I apologize if it sounded like my analysis was original. I had assumed,
apparently mistakenly, that readers realized it was simply a statement
of very well known principles, and had no intention whatsoever to claim
or imply originality. I did mention in a followup posting that a similar
analysis can be found in many texts.

Please amend my posting from:

"I agree entirely, and it follows from my analysis and my conclusion."

to

"I agree entirely, and it follows from the analysis and conclusion I
posted."

I do take credit for posting it on this newsgroup, something neither Reg
nor anyone else has, to my knowledge, taken the trouble to do.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Reg Edwards wrote:
Roy Sez -

That's fine. I agree entirely, and it follows from my analysis and my
conclusion. A similar analysis can be found in many texts. My offering
to provide a large number of references has brought forth no interest
from the most vocal participants, and they've also showed a lack of
willingness to work through the simple math themselves. So I felt that
it might be a good idea to post the derivation before more converts are
made to this religion of proof-by-gut-feel-and-flawed-logic.


===============================

YOUR analysis !

Oliver Heaviside worked it all out 120 years back.
. . .