Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:44:33 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

That means the Bird's readings of "watts" cannot be called as evidence
in the debate. Any argument based on doing so is doomed to be circular.
It *may* still be correct, but that cannot be proved through a circular
argument - you have to find some other way.

Hi Ian,

You have simply invalidated any method to prove the debate. In a
sense, yours is an appeal that nothing can be known and hence nothing
can be proven.

Utter rubbish. I am simply saying that you cannot prove something if you
already assumed it as part of the "proof".

you have to find some other way.

That's all.


Yes, I know this may be "inflammatory," but I would counter: give me
one method of determining power that does not eventually appeal to
circular definitions.

Certainly. A thermal wattmeter determines the power delivered into a
load resistor without making any assumptions about how and why it got
there. It only involves measurements of mass, time and temperature rise,
and a knowledge of specific heat capacity, so it is completely
independent of any assumptions related to RF transmission line theory.



--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek