Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:00 pm, Dave wrote:-
yeah, whatever you have been smoking is spiked with something. LC
resonant circuits do not have 'spikes', they have nice sinusoidal
energy transfer... maybe you envision the electrons sloshsing back and
forth like that swill in your glass? sorry, it just don't work that
way. enjoy your own little world, it just got one person smaller.

Well David prove it based on science instead of expecting me to accept
you on faith.
That is only accomplished by the source providing replacement such
that consistent amplitude is maintained. Without this replacement the
amplitude will show degradement as seen with vibration or a simple
pendulum clock that exhibits the two vectors previously mentioned ie
one linear and one circircular. There is no free lunch as with
perpetual motion
when equilibrium is broken.
Cheers
Art

Art

You ask others to prove things based on science while you ignore proven
and demonstrable science and make up your own "facts".

You have never proven or demonstrated ANYTHING, yet have the frigging
balls to require others to do so.

A hypocrite by any other name is still a hypocrite.

tom
K0TAR

JIMMIE wrote:
On Nov 15, 1:23 am, Art Unwin wrote:

snip lots of BULLSH*T


How about giving some pointers as to where you got this BS. Sounds
like you just made a bunch of stuff up.


Jimmie

Exactly right.

He makes it all up. It's easy to tell if you read him long enough,
because his story is continuously changing. When you stick to the truth
or reality that doesn't happen.

tom
K0TAR

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:
snip lots of CRAP

If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

Why? You haven't proven your point, demonstrated the phenomenon, or
otherwise provided anything worth tearing apart. For all I know, your
antennas are shorter than expected because of magic, enchantment,
sloppy construction, mis-measurement, or all the aforementioned.
snip a bit

And anytime anyone does respond with a credible argument, he makes up
new "facts" to cover his ass.

tom
K0TAR

On Nov 15, 7:16*pm, tom wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:
snip lots of CRAP

If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them

Why? *You haven't proven your point, demonstrated the phenomenon, or
otherwise provided anything worth tearing apart. *For all I know, your
antennas are shorter than expected because of magic, enchantment,
sloppy construction, mis-measurement, or all the aforementioned.

snip a bit

And anytime anyone does respond with a credible argument, he makes up
new "facts" to cover his ass.

tom
K0TAR

I do not have to prove anything to you! The first project is to obtain
a patent that is desired by those skilled in the art of making money
on new antenna disclosures.
You have neither of those requirements. Because you are unarmed with
respect to having skill in the science of antennas it is normal to
gravitate towards insults where the record shows that your knowledge
of antennas is negligeable. It is impossible to debate science with
one that excells only with the skill of memory that parrots only that
which can be memorised by a reading of a book with zero understanding.
Ofcourse, if you had a tangible record on the teachings on the science
of antennas you surely would have provided evidence of same, rather
than the use of slander to provide perceived elevation of your station
in the presence of Madame Guillotine, where the loudest voice becomes
a leader of what is just a mob. I have never seen evidence in your
postings that you have had a tangible trail of education that would
substantiate your self perceived expertise in the field of antennas
thus you do not have a real beef to show on this thread.
As for your statement "as for all I know" it is better that you
believe in magic where faith overcomes physics.

Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:16 pm, tom wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:
snip lots of CRAP

If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them
Why? You haven't proven your point, demonstrated the phenomenon, or
otherwise provided anything worth tearing apart. For all I know, your
antennas are shorter than expected because of magic, enchantment,
sloppy construction, mis-measurement, or all the aforementioned.
snip a bit

And anytime anyone does respond with a credible argument, he makes up
new "facts" to cover his ass.

tom
K0TAR

I do not have to prove anything to you! The first project is to obtain
a patent that is desired by those skilled in the art of making money
on new antenna disclosures.
You have neither of those requirements. Because you are unarmed with
respect to having skill in the science of antennas it is normal to
gravitate towards insults where the record shows that your knowledge
of antennas is negligeable. It is impossible to debate science with
one that excells only with the skill of memory that parrots only that
which can be memorised by a reading of a book with zero understanding.
Ofcourse, if you had a tangible record on the teachings on the science
of antennas you surely would have provided evidence of same, rather
than the use of slander to provide perceived elevation of your station
in the presence of Madame Guillotine, where the loudest voice becomes
a leader of what is just a mob. I have never seen evidence in your
postings that you have had a tangible trail of education that would
substantiate your self perceived expertise in the field of antennas
thus you do not have a real beef to show on this thread.
As for your statement "as for all I know" it is better that you
believe in magic where faith overcomes physics.

And who has paid for use of your patents? And how much? I am sure we
all know the answer. No one, and nothing.

My antenna designs are actually being used very successfully, and yours
aren't.

You are a fraud and a hypocrite.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:16 pm, tom wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:
snip lots of CRAP

If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them
Why? You haven't proven your point, demonstrated the phenomenon, or
otherwise provided anything worth tearing apart. For all I know, your
antennas are shorter than expected because of magic, enchantment,
sloppy construction, mis-measurement, or all the aforementioned.
snip a bit

And anytime anyone does respond with a credible argument, he makes up
new "facts" to cover his ass.

tom
K0TAR

I do not have to prove anything to you! The first project is to obtain
a patent that is desired by those skilled in the art of making money
on new antenna disclosures.
You have neither of those requirements. Because you are unarmed with
respect to having skill in the science of antennas it is normal to
gravitate towards insults where the record shows that your knowledge
of antennas is negligeable. It is impossible to debate science with
one that excells only with the skill of memory that parrots only that
which can be memorised by a reading of a book with zero understanding.
Ofcourse, if you had a tangible record on the teachings on the science
of antennas you surely would have provided evidence of same, rather
than the use of slander to provide perceived elevation of your station
in the presence of Madame Guillotine, where the loudest voice becomes
a leader of what is just a mob. I have never seen evidence in your
postings that you have had a tangible trail of education that would
substantiate your self perceived expertise in the field of antennas
thus you do not have a real beef to show on this thread.
As for your statement "as for all I know" it is better that you
believe in magic where faith overcomes physics.

Where did I say "as for all I know"?

Making stuff up again. Big surprise.

Fraud, hypocrite, and confirmed liar.

tom
K0TAR

On Nov 15, 8:57*pm, tom wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 15, 7:16 pm, tom wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:23:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:
snip lots of CRAP

If anybody can give pointers that refute the accuracy of the above I
would be very interested in hearing them
Why? *You haven't proven your point, demonstrated the phenomenon, or
otherwise provided anything worth tearing apart. *For all I know, your
antennas are shorter than expected because of magic, enchantment,
sloppy construction, mis-measurement, or all the aforementioned.
snip a bit

And anytime anyone does respond with a credible argument, he makes up
new "facts" to cover his ass.

tom
K0TAR

I do not have to prove anything to you! The first project is to obtain
a patent that is desired by those skilled in the art of making money
on new antenna disclosures.
You have neither of those requirements. Because you are unarmed with
respect to having skill in the science of antennas it is normal to
gravitate towards insults where the record shows that your knowledge
of antennas is negligeable. It is impossible to debate science with
one that excells only with the skill of memory that parrots only that
which can be memorised by a reading of a book with zero understanding.
Ofcourse, if you had a tangible record on the teachings on the science
of antennas you surely would have provided evidence of same, rather
than the use of slander to provide perceived elevation of your station
in the presence of Madame Guillotine, *where the loudest voice becomes
a leader of what is just a mob. I have never seen evidence in your
postings that you have had a tangible trail of education that would
substantiate your self perceived expertise in the field of antennas
thus you do not have a real beef to show on this thread.
As for your statement "as for all I know" it is better that you
believe in magic where faith overcomes physics.

And who has paid for use of your patents? *And how much? *I am sure we
all know the answer. *No one, and nothing.

My antenna designs are actually being used very successfully, and yours
aren't.

You are a fraud and a hypocrite.

tom
K0TAR

So you are a millionare today? Patent number? The present industry is
advocating the invention of a new science with respect to obtaining
smaller radiators. Get in there and double your money while the
consortium continue to struggle with the design of a new
technology.alternative than that supplied by nature. If you had such
knowledge you would not be persueing insults in place of debate.

Art Unwin wrote:


My antenna designs are actually being used very successfully, and yours
aren't.

You are a fraud and a hypocrite.

tom
K0TAR

So you are a millionare today? Patent number? The present industry is
advocating the invention of a new science with respect to obtaining
smaller radiators. Get in there and double your money while the
consortium continue to struggle with the design of a new
technology.alternative than that supplied by nature. If you had such
knowledge you would not be persueing insults in place of debate.

I'm not claiming or implying (as you are) that I'm making money on
anything. Just that my antennas are actually used by real people quite
successfully.

And given what you've been saying to anyone that responds to you, you
have no place to stand on insults since you are great at supplying
multiple paragraphs of them at a time. At least mine are pertinent to
the subject.

I have no interest in small antennas or making money on them. I am
however interested in the truth and antennas that truly work. And you
are interested in BS and self promotion.

Have fun with your fraud, hypocrisy and lies.

And try to learn to spell.

tom
K0TAR

On Nov 15, 10:17*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

. Sounds like you just made a bunch of stuff up.

Jimmie

No Jim. Ideas with what is presented to me in science, where *such can be obtained from first principles and with agreement with known LAWS
of science rather than various theories.

Is scientific theory inferior to scientific laws?

On Nov 15, 9:34*pm, Bill wrote:
On Nov 15, 10:17*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

*. Sounds like you just made a bunch of stuff up.

Jimmie

No Jim. Ideas with what is presented to me in science, where *such can be obtained from first principles and with agreement with known LAWS
of science rather than various theories.

Is scientific theory inferior to scientific laws?

Yes