On 8 jun, 22:33, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 8, 8:54*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 8, 6:04*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

It is too bad, because the time domain is quite enlightening.

Nothing wrong with a time domain analysis but analyzing problems whose
basic premises violate the laws of physics is a waste of my time and
yours.

I assume that you do not consider that the problems you propose to be
ones "whose basic premises violate the laws of physics".

Consider then, the problem you propose inhttp://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm..
A time domain analysis (http://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/
radio6),
demonstrates that the analysis presented inhttp://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm
results in the wrong answers.

Perhaps you could locate a flaw in the time domain analysis. Finding a
flaw
would pretty much settle the matter.

...Keith

Hi Cecil. Yes, good comment, definitions of terms specifying their
meanings in each context avoid innecessary disagreements. I think that
it is an essential predialogal "must".

Keith: I just saw your web page = http://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/radio3
where you seems disagree (please correct me if I am wrong) with our
ideas about superposition principle. I search examples in the Net -for
not paid the price of my hard and slow translations ;)- What do you
think about them?

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb/...rposition.html

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/...php?topic=18.0

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ