'Doc wrote in message ...
Art,
The statement, "every thing is known about antennas", was no
more true in Mr. Moxon's day, as it is now. I seriously doubt
if you will find anyone on this NG that thinks "every thing is
known about antennas". It's an opinion, and it's yours.
Happy Holidays...
'Doc

That statement was given to Hately by a University professor
when he presented the CFA. I have noticed since that most experts
on antennas appear to have the same attitude. Either that or
because of so many fake claims over the years feel it is a
safe bet to denounce or ridicule anything new.
I have spent the last ten years working on antennas and as you know
have written some up and even tho they are "new" they are pushed aside.
What it takes nowadays is for somebody to raise a lot of hoopla in
the press, make enticing claims and then put a price on it knowing
that people prefer to buy.
It is sad but it does seem that with an overload of written material
on antennas hams unconciously really feel that way
If I hear you on the top band I will give you a call on my
rotatable dipole which is not new.
Art.

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:

That statement was given to Hately by a University professor
when he presented the CFA. I have noticed since that most experts
on antennas appear to have the same attitude. Either that or
because of so many fake claims over the years feel it is a
safe bet to denounce or ridicule anything new.

But we aren't talking about Hartely and the CFA antenna, and
the
only one who has made the statement, "every thing is known about
antennas",
on this NG is you.
There's another alternative in addition to the two 'reasons'
this
statement was made. That is, Mr. Hartely couldn't, or wouldn't
explain
his claims in a way acceptible and understandable to his
audience. The
audience's 'job' is to try to pick it apart, to find any 'holes'
in the
claim Mr. Hartely made. That's the usual and normal process for
proving,
or disproving 'new' ideas, it isn't criticism.
The same thing is true for your 'new' ideas (or anyone
else's). If you
can't or won't explain the process of how you got to your claim,
then you
haven't proved anything. You're only making assumptions and
want people
to accept them without proof.
You have three choices, quit, or prove your assumptions, or
continue
making unsupported claims.
'Doc

Art, all of our conversations have been cordial, with that in mind may I
respectfully suggest the following:

Nay Sayers - Screw em all but 7, six for pallbearers and 1 for a cadence
caller.

Build the antenna, write up a paper on it and send it to all the pubs. Those
that are the biggest critics never get on the air anyway, so they would
never buy one.

Set a price and offer them for sale, explaining that a production run will
commence with order X and if it is not reached the money will be returned.

Donate one to the next DX expedition to Lower Slobovia , you can then claim
that it received nothing less than a 5/9 world wide. If all else fails,
scale it to 11 meters and sell it as a 96dB gain "skip talking" antenna.

Find a local shop that will be willing to work with you on building it.
Point out you need a good price on the low number of units, and if they give
it to you, you will stick with them on production runs.

Spend time marketing the antenna instead of arguing with the so called
genius crowd in this news group. Your ulcer will calm down, you can then
make enough money to hire someone to take the newsgroup abuse for you. Good
luck in 2004 with your antenna.

73 Fred W4JLE

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
That statement was given to Hately by a University professor
when he presented the CFA. I have noticed since that most experts
on antennas appear to have the same attitude. Either that or
because of so many fake claims over the years feel it is a
safe bet to denounce or ridicule anything new.
I have spent the last ten years working on antennas and as you know
have written some up and even tho they are "new" they are pushed aside.
What it takes nowadays is for somebody to raise a lot of hoopla in
the press, make enticing claims and then put a price on it knowing
that people prefer to buy.
It is sad but it does seem that with an overload of written material
on antennas hams unconciously really feel that way
If I hear you on the top band I will give you a call on my
rotatable dipole which is not new.
Art.

Fred:

[snip]
"w4jle" W4JLE(remove this to wrote in message
...
:
:
Spend time marketing the antenna instead of arguing with the so called
genius crowd in this news group. Your ulcer will calm down, you can then
make enough money to hire someone to take the newsgroup abuse for you.
Good
luck in 2004 with your antenna.

73 Fred W4JLE
[snip]

Touche'

The *only* validation of a new idea occurs when someone *buys* it.

If you can't sell it, an idea or invention ain't worth nothing!

Proslytising on a USENET NG, as Art continues to do, proves nothing and will
not gain him
or anyone else anything!

If Art can *sell* his patented invention to someone, *anyone*, then it's
valuable and worthwhile,
otherwise it's just so much shxx like 98% of all patented inventions.

Invention and discovery are *nothing*, *zilch*, *nada*, if no one buys!

Art is just a whiner and complainer, he will never *sell* his ideas or
inventions by
crying... sheesh... what a loser! He just can't or... won't sell!

--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL