On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:44:33 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

That means the Bird's readings of "watts" cannot be called as evidence
in the debate. Any argument based on doing so is doomed to be circular.
It *may* still be correct, but that cannot be proved through a circular
argument - you have to find some other way.

Hi Ian,

You have simply invalidated any method to prove the debate. In a
sense, yours is an appeal that nothing can be known and hence nothing
can be proven.

Yes, I know this may be "inflammatory," but I would counter: give me
one method of determining power that does not eventually appeal to
circular definitions.

This, of course, comes at the risk of starting yet another endless
round - pun deliberate.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC