Re: NEC-LIST: Re: Request to mailing list NEC-List rejected

Craig--

Welcome to the club. I've dealt with such non-objective actions now for
years. And don't blame Dr. Collin for it: the editor , refs, and board
decide. Its just the rough and tumble of this field Craig, antenna
engineering's dirty little secret. Deal with it and deal them out--IF you
have the truth on your side.

Ultimately there are two issues: 1) can you show something REAL from your
work; and 2) can you prevent (or correct) certain individuals--what Kuhn
would call field leaders--from belittling your contribution and/or taking it
away from you and/or saying they did it instead. (The price for the latter,
BTW, is very high in our modern era of instant communication; its a real
mistake for a 'guru' to not be forthcoming.)

I can certainly help you with the second, but golly Craig, at least show us
the first. Is there an impediment to building the antenna? What engineering
effort does it take? Can you,kindly, briefly, summarize the efforts to date?

Also, why do you think that atomic radiation-- such as emission and
absorption lines-- processes are efficient? They are high Q and very
inefficient. It doesn't build credibility to appeal to a 'hook of nature'
which actually goes against your premise.

So, again, is there an antenna and if not, why not (so far)? You''ve got a
critical but objective audience here and we certainly are
interested--especially if you have a NEC model:-)!

With Best wishes,

Chip N1IR
aka Nathan Cohen

-- 
The NEC-List mailing list <nec-list_at_gweep.ca>
http://www.gweep.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nec-list