Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [195.171.43.25]) by mtain-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (Internet Inbound) with ESMTP id ADC893800009C; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:38:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1QvZMl-0004Ou-Sa for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:36:55 +0100 Received: from [195.171.43.32] (helo=relay1.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1QvZMl-0004Ol-EK for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:36:55 +0100 Received: from imr-ma03.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.41]) by relay1.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1QvZMi-0004jH-ST for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:36:55 +0100 Received: from mtaout-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaout-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.132]) by imr-ma03.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p7MIanjF027839 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:36:49 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.68] (host-92-6-229-92.as43234.net [92.6.229.92]) by mtaout-da04.r1000.mx.aol.com (MUA/Third Party Client Interface) with ESMTPA id 401DFE0000BF for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:36:49 -0400 (EDT) From: g4gvw To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: References: <16BC8B3CA8672445BC2A29B4C14A26D4379ED2AAB4@exlnmb01.eur.nsroot.net> <4DF9EFD1.5010208@iup.uni-heidelberg.de> <1313780109.51443.YahooMailNeo@web111907.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <9CD1E11E8BC9402CB4AECECAC4088443@JimPC> <00f801cc6004$c2282bd0$1502a8c0@Clemens04> <004801cc6055$87313f20$4001a8c0@lark> <1313971196.2595.7.camel@pat-compaq-evo> <035601cc6065$67f3dc20$66a5fe04@ctrask> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:19:26 +0100 Message-ID: <1314037166.4319.12.camel@pat-compaq-evo> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:342899584:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,none Subject: Re: LF: Re: Re: Ferrite wideband antennas? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:377421376:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d60174e52a2161917 X-AOL-IP: 195.171.43.25 X-AOL-SPF: domain : blacksheep.org SPF : none Hi John, I agree in principle with your opening paragraph. However, I do believe it is irresponsible and perhaps reprehensible tp publish without qualified peer review a paper making such strong claims. My own position is that I will await the opinion of an independant qualified referee. As things stand, I worry about people who claim a "new version of physics". They are too often "purveyors of snake oil (swr grease)" 73 On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:48 +0200, John Rabson wrote: > From an engineering point of view, a scientific theory does not have to be true. It just has to be useful. That is, it enables us to build something to meet our needs and for an acceptable cost. > > For the FSL antenna to be taken seriously, we need one or more examples of successful implementations, preferably combined with a set of formulae from which we can construct devices to meet our requirements. > > The same applies (by the way) to the Cross Field Antenna. I have read the patent specification and I cannot see from that how to build something for 137 kHz, even though the inventor assured me it could be done. > > John F5VLF -- 73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw qth nr felixstowe uk (east coast, county of suffolk)