"Reg Edwards"
When I say my program correctly predicts a field strength of 300
millivolts per metre at a distance of 1 Km from a 1 Kw transmitter,
nobody can disprove it. Even the 'bibles' state it as a matter of
fact. But we all know how much faith can be placed in 'bibles'.

To be of use, all measurements should be associated with an
uncertainty. Only then can the originators be judged to understand
what they are waffling about.
______________

Interesting point of view, Reg.

The correct application of physical laws disproves your contention, and the
equations that do it are not difficult. Here they a

E = SQRT(49.2*P)/D

where E = Peak inverse (free-space) field from a self-resonant,
1/2-wave dipole (volts/meter)
D = Distance (meters)

As radiation from a vertical antenna with its base at ground level is
confined to one hemisphere, field strength at that distance over a perfect,
infinite, flat "ground" plane is E * SQRT(2).

This generates the value of the maximum possible field from a perfect
1/4-wave vertical radiator over a perfect ground plane, which has been
proven and used for many decades in the broadcast industry. This is the
groundwave field that then is subject to various propagation losses related
to earth conductivity, diffraction etc over long paths, once the radiation
has been launched. N.B. -- at a distance of 1 km, such losses are
negligible for the typical broadcast vertical with its 120 buried radials,
regardless of ground conductivity.

Why not use the formulae in your program that actually generates the correct
value, instead of just saying it does, or implying that your approach is
"good enough?"

RF