On Jan 13, 8:34 pm, art wrote:
On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:



On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:

On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I have stated before I am not active anymore

Not hardly. You pounced on my post within minutes. Strikes me as
rather "active" eh?

So I'll rephrase the question: How many countries did you work on 160
when you "were active"?

Art

Brian dit-dit beep-beep w3rv . . .

On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:





On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. *How's it working out for you? *Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? *Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. *I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. *There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. *The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. *Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not in violation in my opinion. My theory may not be "exactly"
correct
as I have no way of looking at particles. But if you Google every
little bit, line by line it has enough agreed tangibles that it can
be taken as serious. You yourself know that I have been sharing the
details for a very, very long time. I also have shared everything
and described everything, nothing has been hidden and all explained
several times
Nobody has faulted anything one little bit! Pretty much all has been
the
slandering of me. I really do not understand that if this is a
newsgroup on antennas
why those knoweledgable in the state of the art instead of getting
angry with me doesn't debate it point by point where an error provides
a stop to the debate.
Ofcourse 'error' means so many different things with this group I
don't see a long thread.
I certainly do not have the patience to post thousands of times as
Cecil is able so I should easily be forces to go away as others have
done. Well, if you try very hard that I cannot take anymore. When you
have received an education one must always take advantage of it by
pursuit of the truth regardless of the regimen. I cannot see why I
should be expelled from intruding into physics by those you insist
that all is known about antennas otherwise you are a heritic.
Art

On Jan 13, 9:18 pm, art wrote:
On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:



On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:

On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not in violation in my opinion. My theory may not be "exactly"
correct
as I have no way of looking at particles. But if you Google every
little bit, line by line it has enough agreed tangibles that it can
be taken as serious. You yourself know that I have been sharing the
details for a very, very long time. I also have shared everything
and described everything, nothing has been hidden and all explained
several times
Nobody has faulted anything one little bit! Pretty much all has been
the
slandering of me. I really do not understand that if this is a
newsgroup on antennas
why those knoweledgable in the state of the art instead of getting
angry with me doesn't debate it point by point where an error provides
a stop to the debate.
Ofcourse 'error' means so many different things with this group I
don't see a long thread.
I certainly do not have the patience to post thousands of times as
Cecil is able so I should easily be forces to go away as others have

A few years back I worked Cecil on 7.037 and he had

done. Well, if you try very hard that I cannot take anymore. When you
have received an education one must always take advantage of it by
pursuit of the truth regardless of the regimen. I cannot see why I
should be expelled from intruding into physics by those you insist
that all is known about antennas otherwise you are a heritic.
Art

On 13 Jan, 18:15, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 13, 8:34 pm, art wrote:





On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:

On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. *How's it working out for you? *Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? *Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. *I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. *There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. *The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. *Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I have stated before I am not active anymore

Not hardly. You pounced on my post within minutes. Strikes me as
rather "active" eh?

So I'll rephrase the question: How many countries did you work on 160
when you "were active"?

Art

Brian dit-dit beep-beep w3rv . . .- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have never made a list of countries worked. Never had reason to do
it
I have only entered one "competition" when I was challenged to compete
in being 1 of the three
of the 9th group to have a contact with some station. I was never
given any warning of the when and where but I can say the noise was
horrendous. Why people subject themselves to that I do not know. On
the other side I generally use ham radio to keep in touch with my
friends in the UK which now I do by phone.Why all these questions? Is
another assault in the offing
from a college lecturer?
Art

On 13 Jan, 17:36, Derek wrote:
On Jan 14, 9:06 am, "AI4QJ" wrote:





"Derek" wrote in message

...

On Jan 14, 7:36 am, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

....

On Jan 14, 2:02 am, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

...

On Jan 13, 2:55 pm, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message

...

On Jan 13, 1:15 pm, "AI4QJ" wrote:

* * *You made a positive statement, You called Art a "liar"

I absolutely did not! Show my a quote where I used thre word liar. I
called
him a fibber. Big difference.

* * * * * semantics

Yes, it's semantics, that's precisely why you are getting confused.
"Derek"
(or whomever you are).

Do you have a call sign or something else that shows us who you are? I'm
sure you're not hiding your personhood *intentionally, "Derek".

* I am a retiree like many on this group living in Perth Australia,
who after many years of following this group has a great belief that
Art can do as he claims.
* * I am also a great believer in fair play, and calling someone a
fibber (liar) on open message without proof is not fair play in my
book.

You may have a great faith in art but not quite enough to say so publically,
do you? It is easy to be an art unwin groupie (no...NOT so easy for most),
taking an insane position under the cloak of anonymity. For that reason, I
really think you have reservations. If you really believed in antennas that
shot particles out the ends, you would say so in the open! *I googled your
userid and I see that you exclusively post only on rraa and only as a
cheerleader for arts theories on rraa. I have not seen one post of your's
that had any technical content. Fibber? You saw he defined is "small"
antenna at 18 feet; that's not small; anybody could load a stinger that long
with a coil and transmit at 160m so you're damn right it was a "fib". *See
ya Derek, knowing that you have nothing technical to offer and that I don't
need to be bothered all the time by the unwin groupie cheerleader; plonk..

You say I am taking an insane position. You also say I have
reservations.
* You know my name is Derek and that I live in Australia.
* Art states he has an antenna for 160m on the top of his tower,I have
not seen it neither have you.
*Over the years Art has stated many facts about this antenna.It is in
equilibrium without loading which also means it does not require a
ground plane ie direct connection to the feed line.
*I also assume that impedance is termed as an acceptable level with a
suitable SWR so it can be driven,If it is on top of the tower with no
other support "most" would consider that small for 160m.
* *Now you can call him a liar, and I believe that he is not.!
* So..... I am willing to raise the money for a wager based on the
above where you may place other conditions in this quest to determine
if Art is a liar or not.
* *You can also choose the judge, and who holds the money since I am
in Australia.
* If we come to an agreement on terms I am willing to put down *up to
$5000US.

* All of the above is subject to Arts agreement for access to *his
antenna
*of course.

Derek- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

People can wager on a beetle race as far as I am concerned. But if I
am to be involved
I cannot gamble. BUT.....
I am willing to pay a sizable entrance fee where the loser has to give
his fee to charity!
Let's roll
Art

On Jan 13, 9:39 pm, Brian Kelly wrote:
On Jan 13, 9:18 pm, art wrote:



On 13 Jan, 17:00, Brian Kelly wrote:

On Jan 13, 9:31 am, art wrote:

On 12 Jan, 23:02, Dave Heil wrote:

art wrote:
At
the moment I do not have the smallest antenna for 160M on my tower
since the radiator is around 18 foot long and tipped at an angle to
reflect what the computer states. I suppose I will have to make one
that will fit into a 1 foot cubed carton to satisfy the term small.

That's great, Art. How's it working out for you? Did you work J5C over
the past couple of nights? Did you snag G3JMJ's loud signal this evening?

I can load my 6m beam on 160m, but it doesn't work well at all. I use a
slightly long inverted L with a series vacuum variable and nearly 6,000
feet of buried radials. There's a three inch short, tapped coil to
ground at the feed point in order to match the antenna to the RG-213 I
feed it with. The antenna isn't small and it isn't elegant.

I'm willing to listen to your ideas about how I can equal the signal
from that inverted L by using a much smaller antenna. Why don't you
post information on such a creation?

Dave K8MN

Re Antennas and sharing. Checkout E ham forum
Art

Arthur don't be so silly. As a fellow over-the-edge old fart
mechanical engineer you've obviously missed some some fundamentals.

Back in the day the IEEE and the ASME came to an agreement: They
wouldn't fiddle with Mohr's Circles if we didn't fiddle with
electromagnetic wave mechanics. You're in violation Arthur so so knock
it off.

How many countries do you have confirmed on 160?

Brian w3rv- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not in violation in my opinion. My theory may not be "exactly"
correct
as I have no way of looking at particles. But if you Google every
little bit, line by line it has enough agreed tangibles that it can
be taken as serious. You yourself know that I have been sharing the
details for a very, very long time. I also have shared everything
and described everything, nothing has been hidden and all explained
several times
Nobody has faulted anything one little bit! Pretty much all has been
the
slandering of me. I really do not understand that if this is a
newsgroup on antennas
why those knoweledgable in the state of the art instead of getting
angry with me doesn't debate it point by point where an error provides
a stop to the debate.
Ofcourse 'error' means so many different things with this group I
don't see a long thread.
I certainly do not have the patience to post thousands of times as
Cecil is able so I should easily be forces to go away as others have

.. . . A few years back I worked Cecil on 7.037 and he had a quite
respectable signal here which leads me to have some significant
respect for his abilities as an antenna injuneer.

done. Well, if you try very hard that I cannot take anymore. When you
have received an education one must always take advantage of it by
pursuit of the truth regardless of the regimen. I cannot see why I
should be expelled from intruding into physics by those you insist
that all is known about antennas otherwise you are a heritic.

Next time you see your doctor ask him about Lithium.

Art

w3rv

"AI4QJ" wrote in
:

Once you understand the difference between standing waves, (which has
no real power itself but which stores the reactive VA power into that
power which is is eventually dissipated in "radiation resitance"
dissipating into free space as radiation power), and traveling waves,
which do have real power that is also disspated into that same type of
radiation power through the radiation resistance, an interesting
question becomes "what is the nature of this so-called radiation
resistance which dissipates the power of a forward wave or the stored
power in a standing wave?". We feed power into the antenna as electric
current and then it exits the antenna as radiation. Maxwell's
equations (in spite of what art theorizes) says that the power has
been converted to an EM wave. So, electric current, which is not an EM
wave consisting of photons and propagating into space, is converted
into a different form of radiation energy that IS an EM and does
consist of phtons and waves. When this conversion occurs and energy is
transmitted into free space, we attempt to quantify this net loss to
our generator with familiar terms, i.e. current or voltage dissipated
into "radiation resistance". However, we all know there is no actual
physical component known as a radiation resistor. Conceptualizing how
this power conversion works goes back to maxwell: "why" is there a
time varying EM magnetic and electric field (external waves and
photons) generated by the flow of current? Well, it could be described
as nature's tendency to maintain equilibrium. If a change is made to a
conductor by putting a current through it, nature "objects" and fights
back by setting up an EM wave that tends to cancel out the incoming
current pulse. But no matter what, I will always easily have enough
energy in my forcing function (current or voltage) to overcome
nature's objection and send a net outflow of energy occuring as
radiation theoretically equal to what I inputted.

Well put, Daniel. One of the biggest difficulties I have with Art's
theories is that I can't get my head wrapped around them. I know he
unfortunately has a few physical challenges that make his postings a
little difficult to go through at times, so I re-read them often to see
if I can glean something out of them.

But whereas I have great difficulty with some folks posts. I understand
everything you wrote.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Jan 13, 8:18 pm, art wrote:

Nobody has faulted anything one little bit!

I can fault almost everything that spews out of your keyboard,
but I don't have the heart to constantly shred the delusions of a
whiny old fart.
And I'm basically a dumb ass uneducated redneck.
Doesn't that bother you, being you are so superior to us
meager amateurs?

As one example, your spew of needing a full wavelength radiator
in order to be one with the force... What a crock of dung...
I can whip you more with my little stick if you decide that you
like it..
Pick one of your goofball theories and expound to your hearts
delight.
I bet this uneducated dumbass can rip it to shreds with only a
small amount of pondering needed.
Try me, if you don't believe it. I suspect you will be chicken
though.
MK

Derek wrote in
:


I am a retiree like many on this group living in Perth Australia,
who after many years of following this group has a great belief that
Art can do as he claims.

On what do you base that belief? Many of us have asked Art for some input
on building one of his antennas, and we don't get anything. Heck, I'd even
enjoy a picture, or a visit to the QTH to see something being used. But we
get nothing. I'm not a fan of faith based engineering.

- 73 d eMike N3LI -

On Jan 14, 12:13 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Derek wrote :

I am a retiree like many on this group living in Perth Australia,
who after many years of following this group has a great belief that
Art can do as he claims.

On what do you base that belief? Many of us have asked Art for some input
on building one of his antennas, and we don't get anything. Heck, I'd even
enjoy a picture, or a visit to the QTH to see something being used. But we
get nothing. I'm not a fan of faith based engineering.

- 73 d eMike N3LI -


I have put my money where my mouth is.

Derek