On Mar 22, 2:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:

As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

What fraction of the ham population is on r.r.a.a. do you think?

On Mar 21, 10:19*pm, Bill wrote:
On Mar 22, 2:25*am, Art Unwin wrote:



As I run through some other physics books I see situations that abound
where a static field is made dynamic! It just doesn't make sense that
hams who consider themselves as experts with respect to antennas can
now suddenly declare that it is now deemed illegal
I suppose with respect to free speech one can say anything if they do
not care about their credability of being an expert.This is not just a
single ham but the majority of the hams
commenting on this group. If a poll is taken then hams have proved
them selves to be in the right and truly expert.

What fraction of the ham population is on r.r.a.a. do you think?

Odd question but I will respond to prevent bad thoughts.
For this group this discusion has lasted several years and only two
agree that the theory is worth reviewing. On qrz there have been two
threads which has in the order of 8000 + views including a posting by
Tom W8 TI which pleased me as he always follows up with a full
analysis that destroys various claimes put forward. This time he has
failed to place his resonings in writing so basically he is agreeing
with other hams that it is a fraud. Nobody on QRZ expressed any
confidence in my theory and again nobody provided anything to back up
the opinion of fraud. If one went by poll within the amateur group
there would be rousing agreement that it all is a fraud both in
thought and action. If one was judged in terms of debate then it is
two to zero as they were the only ones to express "why" it was worth
consideration. So If hams are the experts they think they are they do
not have to prove their competance and just go by the polls.
As an aside Jeffries who is the antenna adviser for a U.S.magazine
stated that static had no part in ac or dc circuits. I believe he is a
professor or teacher at a university in Sussex U.K. having held
similar positions in the U.S.
I believe that the above answers are the truth as I see it and what
you asked for.
Kotar has been the most critical and I leave it for you to review the
archives for his postings explaining his position which appears to be
par for the course on this newsgroup.
Regards
Art
Regards
Art