On 5 Mar, 09:59, Roy Lewallen wrote:
snip

Anyone who claims to have discovered principles which are beyond those
incorporated in current programs has a heavy burden of proof to bear.
The principle that I have discovered is not in a book but if a program
is made up of proven facts of the masters proves one thing that is not
ably checked by other programs based on the same facts then humasn
intervention
is the problem and not the principles of the masters. If one deduces
an area that the masters have neglected to expand and a computor
The very first hurdle to overcome in order to gain any semblance of
credibility is comparison of carefully and professionally measured data
with results from a carefully and professionally created model. If the
differences truly are unexplainable by known deficiencies, then further
investigation is surely warranted. Vague claims, speculations, and
arm-waving with a total lack of any quantitative data are far short of
what is needed to gain the attention of anyone who has seen, over and
over, the successful results these programs routinely provide.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Computor programs made by professionals do not agree with each other
so there is a problem. Who would use a digital calculator with
confidence when all calculators are only roughly accurate.
As far as "vague claims" professional programs of today validate my
"speculative" claims. it does not threaten anything of yours since
yours are just number crunchers for pre made designs and even then
they are not totally accurate.
Nobody but nobody has invalidated my expansion of the law of statics.
Nobody.Didn't the same thing happen to all the masters at one time or
another.
Art
art
Now it is your turn to wave the hands again