On 1 Dec, 08:57, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 08:16:52 -0800 (PST), art
wrote:

My hope is that he
stays around longer than Dr Davis did in the face of
incessant hand waving, stone throwing and without substance.

Hi Art,

Your selective memory is in overdrive with this posting, you have
conveniently forgotten the contention of his embarrassing error in
misattribution. What you write following, similarly reveals errors
your mind's sieve fails to sift out.

Let's put two firmly held (and "mathematically proven") beliefs
together:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:29:31 -0600, Cecil Moore wrote:
I am suspicious of anyone's motives who says he believes in
an impossible 3 nS delay through a huge loading coil
and
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 00:23:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
The "delayed" current travels through the 53 foot coil from end to end in
1.615m/3*10E8 m/s = 5.4 nsec

This is the supportive evidence YOU explicitly accept!

As yet there has been nothing presented to refute the
mathematical explanation provided that supports Cecil's
position.

Oh for shame Arthur! You don't actually read content, but clearly
your mantra is the "enemy of my foe is my ally." This philosophical
bedwarming should have you wondering who gets to be on top.

Dan's math refutes Cecil's. The comedy is that even though they have
independently made different errors, come to separate and different
solutions with nearly identical conclusions, they both "prove" the
same thing mathemagically. You, on the other hand, manage to do the
math wrong two different ways to prove things too! So in that sense
they are kindred spirits, unfortunately, in a nest of three, two would
roll the third out as soon as momma left for more worms.

This is not a math problem.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

O.k.Now you have that off your chest the way is clear for you to point
out the errors and what is needed to correct them.It is substance
that the group craves for in this debate and you are just unravelling
in the corner to justify a reason for you to be involved tho having
nothing to offer. For goodness sake, respond to Dan and stop talking
about three men in a bed which apparently tittilates your imagination.