Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 17, 11:47 am, Jim Kelley wrote:

From my perspective, these definitions are uniformly
consistent with those used in engineering.


Jim, you and others have disagreed with definitions in the IEEE
Dictionary and implied it is not worth the paper upon which it is
printed. One need only to access Google to verify that fact.

You'll need to do that in order to prove your assertion. I have never
disagreed with an IEEE definition. It is your understanding of them
that I have occasionally disagreed with. As I said, it is only your
understanding of them which conflicts with the physical definitions.
I have always asserted that the IEEE definitions are of necessity,
consistent with the underlying physics.

73, ac6xg