold by the PTO
for a violation of response time.
This could hang around for a year as appeals are surging
It is said that while on hold my allotted patent time is also on
hold . Same goes with my appeal costs paid.
Seems like they are steadying the number of patents going thru for
some reason tho attorneys get relief in some way during the appeal
procedures which is quite expensive.However, the allowance is routine.
As I have said before they are a cash cow
with a vengence since the Congress took away their finances the same
way they have done with other deep pockets for their spending habits

On Nov 1, 10:21*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Before this thread gets out of line again let me make clear a couple
of points that some have got hold of which has led them astray.
First it is well known that Gauss was a part of the equations of
maxwell with his contribution on magnetics
I focussed on Gauss's contribution via statics using the boundary
rules. It can be seen that applying a time varying current to a
gaussian field is exactly the same as Maxwells first equation! Yes you
have to convert from cgs units to show this but it clearly places
particles as the root of radiation.
The second point that some planted themselves on was that all
elements were resonant and therefore all should be fed. The real point
here is that all being resonant
showed the presence of equilibrium which is a must in all equations.
It also showed that with a minimum of two elements all radiation is
accounted for where-as with the yagi which is not in equilibrium has
losses because the last element added fails to recover remaining
available radiation. This is not about getting a better antenna than a
yagi since the latter utelizes available radiation with less waste
than others. The patent is really about obtaining knowledge that fits
the bill of Maxwell's first equation and points to the static particle
accelerated
into a charge by a time varying current. It also brings into question
that put forward by the London brothers regarding cooper pairs as well
as the relationship of a proton. It also makes clear that the double
slot experiment
is correct in stating that particles and waves have similar
properties but makes very clear that the subject at hand
is very much a particle. Thus the bottom line is that Gauss provided
direction with respect to the static aproach AS WELL as the more well
known magnetic connection. It is also important to state again the
importance of maintaining equilibrium when persuing the laws of
Maxwell. I would also like to add my assertion
of just two vectors as the sole constituents of the standard model
that Einstein earlier suspected.
At the same time Maxwells law has not been fully satisfied as it has
not removed the intrinsic resistance of the radiators because of the
presence of skin effect and thus the magnetic field which has no
contribution to the accountability of all forces. However it is
important to note
that in superconductors removal of the magnetic field
achieves the desired action as would a Meander style radiator where in
the absence of skin depth the current
would rise to the surface thus eliminating resistance losses incurred
by the radiator, which now can add to the desired maximum radiation
efficiency by tackling the
radiation resistance, that is the only resistance left.
Thanks for your time
Regards
Art.