On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:16:11 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

"a plus power differential from the sum of
the source powers at any given segment"
is so overly elaborate to be a fundamental concept supporting an
erroneous speculation Cecil is offering.

In a closed system, this is so un-elaborate that I can even take this down
to grade school artithmetic, Richard. When I add all of the power
differentials from source power with a plus sign in front of them, to the
power differentials from source power with a negative sign in front of them,
the sum must be zero. We're talking about power so I don't even have to go
to high school to learn about summing vectors.

What am I missing here?

Well, for one powers do not add, just energies.

The point of the matter is that the method of Superposition does not
reveal the nature of reality by parts, only by its whole.
Superposition is an artifice, a method, where reality is suspended
pending completing the analysis. To stop in the middle and proclaim a
new reality is a fraud. But then I've already explained this
elsewhere (did you follow that lead?).

If you in fact think that the issue of accepting a broken argument is
on par with High School homecoming elections, that is not the race I
am competing in.
If you want to stick with a technical issue in a
technical forum, then strict language and solid logic is still a
requirement.

Then I am sure you will agree that using terms like "taking Cecil's sucker
bait" is not the type of "strict language" and "solid logic" appropriate in
a technical forum.

In fact, it is in the strictest language par excellence! Strict
allows for no wiggle room, nothing nebulous. You completely
understood what it meant and technical forums are assaulted with a lot
of bankrupt theories- sometimes innocently offered, but not in this
case. You might complain of style, but not substance.

If you want it in another style, I could easily comply, but evoke
groans from many following this (and more complaints of style). On
the other hand, the substance of the issue is that the origin of this
thread is a patchwork of unremittingly failed logic that many here
have accepted as a point from which to argue. Tom has already
identified it in the class of argument "Have you stopped beating your
mother?" The crew here picks the theme up and starts asking for
definitions of mother, beating, "when does stop actually occur?", and
the rest. It does have its amusement, however. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC