On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:31:31 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:
If you'll read back, you'll find that the descriptions you've provided
of your model are far less than effusive and illuminating.

Hi Jim,

Is that the standard we now measure by? The data is not going to
change and its repetition is not necessary. Do you have something new
to point out?

You spoke of symmetries and lost power without mention of their nature.

I left speculation to others and you stepped up to the podium.

So I mentioned their nature. It should have been obvious, but
you hadn't even alluded to a possible explanation for this "lost power".

Again, this was already offered by me - I may have made a mistake. As
of yet, no one seems interested in pursuing that. Other explanations
would hardly qualify as such, they would be speculations as I've said
and given there is no competing model supporting those speculations -
well, the adage that talk is cheap has had the price slashed by
posting is cheaper.

BTW, single sources

Demonstrate a single source that offers an inward radiating circular
field. I can anticipate you might be tempted to suggest the
multiplicity of sources accruing from the big bang, but then that
would violate your premise:

do not produce interference patterns

As I've suggested, all it takes is a positive model supporting a
negation of my results.

However, let's just cut to the chase in that you are clearly disturbed
by this "interference pattern" that the tool so clearly reveals.

I don't find interference to be disturbing. I'm simply pointing out
that we shouldn't expect textbook results from antennas that are
positioned amidst interfering sources.

Well, then it descends to a population of one disturbed correspondent,
and Roy has yet to resolve his conflict. Your last observation must
emphasize it if we cannot expect a modeler to provide textbook
results.

So, as it stands I see that no one has a competing model and the data
remains an enigma to most.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC