Peter Detchon wrote:
> I have been following this thread with a degree of amusement until now. I must confess some opinions expressed by "experts" that I
> previously held in high regard have prompted me to stop smiling. Have you all gone raving mad? Have you actually looked at combs
> and foundation, and if so considered the possibility that you are looking for an optical illusion? There is no middle comb that
> differs from all the others!! Murray McGregor is absolutely right

My apologies to Murray if I overstated his case, even though I agree
with Peter. I have looked at some feral comb and cannot find what Housel
found. Instead, it goes all over the place with little regularity and
does not even stay on a horizontal line much less a vertical one. Even
when I searched for some sort of center, it was not there. But maybe I
am not seeing what I should be looking for.

I have come to the conclusion that this whole thing is a moving target.
My guess is it was discussed elsewhere and those who discussed it did so
for a while and understand it. They are the ones who are correcting the
assumptions made by those of us not privy to those discussions. So can
we have a simple explanation of just what it is and what is gained from it?

Currently, it seems that all that there is to Housel positioning is a
center rib or transition cell and a mirror on both sides of this
rib?cell, and that this is the natural state of all combs. OK so far?

We then take these combs and insure the orientation is the same between
frames so that the natural state and orientation is preserved? OK so far?

I have no idea what the orientation is or how it is maintained and why
it is needed. Thought I did. Need more Y's and A's and clarification.

Anything more?

Bill Truesdell (thinking the wizard is still behind the curtain)
Bath, Maine.