On 4 Nov, 12:08, "J.B. Wood" wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Guess it's time to re-post a posting I made on this newsgroup on April
9. Here it is:

-----------------------------

I'd vowed that I wouldn't hit this tarbaby yet again. But here I go.

Among the junk science being bandied about here is the following
supposition:
snip

Hello, Roy, and all. No disrespect intended to my fellow hams but some
posts on this ng begin with something about antennas or related devices
and stray off to neverland. I think we should be discussing classic and
novel antenna designs appropos to ham radio (especially ones that don't
require violating electromagnetic theory to operate ;-). To those that
want to discuss the theoretical aspects of electromagnetics there are
appropriate usenet venues (e.g. sci.physics.electromagnetics) for that
purpose.

There seem to be a few folks out there these days that think some
unknown principle(s) in electromagnetics has gone undiscovered (think
CFA). Electromagnetics is a mature science (theory is well
characterized mathematically and validated through experiment.) It is up
to those making these "new" claims to provide the experimental evidence
(especially if the applied mathematics appear to be violated). My .02
worth. Sincerely, and 73s from N4GGO,

What a novel but insane idea!
Ham radio today has determined that all is known about antennas and wo
betide
any body who tries to venture forward with some thing new. If
something new
is to be able to penetrate these barriers he must have commercial or
collegate
ties other wise they will be battered into the ground by hams. There
are very few people if any
in ham radio today who have the necessary mathematical skills to
review solid presentations
or the willingnes to subject himself to members of ham radio as it has
now dropped down to.
Read QST regarding mobile antennas of today and save it because the
comming
issues certainly will not improve on it and they certainly are not
interested in
antennas where all is already known.
Art