On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:40:46 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Hi Roy,

But here's what you've said, and with which I disagree

What appears to be the only content you disagree with:

There are too many contra-examples too sustain your point. What you
are talking about is radiation, this does not account for common
induction that occurs on the very short scales I've offered.

And:

Richard's applications and illustrations do not push this boundary. In
fact, Ramo et. al distinctly offer the case of "electrostatic
shielding" and clearly support the separation of magnetic and electric
flux (fields). . .

We never actually get to what it is that is disagreeable do we? This
is merely the window dressing for backing into an oblique translation:

Am I mistaken, then?

Who can tell but you? It is, after all, your statement that you
disagree. We can only guess.

Were you agreeing all along that a time-varying
electric or magnetic field can't exist independently and therefore there
can't be completely inductive (H field) or capacitive (E field) coupling?
A 30 word speech dressed as a question is not clear writting. :-)

Agreeing all along?
No, I am never in the habit of agreeing all along.

A time-varying electric or magnetic field can't exist
independently?
Fields in free space are intimately joined and inseparable.

There can't be completely inductive (H field) or capacitive (E
field) coupling?
If I am not mistaken, this is the same question again. Do you in fact
see any difference between the two that merits the boolean AND?

Should I anticipate other philosophical questions such as
Are you agreeing all along about conductivity and Ohm's law?
Let me shock you and say NO so as to not deflate others' anticipation.
I bet they will know how to pin me down. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC