[TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 35, Issue 6

[Dudley Chapman]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dudley Chapman [mailto:chief at thechief.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:34 PM
>To: towertalk at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
>
>>Message: 8
>>Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:16:44 +0100
>>From: Jan Erik Holm <sm2ekm at telia.com>
>>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] CFA
>>Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
>>Message-ID: <4367084C.5010508 at telia.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>
>>Is this for real or am I dreaming?
>>
>>/SM2EKM
>>-------
>>
>>John Adkins wrote:
>>
>>> If you're interested in Crossed Field Antennas as well as advanced
>>physics, check out this site:
>>>
>>> http://www.crossedfieldantenna.com/
>>>
>>
>
>Jan,
>     Its real like Cold Fusion and Intelligent Design is real.  Only in
>Area
>51.  But it sure is fun to have it around.
>
>Dudley - WA1X
>
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:59:39 -0500
>From: "Wolfert, William R." <WWolfert at columbuspolice.org>
>Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 35, Issue 1
>To: "'towertalk at contesting.com'" <towertalk at contesting.com>
>Message-ID:
>	<66D81EF8D306604BACDEBF5C757AD8196E423E at police10.columbuspolice.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>Dudly
>
>I don't believe that TT is the place to state your personal Theological
>treatise and in so doing, stomping firmly on the toes of those that may not
>agree with you.
>
>73's
>Bill WR8K
>



Bill,
   I offer my apologies, but I meant nothing theological in my comment.  The
three ideas mentioned have been offered by their proponents as scientific
hypotheses with one or more very unconventional assertions.  I do know that
some people promote CFAs, EHs, and other PVS antennas with a kind of
religious zeal, but that is not what I was getting at.  It's their science
that is at issue, not their promotional techniques.

   I for one have an emotional stake seeing all three of them (PVS, CF, ID)
succeed.  (For example, I still have my homebrew CFA in the basement, hoping
that someday I can use it for 160m mobile). Although my emotional support
keeps me interested in them, that doesn't help these theories compete in the
free marketplace of scientific pursuit.  They will have to stand on their
own merit over the test of time and independent verification.

   Presently, while these theories continue to have no predictive utility,
they are by definition relegated to the Area 51 of science.  This is because
predictive utility (regarding material events) is the only criteria science
can use to judge a theory.  It is the independently repeatable demonstration
of this that moves a theory from science fiction to science "fact".

   When one of them starts showing predictive utility, suddenly their
unconventional science will be declared conventional and we will stop being
hopeful or amused and we will start signing up for jobs in that field.

Regards,
Dudley - WA1X (Not afraid to say I still have my CFA in my basement.)