Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
If your ideas cannot make the physics and engineering approaches agree,
it means that your ideas are wrong.

If you believe physicists and engineers agree on everything, you are
living in never-never land. It's difficult to find two physicists
who agree on everything - or two engineers. Witness the arguments
on this newsgroup.

Ian, there are 13 definitions of "efficiency" in the IEEE Dictionary,
each associated with a different engineering discipline. And that's
not counting the definitions of "efficiency" that exist in the
world of pure physics. Anyone who thinks a word has one and only
one definition that everyone agrees upon and encompasses all subjects
and all fields is clearly out of touch with reality.

For instance, I point to the definition of "power" in the IEEE
dictionary. Some posters on this newsgroup disagree with that definition
and that's from people who had the same textbook as I did in college.
Since that's the case, then of course, some of the ideas of engineering
and physics will disagree. "Power" for a power engineer working at a
power generating plant measuring megajoules/sec in a transmission line
simply does not have the same definition as "power" for a physics professor.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp