On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:51:03 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

This is what I mean by no argument being put forth to dispute what has
been offered. In fact every computation offered flows from the math
offered by ANY academic text. I even name the math used, and then use
it. In fact, I have lead the way by offering every cogent formula
needed to discuss this matter.

Well, to be blunt I believe you may perhaps be overestimating the
significance of your contributions on this subject, Richard.

Hi Jim,

Well, being blunt offers no more argument than previous statements of
prejudice. And the point of the matter is I've observed no one here
offer any math in advance of my presentation. If this is
overestimating any significance, it certainly puts everything else in
the shade.

I see no dispute in the assignment of indices of reflection. I see no
dispute in the computation of reflections. I see no dispute in the
balance of energy at each interface. And I am speaking of
quantitative results, not presumptions.

I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right.

And yet and all, you have nothing at your fingertips:

A dispute over indices of refraction? Nada.

A dispute over reflection? Nada.

A dispute over balanced energy equations? Nada.

All rather first principles and central to the discussion. It takes
very little effort to unscramble a half page of text if I've so messed
it up; but I am content to see you are aligned with Cecil's argument
and to watch where that leads. :-)

It could lead to another fruitful 4 years of

debate?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC