On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:43:19 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:
Sorry, as so often happens I missed your point entirely. If you're
interested in having me understand what "circularity" you mean, you'll
have to be more blunt and pedestrian so I'm able to understand it.

Hi Roy,

You consistently demur expertise in English, and you are equally
troubled in Blunt, but the plea for help cannot go unanswered.

Let's see, we have a premise that the ground conductivity was
concocted from formula for the BL&E paper. If we proceed along the
lines this is true, then we immediately are faced with the conundrum:
ground quality of a field in New Jersey in the wintertime.

How was this determination made? When was this determination made?
What was the determination made? Oh well, all such quantitative
discussion is missing so the statement appears to have as much basis
as a guess, but we are faced with the complaint holding Reggie to a
higher standard:
Your program fails badly with any reasonable ground conductivity and
permittivity.
compared to what determination? Where? of What? by Whom?

This appears to be a war of wills between the best guessing software.

Can we presume the answers lie with:
Brown, Lewis, and Epstein did a good and careful job of measurement.
which, by the leading hypothesis contains no measure of conductivity?

So the objection to Reggie's software not conforming to results
offered by NEC-4 is proven by:
NEC-4 does pretty well with reasonable assumptions for the
ground quality of a field in New Jersey in the wintertime.
a strained appeal through BL&E,
NEC-4 matches their results quite well
which, by the leading hypothesis contains no measure of conductivity.
Which from FCC charts would suggest it to be uniformly dismal.

I've seen no discussion of actual quantifiable results against these
claims offered, so there is every chance that they are pinned together
by the evident circularity:

1. There has been no measurement of ground conductivity by BL&E
2. Reggies model for ground conductivity counters NEC-4
3. NEC-4's model for ground conductivity conforms to BL&E
4. There has been no measurement of ground conductivity by BL&E

I would like to see:
Your program fails badly with any reasonable ground conductivity and permittivity.
supported by something other than appeals to dead white engineers -
Reggie has a patent on that method already.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC