"Art Unwin" wrote about his "tipped vertical" belief:
Put it to test by placing a vertical at an angle on a antenna
optomizer program and see if it corrects the model to the
vertical.
____________

Art:

1) Only YOU are the one espousing this belief.

2) Computer programs don't give the correct answer if the model is invalid,
and/or its results are misunderstood by the user of that program.

3) Real-world, measured results may or may not support calculated results.

If your beliefs correspond to real-world performance, then YOU (and others)
will be able to prove that using scientifically accurate methodologies in
such real-world measurements. That result has been claimed by nobody, so
far.

As this is YOUR peculiar belief, YOU should be willing to prove that it is
true in the real world.

And if you are unable to do that, Art, perhaps you might see the wisdom in
refraining to state and defend such a belief.

RF

On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or
rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where
America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World?
Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of
communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and
behind)?

If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run
1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can
see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the
moment where your design erupts into flames due to the
massive RF horsepower being fed to it.

Of course, you could extend the available working time by
installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. :|
Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry
console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't
need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully.
I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks.

BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the
street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced
dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a
while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective
cans.
But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my
renaissance man existence is pretty much history.

On Dec 11, 5:57*pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or
rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where
America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World?
Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of
communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and
behind)?

If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run
1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can
see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the
moment where your design erupts into flames due to the
massive RF horsepower being fed to it.

Of course, you could extend the available working time by
installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. *:|
Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry
console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't
need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully.
I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks.

BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the
street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced
dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a
while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective
cans.
But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my
renaissance man existence is pretty much history.

Excellent, now share with the others how you were able to shoot me
down on my antenna theory that I am sharing with all. I want the
theory to be probed so I can rethink any errors
and put it right. Others are very anxious to shoot me down and would
just love your explanation as they do not have anything to work around
up to now
We now have been joined by another hyena
who was a radio engineer and is expressing his shock at the idea of a
tilted vertical, please help him out. When you have a vertical antenna
used for defensive purposes you really can't live with a" hole" in the
donut pattern. You must tilt it to close that hole in your defences so
that you have true omni pattern protection.
Regards
Art
Regards
Art

On Dec 11, 6:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Dec 11, 5:57*pm, wrote:



On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or
rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where
America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World?
Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of
communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and
behind)?

If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run
1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can
see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the
moment where your design erupts into flames due to the
massive RF horsepower being fed to it.

Of course, you could extend the available working time by
installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. *:|
Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry
console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't
need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully.
I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks.

BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the
street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced
dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a
while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective
cans.
But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my
renaissance man existence is pretty much history.

Excellent, now share with the others how you were able to shoot me
down on my antenna theory that I am sharing with all. I want the
theory to be probed so I can rethink any errors
and put it right. Others are very anxious to shoot me down and would
just love your explanation as they do not have anything to work around
up to now
We now have been joined by another hyena
who was a radio engineer and is expressing his shock at the idea of a
tilted vertical, please help him out. When you have a vertical antenna
used for defensive purposes you really can't live with a" hole" in the
donut pattern. You must tilt it to close that hole in your defences so
that you have true omni pattern protection.
Regards
Art
Regards
Art

You need to get with the modeling program.
Note this design.
http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/wow.jpg
Now tell me, what is wrong with this picture?
A modeling program spit this out. So it must
surely illustrate reality as we know it. Right?

BTW, I wouldn't presume to tell an actual trained
RF engineer his business. Not that there is any
obvious need to, from what I see...
But as a retired mechanical engineer with signs
of advancing dementia , I suppose that gives you a
leg up, and an obvious wormhole to reality as we
don't know it... :/

BTW, my 40+ dbi gain seems to be superior to
your generated spectacles of advanced mal-modeling.
Should I file a patent?

On Dec 11, 6:53*pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:28*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Dec 11, 5:57*pm, wrote:

On Dec 11, 2:57*pm, Art Unwin wrote:

I was born in the docklands of London UK The naysayers or
rejectionists are all American. Could this be another case where
America imposes itself on science is to be viewed thru out the World?
Or are there no hams outside America using the same power of
communication (!.5 Kw) such they are forced to stand inline (and
behind)?

If one uses a manly antenna, there is no need to run
1500 watts. Of course, with your usual designs, I can
see how an amp could be helpful.. Or at least until the
moment where your design erupts into flames due to the
massive RF horsepower being fed to it.

Of course, you could extend the available working time by
installing your design into a 55 gal drum of mineral oil. *:|
Myself, I have a couple of amps. One is a manly Henry
console. But I rarely use them anymore. I really don't
need them, unless I just want to be a radio bully.
I run efficient antennas, and shun dummy loads on sticks.

BTW, I was born a poor black child, directly across the
street from where a man named Kennedy was pronounced
dead 7 years later. After hitching about the country for a
while, I ended up working at a gas station that had defective
cans.
But then I invented the Optigrab, and the rest of my
renaissance man existence is pretty much history.

Excellent, now share with the others how you were able to shoot me
down on my antenna theory that I am sharing with all. I want the
theory to be probed so I can rethink any errors
and put it right. Others are very anxious to shoot me down and would
just love your explanation as they do not have anything to work around
up to now
We now have been joined by another hyena
who was a radio engineer and is expressing his shock at the idea of a
tilted vertical, please help him out. When you have a vertical antenna
used for defensive purposes you really can't live with a" hole" in the
donut pattern. You must tilt it to close that hole in your defences so
that you have true omni pattern protection.
Regards
Art
Regards
Art

You need to get with the modeling program.
Note this design.http://home.comcast.net/~disk200/wow.jpg
Now tell me, what is wrong with this picture?
A modeling program spit this out. So it must
surely illustrate reality as we know it. Right?

BTW, I wouldn't presume to tell an actual trained
RF engineer his business. Not that there is any
obvious need to, from what I see...
But as a retired mechanical engineer with signs
of advancing dementia , I suppose that gives you a
leg up, and an obvious wormhole to reality as we
don't know it... *:/

BTW, my 40+ dbi gain seems to be superior to
your generated spectacles of advanced mal-modeling.
Should I file a patent?

Strueth, so now computer programs are so difficult to use correctly
that they are worthless
A sailor came on the net a couple of weeks to show his ship with all
the antennas tilted so we have moved beyond the 20 th century tho many
of the sailboat are fighting the reasonability of doing that ! Many
old hams are convinced that "all is known" about antennas because
their era have found nothing that sheds new light and are content with
reading how to solder connections and discuss the meanings of a swr
readout. Now we have a new generation coming along and all are adament
they will all line up and sign on to the
lead provided by the present dying generation.

On Dec 11, 7:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:


Strueth, so now computer programs are so difficult to use correctly
that they are worthless

What is a Strueth? Does it involve apples? Sounds
like some new kind of desert..

A sailor came on the net a couple of weeks to show his ship with all
the antennas tilted so we have moved beyond the 20 th century tho many
of the sailboat are fighting the reasonability of doing that !

I've never owned a sail boat. But if I did, you can be
sure I would have the manliest antennas possible for
the available room.

Many
old hams are convinced that "all is known" about antennas because
their era have found nothing that sheds new light and are content with
reading how to solder connections and discuss the meanings of a swr
readout.

Being as you are a much older ham than I am, I'm not
sure what to make of this statement. I learned how to
solder 40 years ago. And the meanings of the readouts
of SWR meters bores me. I have several of them. And
they are all boring. Even the ones with lit up meters
and little blinky things.

Now we have a new generation coming along and all are adament
they will all line up and sign on to the
lead provided by the present dying generation.

I suspect they will. Make no mistake, not all is known
about antennas. But that fact does not make your pseudo
science gibberish become truth.
The problem with you, is you never do any actual testing
to see if your theories hold water.
You never build or demonstrate any antennas that take
advantage of your theories.
So you are like a dog that chases it's tail, while
barking at the moon that looms brightly overhead.

I could call you an outright fraud, but I actually think
you believe all the nonsense you conjure up.
So being as I'm not the type to kick someone when
they are down, I just view you as a pretty good
comedy show.

BTW, it's not my job to do your work for you.
So if you really want me to expend much effort
to debate your claims, I will require money.
A check for $5000.00 mailed to my address,
"good on QRZ", might provide me the neccesary
motivation to take this much farther.
And I consider that letting you off cheap.
I have much better things to do than pollute
my mind pondering silly pseudo science theories
with a geriatric old fart.

On Dec 11, 7:39*pm, wrote:
On Dec 11, 7:14*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



Strueth, so now computer programs are so difficult to use correctly
that they are worthless

What is a Strueth? Does it involve apples? Sounds
like some new kind of desert..

A sailor came on the net a couple of weeks to show his ship with all
the antennas tilted so we have moved beyond the 20 th century tho many
of the sailboat are fighting the reasonability of doing that !

I've never owned a sail boat. But if I did, you can be
sure I would have the manliest antennas possible for
the available room.

Many
old hams are convinced that "all is known" about antennas because
their era have found nothing that sheds new light and are content with
reading how to solder connections and discuss the meanings of a swr
readout.

Being as you are a much older ham than I am, I'm not
sure what to make of this statement. I learned how to
solder 40 years ago. *And the meanings of the readouts
of SWR meters bores me. I have several of them. And
they are all boring. Even the ones with lit up meters
and little blinky things.

Now we have a new generation coming along and all are adament
they will all line up and sign on to the
lead provided by the present dying generation.

I suspect they will. *Make no mistake, not all is known
about antennas. But that fact does not make your pseudo
science gibberish become truth.
The problem with you, is you never do any actual testing
to see if your theories hold water.
You never build or demonstrate any antennas that take
advantage of your theories.
So you are like a dog that chases it's tail, while
barking at the moon that looms brightly overhead.

I could call you an outright fraud, but I actually think
you believe all the nonsense you conjure up.
So being as I'm not the type to kick someone when
they are down, I just view you as a pretty good
comedy show.

BTW, it's not my job to do your work for you.
So if you really want me to expend much effort
to debate your claims, I will require money.
A check for $5000.00 mailed to my address,
"good on QRZ", might provide me the neccesary
motivation to take this much farther.
And I consider that letting you off cheap.
I have much better things to do than pollute
my mind pondering silly pseudo science theories
with a geriatric old fart.

So what is your problem with the viewing of old theory and the efforts
in generating a possible new approach? What is your problem with
somebody other than yourself suggesting a new approach?
Years ago the hyenas on this thread denied that the boundary approach
also leads to
Maxwells equations and we are not talking magnetics.A doctrate guy
from MIT showed the math to support me but it was to late, he and now
I are continually trashed for generating falsities with respect to
ham radio. But for why?
Is there a fear that the self appointed experts
on the group may well be over estimating their thinking processes?
Does it really matter that a proposal is provided that the experts
want washed away? Experts can provide points that are debatable that
will uproot faulty theorems so why do they feel forced to abandon true
and tried methods of debate? State Farm has created a home for over a
thousand teckies from overseas stating that what is available in this
country is not equipped to do the job? Have we placed the old methods
of debate and the approach to science while others advance?
Can we continue to deny that we are not the leading nation anymore
while we are on this downward slope. You state that despite not
obtaining a high school certificate you, a black boy, made it anyway
and thus are able to deny all that you dislike shows a possible
passage for Americas hopes, Think about it. Why are the
self ap,rized experts so determined that a new theory,, if correct,
could take hold? What does the future hold if we try to continue the
practices of the past which are responsible for our present position?
What is the route you would like your grandchildren to take? Follow
your path or strive for the new with curiosity. Industry today in
America is asking for something better so good times can come back.
Think about it! Is the example being set by this group sufficient for
the future.
So back to the beginning, why does this group deny the extension to a
Gaussin boundary in the form of a time variant current equals Maxwells
equation? What good are these denials achieving by the actions of spam
and insults?
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ....xg

On 12/11/2010 8:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
and tried methods of debate? State Farm has created a home for over a
thousand teckies from overseas stating that what is available in this
country is not equipped to do the job?

What in the hell are you talking about? You often inject nonsense
sentences into your rants. What is their purpose? Are you thinking
that we will be thrown off balance by them? If that's the intent, it fails.

tom
K0TAR

Art Unwin wrote:

Think about it Joe
If you had an equation for efficiency it would be dimensionless.

It depends upon how efficiency is measured. My more efficient car gets
30 MPG, My less efficient car gets 15 MPG. Any equation defining
efficiency in terms of miles per gallon does not have a dimensionless
result.

A meaningful measure of the efficiency of a transmitting antenna may
relate to field strength per watt input, which is not dimensionless.

What is your equation?

Typically you would have a portion in that equation that depicts
perfection
and also a portion depicting deviation from perfection.So the second
portion points to what creates losses and the first part points to
perfection.

OK, but what equation are you using for an antenna that has those
portions and where does L/C fit?


Now look at root L/C which points to the constitution of
that which creates losses.
Now ideally we would like this portion to be 1
which states zero losses, an ideal situation.

Without providing your equation, we don't know how L/C fits. From what
you say it is just some term out of nowhere.

Thus we can say the losses involved equals
root L/C which must equal "1" Logic therefore tells you that both L
and C are loss leaders whether they be lumped or distributed and
therefore not part of the vectors that create
acceleration of charge.

How do L and C contribute to loss? Since current and voltage for each is
out of phase, the power lost is 0. How do you reconcile this discrepancy
with your position?



Remember for legitimacy all formulae must
equal zero for equilibrium and therefore resolves into zero units. Now
if you are unaware where root L/C
appears in the study of radiation this is a good time to hit the books
to fill that gap.

The books don't reflect your views. I'm trying to understand your
position, not some book.


Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ xg

On Dec 11, 8:49*pm, tom wrote:
On 12/11/2010 8:20 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

and tried methods of debate? State Farm has created a home for over a
thousand teckies from overseas stating that what is available in this
country is not equipped to do the job?

What in the hell are you talking about? *You often inject nonsense
sentences into your rants. *What is their purpose? *Are you thinking
that we will be thrown off balance by them? *If that's the intent, it fails.

tom
K0TAR
Jim
You can deny the truth in what is stated above.
Your present position on science provides enough proof. Anybody can
view the archives
of "tom" "Jim" and others that you assume to see what manner of man
you are by your various accusations.
They can judge all your identities on their own without my help.
You too may have made it on your own without the required
education ,and deserve congratulations. But do you want others to
follow that same path and finish up just like you? What are your
motives with respect to your denials ? Would it not be better to
discuss antennas where one can learn and enjoy others?
Art