On Apr 9, 3:35 am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
I'd vowed that I wouldn't hit this tarbaby yet again. But here I go.

Thanks for doing so.

The junk science is often presented with very rational sounding
arguments and it can be difficult to detect the flaws. This example
was a case for me and you expose the flaw nicely.

What I have difficulty with is deciding on the value of the junk
science. On the one hand it misleads many; on the other, debunking
provides opportunity to develop deeper understanding.

When I first started lurking on this group many, many years ago,
I didn't even know that there was a question about "where does the
reflected power go". Following the debates and iterating to the
correct answers has been extremely educational, much more so than
just accepting the correct explanations without question.

The promoters of junk science fulfill an important role in this
process and I can't decide if their net effect is good or bad.
The bad effects are, of course, when they successfully lead
others astray.

On the whole, good or bad? I haven't decided.

....Keith