7/23/03No one has yet put forward any reasons for thinking that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR. I am perfectly happy to take a look at any data that anyone has to put forward on this question. I am not able to add anything to what I have already said until someone puts forward some data on why they are so certain that the 4 percent number is not the average SWR.
hocus, have you actually read any of the original studies?
7/19
I read the intercst study when I first came to the TMF board in 1999. I haven't read any others since.
If you can't be bothered to read the studies yourself, how can you make these magnificent pronouncements on what they contain.
You don't need to read the studies to gain a good sense of how the methodology works. I don't understand the details of how these things are put together. I couldn't put one together myself if you offfered me $1 million to do so. But I think I have a good sense of how the conventional methodology works in a conceptual sense. All of my claims are rooted in a belief that the concepts being applied are wrongheaded, not that some particular researcher got a detail wrong here or there.
7/23/03
Comprehension:
7/21/03What the conventional analysis tells you, I believe, is the average SWR over a long period of time. If you properly calculated all the SWRs for each of the past 100 years, added them together, and then divideded by 100, I believe that the number you would get would be something close to 4. I guess it's good to know that number. But that number is not the SWR as defiined for purposes of SWR analysis.
A misunderstanding of historical swr analysis so complete that it is a thing a beauty.