On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 09:58:25 -0700, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
It is more than evident that your "objections" are inventions of your
own construction.

Perhaps you missed Keith's assertion that he believes in voltage
waves but not in power waves, thus implying that voltage waves are
not associated with (E x H) power.

You did not respond to your refutation of your own source, ...

Chipman's assertion of voltage doesn't imply that he doesn't believe
in current. He just didn't mention current.
He does mention current as Postulate 2 - you simply suffer from speed
reading past that passage.
Exclusive Vs inclusive -
please learn the difference.
Please try reading your references rather than using them as
cut-and-paste crutches to wobbly arguments.


Hi Cecil,

The difference is found by interchanging the names Keith and Chipman
(forgive me both) from these originals:
Keith's assertion that he believes in voltage
waves but not in power waves
and
Chipman's assertion of voltage doesn't imply that he doesn't believe
in current.

finds by your own logic that:
Keith's assertion of voltage doesn't imply that he doesn't believe
in current.
which is consistent with what he has published (not what you have
projected).
and
Chipman's assertion that he believes in voltage
waves but not in power waves
is literally stated in his postulates (of which you are admittedly
wholly ignorant).

Thus Chipman and Keith are not in contradiction, that is a product of
your own invention and your violations of Chipman's postulates.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC