On Jan 19, 8:45 am, Derek wrote:
On Jan 19, 9:41 pm, "Richard Fry" wrote:

"Derek" wrote:
Are we to take it you regard Art's claim's for his 160m antenna
to be a fraud?

So far neither the performance of Art's 160-m antenna, nor the claims he
makes for its underlying physics have been publicly proven by scientific
method.

So should he produce his antenna and showed that is was all he
claimed you would not accept it because it would not have been proven
by "scientific" methods to you.
The fact that it work's would count for nothing?. That's weard.

Derek

Define "works"...
Nearly anything will radiate to some extent. Even many dummy loads
and light bulbs. How much better than a dummy load would be the real
issue in the case of his small antenna.
If he did not test the antenna according to accepted methods commonly
used, this would not matter to you?
At the very least he could put up a full sized reference dipole,
chase the spiders from the innerds of his radio, and compare
them. He doesn't even have to actually transmit to do these simple
comparisons for himself.
But in order to prove an antenna to the big wide world out there, he's
going to need to test it on an excepted antenna test range, and then
provide all the data if he wants anyone pay much attention.
This would apply to anyone, not just Art.
It seems you would except his word on it, without actually seeing any
proof of this claimed full sized lunch from a dinky radiator.
That would be weird to me.
MK