On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 15:05:51 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

My only purpose is to show my own work and confirm it agrees.

Hi Dan,

Well, it certainly stumbled off the blocks. Math errors are given to
providing poor support for something that already invites disaster for
simply being logically inconsistent.

My agreeing is hardly of consequence, and I don't see it as
validating/invalidating the complete discussion of the technical
issue.

But your DISagreement is of consequence. That is your own point.

Again this is confirmatory bias. You didn't ask what my point was. I
am perfectly capable of speaking/writing for myself, and I respond
readily when asked directly. I now point out for the third time,
embroidering statements as being my thoughts on a matter doesn't
really qualify.

A practical measurement that has current moving at 3*10E9m/sec, which on the
surface may seem reasonable until you realize it is 10 times the speed of
light.

Aside from the probability of another math error nested into the space
of the sentence above; it also presumes a lot of other, unstated
conditions that are arguable.

I say "probable" because you introduce with the indefinite "a
practical measurement." instead of the definite "the practical
measurement." We might presume this measurement (indefinite or
otherwise) alludes to one already performed, but even there there are
two contenders - neither of whom I trust to report it right because
they both generally fail to provide a complete system specification.
Your statement above, and others, suffers similarly.

That is my point and it does not resolve any issue put forth by either
camp. So What! It is not my dog in this fight.

To put it bluntly, it isn't a math problem.

All problems that are not emotional in nature are math problems. I chose not
to deal with this issue emotionally.

Your choice does not really illuminate the problem, and math merely
cloaks it with a veil of intellectual lace. First principles does not
demand a dozen lines of bookkeeping entry.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC