On the surface, the method seems reasonable. However, remember that heat
(which is energy) is removed by three mechanisms: conduction,
convection, and radiation. And the temperature rise depends on the rate
heat is lost through these three. The effectiveness of each mechanism
will be different for each part of the antenna structure. So to
realistically judge the temperature rise due to RF compared to DC, the
two have to be distributing heat to the same parts of the antenna in the
same amounts. This isn't a trivial task, and no care was taken to do so.

An additional problem with the method is that no attempt was apparently
made to actually measure the amount of RF power being applied to the
antenna. So knowing the amount of power required for equal heating would
be insufficient for determining efficiency even if it could be
accurately measured.

That the method fails is demonstrated by the results. The author
concludes that the sample antennas have much higher efficiency than
known and proven physical laws predict and countless measurements have
confirmed. He's proposed "correcting" NEC, which applies known and
proven physical laws, to agree with his "heuristic" measurements based
on poor methodology and no direct measurement of efficiency such as
field strength. This is a common theme of junk science, and firmly
identifies this work as being in that category. A search for flaws in
his measurement methods is much more likely to be fruitful than
searching for fundamental flaws in NEC and current physical laws.

But I'm sure that some of the same folks who swallow homeopathic
remedies and arrange their lives around astrological predictions will
replace their 160 meter towers with tiny wire loops. P.T. Barnum's
famous observation is still true.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL