Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12435 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2003 23:13:45 -0000 Received: from marstons.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.223) by mailstore with SMTP; 21 Apr 2003 23:13:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 3892 invoked by uid 10001); 21 Apr 2003 23:07:05 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by marstons.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 21 Apr 2003 23:07:05 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 197kMa-0003Uf-LJ for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:06:16 +0100 Received: from [205.158.62.79] (helo=smtp2.us4.outblaze.com) by post.thorcom.com with smtp (Exim 4.14) id 197kMV-0003TA-Jx for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:06:11 +0100 Received: (qmail 27075 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2003 23:05:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO e500) (Mike?Staines?email.com@64.185.140.143) by 205-158-62-79.outblaze.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2003 23:05:29 -0000 From: "Mike Staines" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:05:28 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: <19a.13b7b1e1.2bd4dad9@aol.com> Subject: LF: RE: Re: EH Loop (with off-topic addendum) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-12.2 required=5.0tests=IN_REP_TO,MSGID_GOOD_EXCHANGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXTversion=2.53 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Somewhere in John's amusing note he said: > Perhaps it would be too much to ask of our patent offices to > require proof > that an invention actually works, but I wish we could at least > return to the > days when it was not possible to patent and re-patent techniques already > known to the state of the art (in this case, electrically short > verticals and > dipoles), simply by virtue of sticking a new name on them or > claiming a new > theory of operation. Reminded me of the joke: How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb? None. They simply declare darkness to be a new standard. > So what, then, does an EH/CFA antenna emit instead? Particles of > phlogiston, > that's what. And you can't prove otherwise. Ergo, it must be > just as true > as the radiation claims of those same antenna systems. My own investigations have indicated that this is probably true. Like BuckminsterFullerenes (http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-2/text/rndmain1.html), Phlogiston was thought not to exist but in fact is everywhere. You can produce it in your own home. Take any electronic circuit. Plug it in and turn it on. Now, use a screwdriver and start prying parts from the circuit board. Between the flashes of light you will see clouds of Phlogiston being released. I believe that it is this Phlogiston that works it's way to the antennas to be radiated in puffs. The frequency of the puffs is so high that the action is indiscernible. Mike wa1ptc