[Amps] 10dB and propagation

[David Kirkby]

K3BU at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 2/6/2005 11:12:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>david.kirkby at onetel.net writes:
>
>  
>
>>>Yet refraction of radio waves was understood well before 1980 when you 
>>>      
>>>
>wrote that. A Quick look at 'Cornell University's School of Electrical 
>Engineering Publications'<<
>
>I do not claim to "inventing" refraction. 
>
Well the title ( Electromagnetic wave propagation by conduction - an 
**innovative** theory based on Fiber Optic Analogy), suggests some 
innovation. One of the subtitles 'A New Theory' suggests there is 
something new.

Why use the word 'innovative'? I'd like to know what is innovative about 
radio wave refraction, when it was known decades before. And as I said 
in my previous email (but you failed to comment on), your understanding 
of fiber optics was wrong too. To make an anology to something you did 
not understand seems a poor analogy.

Your article says radio waves don't propagate by reflection, introduces 
the concept of refraction and fails to reference a single publication on 
refraction of radio waves.

>What I was trying to convey (with 
>my rough English) that there is perhaps more refracting - ducting going on than 
>just reflecting. 
>
I don't think the word 'innovative' is 'rough English' but a carefully 
chosen word to make the article appear far more interesting than it 
actually was. (A common thing done in professional publications it must 
be said.)

>Most if not all books at that time were showing way out of 
>proportion drawings of globe and ionospheric layers (too high) and "nice" 
>bouncy signals. Hardly any mention of ducting on HF.
>
So why not be honest and write something like:

"Despite many books (ref 1, 2, 3) showing radio waves reflecting from 
the ionosphere, this is an over simplificication. As long ago as 19xx, 
(reference 4)  Dr. X showed they bent due to refraction, and numerous 
others (references 5-9) since have shown this since. This concept is not 
however widely known to radio hams, so this article will introduce it to 
the amateur radio community"

That would have been honest and more accurate. What you wrote was neither.

>After the article was published I got bombarded by mails, some saying that I 
>am nuts (it ain't so) 
>
You could have reduced considerably in number (perhaps to zero) the 
people claiming you were nuts had you taken the trouble to properly 
reference a few pieces of published work on refraction of radio waves.

>and some that this is nothing new. 
>
You would have eliminated *completely* these mails (people saying refraction is nothing new) by not proclaiming it was.

>I guess depends who 
>and how they look and interpret it.
>
When you write a load of rubbish (as you did), what do you expect?? 

You have replied to the first part of my message, but not the other part I wrote about your claims in that CQ article on optical fibres. Again, you had your facts wrong. 

Had your previous work shown you to be a good scientist, then I would perhaps give a little more credibility to your current thesis on non-linear propagation. But you seem quite keen to appear as an authority on things you know very little about. 

Sorry, I guess I'm one English ham who will not be on your Christmas card list !!!

-- 
Dr. David Kirkby,
G8WRB

Please check out http://www.g8wrb.org/ 
of if you live in Essex http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/