On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:59:21 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Why do you think only you study boundary conditions...?

I have to think about that question for a while. At the risk of
translation problems,
1. I don't think only boundary conditions;
2. I don't think I am the only one who studies boundary conditions;
3. Boundary conditions are not incorrect solutions.

it is the more
conventional form to treat the issue of reflections! All this speech
to refute accelerated electrolite charges radiation?

Were you looking for an answer that refutes electrolite charges
radiation? Are YOU refuting electrolite charges radiation? Are
electrolite charges radiation the only solution? Is there radiation
if there are no electrolite charges? [You have already skipped past
dielectric lensing which refracts radiation too.]

Do better shows
to us why a ion vibrating due an electric field it is incapable to
radiate EM energy.

Why?

Better yet, shows us that you has replicated the
paper's experiment and has got nil results.

Why does it have to be nil?

Until today we have only
scholastic rationalizations, not "bench work".
You said: "well... it is not so good as copper conductor, then it is
no good for me",

I really said that? Looks like a bad translation with extra editing.
Maybe if you use my original post with cut-and-paste.

that is not science! that is only your tastes :P

"Mismatch" it is another magic word
Is this scientific?

You
do not want study or analize technical possibilities with your ham
fellows, you like quarreling!,

Hmmm, your argument sounds like conservative pleas. Look at second
quote above: "more conventional." I introduce another analytical
perspective and you appeal to old books reciting stale material:

hi hi, Be a good boy, dust off your
undergraduated Resnick and see Compton thinkings

Moldy too.

Your question that I long ago responded to was:
what other classical process could explain the EM earth reflection?
and you are very disappointed that I did not boringly repeat the SAME
dusty classical process!

Why did you ask?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC