On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

It is all in connecting the dots.

If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. If it is not logical, it is
not Gauss' fault. If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. If it
doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.

If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
standing behind the curtain?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Apr 11, 1:13*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

It is all in connecting the dots. *

If what above from one author only is beyond comprehension because of
language, it isn't Shakespeare's fault. *If it is not logical, it is
not Gauss' fault. *If it doesn't work, it isn't Newton's fault. *If it
doesn't make sense, it isn't Einstein's fault.

If there is a problem, note only the author of both statements (who
blames Shakespeare, Gauss, Newton, Einstein - and is Galileo miffed,
standing behind the curtain?).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Don't send 73s to me!
I am married with children and have no inclination to
have people such as you in my friendship group. I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction. You are a troubled man with
endless posts that contain nothing about antennas and only reveal
yourself to others like you exactly who you are, as well as your
needs. Majoring in the english language by suplimentation of the years
spent at sea does nothing to enhance your knowledge of physics. You
are what you appear to be, a fraud that is also wired different from
others in search in those of your own kind that are conditioned to
attack the norm. I suggest you go back to live with your shipmates
again where you were happy and desired.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...

If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.

the simplest form to put in words is: the divergence of E is proportional
to the charge density. the constant of proportionality depends on the units
chosen of course. This is exactly the form used in Maxwell's equations for
time varying fields.

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction.

Yes Arthru,

We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. Testosterone
deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
technical discussion. It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
should certainly hesitate to offer

88's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC ;-)

OR

You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Which of these "wires" conducts?

On Apr 11, 1:52*pm, "Dave" wrote:
"Art Unwin" wrote in message

...

If you have read a lot or have physics instruction step forward and
provide the mathematics of Gauss law of static particles with the
addition of a time varying field.

the simplest form to put in words is: *the divergence of E is proportional
to the charge density. *the constant of proportionality depends on the units
chosen of course. *This is exactly the form used in Maxwell's equations for
time varying fields.

Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.
All these years of denial without supporting evidence. You couldn't
provide such to
the guy( A doctorate no less) from MIT to convince him he was wrong
either.
David you over estimate your abilities. Richard Harrison who spent his
life with
Radio America finally went back to the books and then apologised for
backing your position because his books backed my position . You
graduated many many years ago and failed to keep up. Now science has
overtaken you. Remember your comment?
Statics has nothing to do with with radiation.
Proof given, nothing other than you said so. And you chose to
follow the wierdo Richard in the attack. And Roy and others followed
in line like lemons. Perhaps you and I should have a talk on top band
where you can verbally deny that I have a rotatable antenna to your
cohorts and where they in the same tone demand more information or
proof.

Art Unwin wrote:


I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
you use these answers with respect to the posted question

1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable

2 2 metres

3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
helix antenna.

At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
is talking about.


While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not sufficient
for me to visualize it.

If one can't visualize what you are talking about, getting help with your
questions will be difficult.

You could try a simple experiment: Remove the active part of your antenna
and replace it with a dummy load. Leave the reflector/dish/whatever in
place. If you still pick up signals, then the antenna itself may not be the
problem.

By 'active part', I mean the helix antenna.

You have a web site, a link to a picture would help me understand what you
are doing.

On Apr 11, 2:00*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I am wired differently
from you tho I do suspect there may be others here who are wired the
same and willing to follow your direction.

Yes Arthru,

We know you are gay-baiting with these sly comments. *Testosterone
deficiency seems to motivate your hostility when you run out of
technical discussion. *It so closely attends failure, confusion, and
wandering thoughts (which never seem to stray from sex, however).
From the generous sub-text of these interests foremost in your mind, I
should certainly hesitate to offer

88's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC * *;-)

OR

You could simply observe your own "differently wired" statements:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:52:50 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
Deeds are more powerfull than words, prove me in error and be a herio

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:05:20 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin

wrote:
I was surprised to hear signals from the rear!

Which of these "wires" conducts?

You have never debated ! You have only attacked others. If you kept to
antennas
how you are wired would not have mattered as it goes along with the
title of this newsgroup. You could have debated the good Dr from MIT
with respect to mathematics but you chose to insult.He with a
doctorate being denigrated by an english major! No wonder the
technically advantaged don't stay long on this newsgroup
Why not have a debate with Cecil where you can supply facts instead
of attacks in a debate about phase changes with the facts you learned
from Shakesphere, I am sure you learned a lot dressed in those log
legged mesh pants as
you prance around the stage. I thought you were proud of what you are.

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, "Dave" wrote:
Just words
Supply the math or printed context that support your reasoning with
facts.

unfortunately this media restricts us to words, but any phd worth his salt
could reconstruct the equation in symbols from my description. does: "del
dot E = rho" make it any clearer? if not, look up page 33 of the 2nd
edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics. and then compare that with
the statement of maxwell's equations on page 2.

"joe" wrote in message
...
Art Unwin wrote:


I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
you use these answers with respect to the posted question

1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable

2 2 metres

3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
helix antenna.

At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
is talking about.


While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not
sufficient
for me to visualize it.

take an aluminum foil dunce cap, wide a curly pigs tail helix inside of it
and feed it with coax. most likely he attached the shield to the foil and
the center conductor to the helix, so all he has is an ugly dipole all
folded up on itself at hf. he would be better off putting the dunce cap
over his head to prevent damage from the brain probes.

On Apr 11, 2:48*pm, joe wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:

I am not avoiding questions, just those that appear irrelevant, but
here goes Anything to make you happy, this should be interesting how
you use these answers with respect to the posted question

1 160 metres upto 2 metres, tunable

2 2 metres

3 Doesn't have a focal length, it is an end fed ( series connection)
helix antenna.

At least to the best of my knowledge which is why I posed the question
Hopefully we will all stay on subject and not get side tracked. I will
leave it to others to respond to Richard when they determine what he
is talking about.

While this provide some details regarding your antenna, it is not sufficient
for me to visualize it.

If one can't visualize what you are talking about, getting help with your
questions will be difficult.

You could try a simple experiment: Remove the active part of your antenna
and replace it with a dummy load. Leave the reflector/dish/whatever in
place. If you still pick up signals, then the antenna itself may not be the
problem.

By 'active part', I mean the helix antenna.

You have a web site, a link to a picture would help me understand what you
are doing.

Joe
This debate has been going on for years. It is all in the archives. I
am not interested
in hearing the cacophony of sound all over again every time a newcomer
comes along
Believe it or not this thread started with a question and you may have
read the responses. You may not be different from the others and time
would be wasted again.
Read the archives for yourself instead of asking favours of me, it is
all printed in the archives and it goes back half a dozen years or
more. If you are a qualified engineer like me it will take only a
short time to get to the gist of the material and possibly fall in
place with your support. But I will not hold my breath. Note Both
previous advisors
of Radcom amateur radio magazine in the UK and also Roy formerly of
QST have formally debunked my position in public tho neither has
provided proof so you might want to use your time else where
Or maybe hook up with Richard. wink wink !! Either way I am readying
to get out of here again these guys are ruthless.
Nothing personal intended