On 6/6/2010 1:26 PM, Art Unwin wrote:

The important point that I put forward is that the program is based
around Maxwells formula. In the engineering world this is factual. If
something deviates from Maxwells laws you cannot say 'don't go there'
and you cannot overthrow what the program provides and at the same
time when it is in accordance with Maxwells laws. To follow that path
is to over throw Maxwell to reinforce your own will. That is not
science.
This approach overthrows fact for success in favor of the present
approach on this group that is based on perceived probabilities that
all other competing theories are based upon.
I continue to use my program and let all the chips fall where they
may. So far, and I have a long way to go, is that skin depth minimises
as current flow
moves out of the metallic member and closer to encapsulating particles
provided by the Gaussian equation. There is no reason to put a halt to
this work until it is proven that the program deviates from Maxwells
equations and thus is fraudulent.
I and nobody else, has pointed at any specific point of my work that
specifically states that my approach is in error based on known
boundary rules and classical physics. All assaults have been based
purely on opinion, mostly in a derogatory way to preserve resistance
to change rather than the path of better understanding.

And people have pointed out gaping holes (monstrously large errors) in
the nonsense you proclaim on a daily basis. You just refuse to
acknowledge it.

Time for the rubber room again for a while.

tom
K0TAR