John Smith wrote:
Richard Fry wrote:

...
The fundamentals of EM radiation are defined by natural laws, which
even 50 years ago were rather well understood.

New antenna designs always will be possible, but all of them of
necessity must be based on, and follow natural law.

RF

Sheer insanity and babbly-cockery!

Current "natural laws", and especially as defined by math, allows for a
377 ohm impedance to be given "nothing" (or, the ether--and indeed,
there does appear to be some "property" responsible for it--just not the
one presently given.)

Allows for a permittivity to be assigned to "nothing", actually the ether.

Allows for a permeability to be assigned to "nothing", actually, again,
the ether.

Allows for the spinning of the earth and motion of our solar system to
be involved in the equations/math of our antenna/rf calculations.

Nothing should be allowed to be logical, and, therefore, simply
"NOTHING!" And, therefore unable to have any qualities, properties,
effects, affects, laws, etc.

Until the above is accounted for and sorted into a logical theorem,
present "antenna science" looks as if a bunch of African witch doctors
are implementing it!

Admittedly, some progress is being made, however, little of that ever
sees the light of day here ...

Regards,
JS

I guess I missed the part of Vincent's patent where he invokes modern
cosmological thinking to help explain his antenna.

8-)

Vincent does not claim any radical new physics or math, in the style of
EH and CFA. Instead he simply combines several well-known elements into
what he claims as a novel device. The USPO allowed his claims of novelty.

You can accept or reject his claim of novelty, but don't try to add some
modern mumbo-jumbo more related to pondering the scope of the universe.
I doubt that the URI Physics Department would support such ramblings
without a lot more internal review.

73,
Gene
W4SZ