<html> <body> Michael W- Thanks for the input and background, as well as the link to additional information.  I think the point I made in my (next to) last post remains.  What (some) technicians are looking for, I think, are both a collection of exhaustive data, which, if necessary, is interpreted sufficiently to be understood by reasonably intelligent reader, along with a thorough discussion of the physical phenomena generating the data.  Without that, we remain in the realm of subjective (albeit collective) observation and speculation. I don't, in any way, mean to dismiss the claims made by you(s) or the observations reported by many, nor even to assume an aggressively skeptical posture,  but I don't think it's fair, or reasonable to expect a community that has, at its heart, a strong scientific orientation, (can we still say 'orientation?) to suspend its methodological criteria. The single variable! Again, I look forward, both, to the "Birkett" process, as well as an opportunity I can avail myself of, to see the product and process.  Brandon is not a possibility for me. Nevertheless, I hope it goes well. Lastly, I hope your students appreciate you.  You seem to be quite a dedicated teacher. Best regards - David Skolnik </body> </html>