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.

On 11/2/2010 3:06 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:21 pm, Art 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.

Oh my. I have to catch my breath. It hurts to laugh that hard.

"Darn" (censored), we are really going to miss you when you are finally
put away for your own protection. No one, NO ONE! can blather nonsense
like you. It is absolutely amazing.

tom
K0TAR

On Nov 1, 10:21*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

Before this thread gets out of line again

All threads which begin with a post of yours "gets out of line".

On Nov 3, 12:51*am, Bill wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:21*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
Before this thread gets out of line again

All threads which begin with a post of yours "gets out of line".

Maybe. But I proffer it to point out that Maxwells equation for
radiation is nothing but a formula if one concentrates on the electro
magnetics approach. It is the electro static approach of Gauss of
adding a time varying field to a Gaussian field to obtain maxwells
first equation, where the equation is given informative meaning and
direction which has deluded all for the past century. With respect to
the pursuit of equilibrium for all equations the idea that all
elements within a Gaussian boundary should be fed because they are all
resonant is a fallacy, as is having more than two elements. Newtons
laws demand only two opposing vectors to oppose the vectors of
gravity and spin which are the pillars of the "standard model" which
with respect to radiation show them selves as the direct variant
current vector and that of spin. I make a point of that because it
points the way for maximum efficiency by removal of resistance created
by skin depth restrictions to current flow to member surface. All the
above can be ascribed
to taking the statics approach in the exact formulation of Maxwell
equations, instead of the route taken by Maxwell by his addition such
that all units of his equation canceled out as required for
equilibrium. So yes, there will always be bickering when change is
suggested but the usual case is that a presented theory is technically
challenged by one peers rather than by taunts and jeers.
Regards
Art..... KB9MZ