art wrote:

...
Just to clear things. I am not saying that Roy's work does not predict
with good accuracy how certain antennas perform. What I am saying
it is that it does this despite manipulations for the wrong reasons.
Isn't that sort of thing what makes us different to E ham.
One can hold his own theories but not by attempting to deride those
whose
theories differs. There must be room for differences in thought amoung
reasonable men or advancement in science is squashed and adherence
to written theories could last for ever. A moderator can ensure that
present theories remain sacrosant if that is what members desires!
Art

Yer preachin' to the choir.

There is more than enough to "prove" there are errors/holes in our
present knowledge--well, IMHO, at least. No one is suggesting we just
"throw it all away" ... I don't think I am alone--some just remain
silent to escape the stones and arrows.

I have many more questions than answers, but don't we all? Be
interesting in coming back in a hundred years and viewing "em
radiation"/antenna theory at that time.

You just don't take well to bein' "poked with a stick!" ;-)

Regards,
JS