 |
 |
On Mon 03 Mar, Dennis Greene wrote: > Brian, > > Now I seem to have annoyed you. Could we be taking > this to seriously, it is only PD. >Hello Dennis ME? Annoyed?? Never ! I am sorry if I seem to have been hounding you with endless questions, but it bothered me that I couldn't even understand where you were coming from, which meant that I couldn't explain to you why I thought you were wrong (If, that is, you were wrong) Let's see if I have got it now: When you referred to the'slowing down', you were just meaning the way that you lose half the original quantity in the first timed period, but you only lose a quarter of the original amount in the second period, then an eighth and so on. I think that from that concept, you visualised a situation which I can best describe as a column of soldiers marching in single file, setting off at equal intervals, and then the leaders start to slow down so that at some point they all collide in a big heap, which is where the dyskinesias start. If I have finally understood your idea, I can now tell you (as gently as I can), where the flaw is in your vision: The overriding fact which you have to keep firmly in mind is that at the end of the first timed period, half the soldiers have disappeared. so the space between each soldier actually increases. In the next timed period half of the remaining disappear also, so the space between the soldiers increases again. So, eventually there are no soldiers left at all, and you will see that there was never the slightest chance of a pile-up occuring. Are we all clear now? Regards -- Brian Collins <[log in to unmask]>