So you agree it was bad reporting...?
So arent we in agreement now?
I posted the information about what makes this technique interesting, and so useful and gave some of the concepts behind it above- In the original article linked to none of that was explained... Therefore it led to ER's confusion about the 1/r^2 power law, and my confusion over a 1/r^3 power law due to assuming non-resonant induction. The reporting was vague and didnt give sufficient information- so it was poor reporting, a position you now- after many outraged posts- seem to agree with...
Is there a point?
