Message-ID: <382DDF7C.2A629874@bellatlantic.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 17:00:28 -0500
From: "Andre' Kesteloot" <akestelo@bellatlantic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Cc: "AMRAD Tacos" <tacos@amrad.org>
Subject: LF: RE: CFA
References: <1999111321053268199@zetnet.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

Peter Dodd G3LDO wrote:

> [...] Secondly, the latest on the CFA antenna.
> The latest 'analysis' of this antenna was no more than more guessing.
> Academics are worse in this respect. We get bamboozelled  by Curl,
> Div and Poynting Vectors while in the real world radio amateurs are
> making 136kHz QSOs over 1500km from postage stamp QTHs.

The way I perceive the situation, some people are becoming upset because a new
approach (unfortunately labeled "revolutionary") does not match the theories we
have all learned.

Any theory should continually be challenged because it is, after all, only a
metaphor for the real thing.

IMHO, I think it would be wise to wait until the Isle of Man transmitter is tested.

This won't be in a remote place such as Tanta in Egypt, but in Europe, where we
will know the power generated, the condition of the soil, and will be able to
perform repeated field-strength measurements, etc.

Then, either of two things will then happen:
a) either it won't work or
b) it will work.
In the first case, the CFA will disappear in the sunset.
In the second case, we will have to revise our beloved theories... (which may be
painful for some)
In any case, I would recommend we take it easy, and give a chance to those guys to
try and demonstrate the validity of  their approach.

73
Andre'  N4ICK