art wrote:
On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
___________
All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.
RF
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.

Sheesh, Art. How come every one who questions you is some kind of
dullard, or worse? Even those who aren't questioning you, such as
myself. Your antenna might be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm
not saying it isn't, I'm saying show me.

It must be an interesting world where only those who agree with you are
intelligent or clever, and all those who have the temerity to even ask
questions, wanting proof, are not.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:40:44 -0700, art wrote:

I think I may have reproduced it on the
pages but I am not sure.

Hi Arthru,

"Not sure" seems to be the keyword. Lack of details, lack of
background, lack of examples, and lack of understanding (no shortage
of ersatz thinking) reveals to others what is not obvious to you:
an email address is not a web page

But we all know what you don't mean. :-0

Yes, it must be tough to be a towering generous in exotic theries when
you stumble so often from tying your gaussian shoelaces together.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 24 Sep, 11:23, Michael Coslo wrote:
art wrote:
On 24 Sep, 10:04, Michael Coslo wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:
___________
All I find from you there is more paragraphs of your beliefs -- nothing
in the way of mathematical proof.
RF
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." --Albert Einstein
So whose facts do I use to build my antenna?

Do I use facts that I have already used to build operable antennas that
function as claimed, or do I use facts that to my knowledge have not
ever been used build an antenna,

SNIP
I would go with that one if I were you so you keep apace of your
knoweledge level.

Sheesh, Art. How come every one who questions you is some kind of
dullard, or worse? Even those who aren't questioning you, such as
myself. Your antenna might be the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm
not saying it isn't, I'm saying show me.

It must be an interesting world where only those who agree with you are
intelligent or clever, and all those who have the temerity to even ask
questions, wanting proof, are not.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Michael from the past I was called every name under the sun on
past patents
This time I gave the basis of the mathematics, I gave a array of full
wave
elements that was checked independently on this newsnet. I also put
up a page
with the data and drawings from a static field ala Gauss on to a
dynamic form
where it can be verivied by computor programs.
All I got was jeers and insults there is nothing more that I can do
other what I have done
I can't make you make one even with instructions and I am not giving
out gifts.
Oh and you got the benefit of Dr Davis's mathematical analysis to boot
before the group dissed him to.
Art Unwin KB9MZ.....XG

art wrote:
That of course takes a lot of tenaccity and visits to the texas
university library ...

Now you've really got my dander up, Art.
It's the Texas Aggie library. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"art" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 23 Sep, 16:10, "Dave" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...



Dave wrote:
...
ok... now if you have a LAW that is different than what is put down in
the existing maxwell's 4 equations you must be able to write the
equations that make your law different than his. if you can't do
that,
its no better than a bag of hot air. so show your calculations, write
a
paper, get it published and show the rest of the world that uses those
equations and gets perfectly valid results why we are all wrong.

Who are you to tell him to shut up? Don't you realize you only manage
to
make yourself look the idiot?--Well of course not, that is quite
obvious!

You think you will tell the rest of us how to conduct ourselves when
you
are finished with him?

Just where in the hell do you come from? And, what the hell makes you
have any right whatsoever to do so?

Go away--PLONK!

JS

go plonk yourself... i am simply challenging someone who has shown
himself
to be full of hot air to properly explain his revolutionary law that has
evaded the rest of the world, and who has been handwaviing and telling
everyone that he has this great new law... but can never explain it in
terms
that anyone understands... just more handwaving and generalizing. if you
can't take a challenge then you don't belong on usenet. and art sure
doesn't need you to defend him, he does well enough to make an ass of
himself.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull. A ham who holds a doctorate and works for MIT provided the
corroberating details.
It is not my fault that your mathematical knoweledge and education
could not keep up with him which is the same for all others on the
thread. Nobody but nobody could fault his mathematics and you call
that just "hand waving"?
David it was you who led the charge and consistently stated that you
can't apply a time varient to a static field and refused to
acknowledge that the math supplied that concurred with Maxwells laws
relying only on the fact that it came from your own mouth so it must
be correct. Now that I call "handwaving" all mouth and no facts
proffered to confirm your opinions or guesstimates. Now you say you
should be able to take a "challenge" well I invite any scientifically
based challenge some thing I have hoped for in a long while from the
self professeed experts and am still waiting.
I can understand opinions from hobbiests you have joined the ranks of
ham radio but for those skilled in the art and have gone thru the
reqimen of getting a degree or obtaining the rights of a professional
engineer one would expect a more factual debate on the subject. If you
don't understand the subject then you default your right to critisize.
Now I have Richard firing his nonsense across my bow with the
credentials of a degree in geography that trumps all others in the
hope that he can get somebody to talk to him.
Have a happy day to all
Art Unwin KB9MZ......ex UK.


ah well art... i guess i have riled you up enough this time, its not any fun
any more though. you don't have anything new to offer, just pointing to old
discreditted information and posts that don't exist. I have quoted enough
of my credentials that by now you should know i can follow whatever math you
may throw up, or puke up as the case may be, on this forum. and i'm not
going to bother to go search for your mythical patents and papers any more,
publish the full links here or forever be labeled a faker.

John Smith wrote:
Uncounted times, math is reshuffled to come into line with present
knowledge--the reverse has NEVER happened--at least not to my knowledge.

Actually, the reverse has happened several times now
in quantum physics. The math (standard model) has predicted
bizarre, seemingly impossible things, e.g. entanglement
(Einstein's spooky action at a distance) which was later
proved by experiments to be a fact of reality.

You can find some pretty brilliant physicists who will
state that the QEM model has never been wrong no matter
how unbelievable the predictions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Michael Coslo wrote:

...
Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

Proof would shut us close minded ones up would it not? Then the
antenna will become status quo, and we will rush to defend it.


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

A million visions hit me where the status quo is unusable--college
dorms, hotel rooms, camping grounds in national forests,
secure-elite-gated communities where "keeping up with the joneses" is in
vogue (and, I am stuck in one--for a bit anyway :-( ), a beach, etc., etc.

I have already stated, canned antennas and the software to define them
have a REAL place ... it is only the idiots who shout down everyone else
who are in question! Personally, I need the art of small/stealth
antennas to expand ... I can't believe I am the only one; I am just
more vocal to their importance.

I have already had complaints about the American Flag flying on my 50
ft. pole, so far, NOT flying the flag has appeased the "complainers"--go
figure! Any day now, they will eventually notice the pole is still
there. Then I'll be stuck with the DLM posing as a drain pipe ...

And, there are errors and missing sections in our complete understanding
of antennas, em/photon radiation, etc.--those who will bother to examine
the evidence already know this--those who are either unable or unwilling
to do so never will.

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Actually, the reverse has happened several times now
in quantum physics. The math (standard model) has predicted
bizarre, seemingly impossible things, e.g. entanglement
(Einstein's spooky action at a distance) which was later
proved by experiments to be a fact of reality.

You can find some pretty brilliant physicists who will
state that the QEM model has never been wrong no matter
how unbelievable the predictions.

Cecil:

How come I already knew you would be first to propose an argument worthy
of consideration/debate? :-)

I spoke boldly, and of course, in too broad of terms--the reasons for
such I have already stated.

However, even Einstein would admit (well, if he would allow me to speak
for him) that there is "something too all this, alright. However, by
the shear lack of a simple model to explain it all--we still are only
seeing the tail on the elephant ..."

And, by the way, thanks for the wakeup call.

Warm regards,
JS

On Sep 24, 12:04 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

I've told him that a hundred times... He won't listen.
How does he expect anyone to give his antenna much of a
chance when the "theory" he provides is generally caca, and
he refuses to build an actual working antenna to demo and test?
What a load of @#$%...
Art and his groupies just don't get it.
It's not that anyone is against new ideas, antennas, etc,
ad nausium.
Just don't feed us a turd and call it a steak if one can't even
take the trouble to build a working example to test. :/
If I had some new whiz bang antenna cooked up, I would build
and test one first, and then talk about it later if it actually was
proven to work.
Art goes the other route. He talks a great storm, but nothing is
ever produced to actually test in the real world.
As far as I see it, that is no way to live.
MK

On 24 Sep, 14:18, wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:04 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:



Build one of those bad boys, put it on an antenna range, test it out and
let the decibels fall where they may. All else is just netnews s/n.

I've told him that a hundred times... He won't listen.
How does he expect anyone to give his antenna much of a
chance when the "theory" he provides is generally caca, and
he refuses to build an actual working antenna to demo and test?
What a load of @#$%...
Art and his groupies just don't get it.
It's not that anyone is against new ideas, antennas, etc,
ad nausium.
Just don't feed us a turd and call it a steak if one can't even
take the trouble to build a working example to test. :/
If I had some new whiz bang antenna cooked up, I would build
and test one first, and then talk about it later if it actually was
proven to work.
Art goes the other route. He talks a great storm, but nothing is
ever produced to actually test in the real world.
As far as I see it, that is no way to live.
MK

I have built them no problem but I am not going to give them away to
people who arenot interested in them.
It is no problem to me if you don't make one. Listen out for me when
it gets cold on 160 meters. I have a rotatable one about 2 foot square
that will be on the tower but at the moment I am adding to it to make
it an all bander maybe all frequency with two rotators for horizontal
and vertical radiation. But then if you can't hear me then you can't
work me.
By the way large ground planes are not in vogue anymore since they
have lost their uses. No I anm not going to bring it to you so that
you can see the test or operate it so you will have to continue to
call me names as usual
By the way John E Davis works is still in the archives, he has not
removed it for people trying to find it.
Art