cavelamb himself wrote:

Well, better anyway,
G

We can't judge this part right or wrong without putting numbers on it.

We made the most common error in discussion. We didn't specify what we were
exactly talking about. So everyone had his own picture in his head and
defended it. :-)

Furthermore, each field (be it planes or machines or whatever) has his
tradition in how to look at things and what they want to avoid or achieve
under all circumstances. The classical math to solve those problems always
needs some simplifications and so we should have agreed upon that in the
beginning.

Anyhow, interesting discussion with something to learn from!
Better than ... oh you know! ;-)

Nick
--
The lowcost-DRO:
http://www.yadro.de