On 13 Mar, 08:02, Gene Fuller wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

[snip]



For antenna engineering, that road is ENTIRELY built on the classical
physics of the 18th-19th century. It can be a hard road to travel, but
it's a reliably straight one. Any side turnings are NOT going to be
short-cuts to a better understanding.

Ian,

For the misunderstood and unappreciated "inventor", hope springs eternal.

It's all for the good, however. RRAA would simply fade away without
fractals, crossed-fields, RoomCaps, unmodelable structures, traveling
waves, one-second long transmission lines, Poynting vectors, etc.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene, I was just reading the archives of 2004 where you fought with
everybody in ham radio,QEX as well as on this newsgroup as to how
everybody was inerpretating Maxwells laws plus used a lot of
accusatory words against Walt and many others. You couldn't push any
of them away then so what makes you think that all are going to line
up behind you to get rid of me? Now you are lining up with the amateur
group and the West Coast without resolving your past disagrements with
every body about your disagreements with Maxwell resolved . Are you
going to start a third front about what Maxwell really meant? NASA has
been in error before, remember the "O"
ring saga . They then dug a hole for themselves thinking that the
deeper they dug the closer they were to escaping, maybe you are of the
same thinking.Think about all those clever guys that were part of MIT
and you are going to take them on with respect to Maxwell's teachings
or at least what you thinl he meant? I'll back MIT anyday against you
and others with respect to electrical laws.He gave the mathematical
analysis which all have been craving for and he gets accused of
spreading mis information. What is it that this group and the West
coast NASA want with respect to Gaussian arrays, remove him from all
the text books and replace him by Stokes?

Art