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)