Gee, Reg, if all references had to be by someone you've heard of, we'd
be pretty much restricted to Heaviside and Edwards.

The purpose was to let people know that there's a derivation which looks
to me to be rigorous and which comes to an interesting conclusion -- the
same conclusion I reached some time ago with my own analysis, in fact.

A valid analysis is a valid analysis regardless of who did it. But for
anyone who is interested, Magid taught at M.I.T. and Brooklyn
Polytechnic Institute. In the introduction, the author states:

"I wish to express my profound indebtedness and thanks to Professors
Richard B. Adler, Lan Jen Chu, and Robert M. Fano of the Electrical
Engineering Department of M.I.T., both for their continued support and
encouragement in this project and for their and their present
publisher's (The M.I.T. Press) permission to draw freely on many of
their concepts, ideas, and even, in a few cases, some well-chosen words
from their abovementioned textbooks. I owe a special debt of gratitude
to Professor Chu for the innumerable hours that he unselfishly devoted
to assisting me in organizing this book."

I know this is meaningless to you, Reg, since you undoubtedly haven't
heard of any of those professors, either, let alone read any of their
classic papers. Perhaps you haven't heard of M.I.T., either, or at least
disdain it due to its location on the wrong side of the Atlantic. That's
fine. Thankfully, good engineering will continue to get done without
your approval. If you're interested only in analyses by people you've
heard of, that's fine. It's obviously a very short list, so you'll be
able to continue to reject just about anything out of hand.

Seeing something written certainly doesn't make it so. But seeing it in
a text that's undergone considerable scrutiny by very knowledgeable
people makes it worthy, to me, of careful consideration. Certainly it
deserves a lot more respect than off-hand comments from people with
little constructive or rational to offer. And certainly a lot more than
conclusions stated with great fan-fare and authority but not backed up
by any development or evidence.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Reg Edwards wrote:

The question asked was -

"How do you know that Magid has the most rigorous derivation of . . . . . .
".

Of what the derivation was was of no consequence. It was a matter of
judgement of Magid's (or anybody else's) qualifications and authority. What
was the purpose of referring to somebody hardly anybody has ever heard of?
---
Reg.