I apologize if the reason for my delay in posting measurement results is
seen as being to embarrass people. That's not at all the purpose. The
intent is simply to force people to make numerical predictions based on
their theories, rather than explaining the results after the fact. As it
turns out, Yuri is the only one confident enough of his theory to make a
numerical prediction(*). I happen to believe it's wrong, but by making
it he's earned my respect. A theory can be tested only if it predicts
results which can be tested. Whether it turns out to be right or wrong,
we learn from it. Those who've waffled and dodged the issue aren't in my
opinion worthy of the respect Yuri is.

When all this is done, I hope that readers come away with some assurance
that circuit theory does work and can be applied to antenna problems --
provided that the assumptions made for the components are valid. If all
that's taken away is a feeling that I've been doing this to try and
embarrass people, then it's been worse even than a monumental waste of
time. I really did have other things I wanted to do today besides make
antenna measurements, and I spent the time doing it only in the hope
that it would open some eyes.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

(*) I've really solicited predictions only from people who don't agree
with conventional circuit theory, and believe that there will be a
difference in current from input to output. So there are also a number
of people who agree with me that conventional circuit theory holds, but
haven't explicitly made a prediction.

Richard Clark wrote:
. . .
But such is the gamesmanship that is being conducted, from the start.
The withholding of data to embarrass correspondents is not uncommon.
Lord knows how many I've embarrassed with simpler topics (the current
crew being only a subset). However, I generally restrain my
participation such that those threads are smaller. Otherwise the
posting of:
. . .