Water burns!
 

Michael Coslo wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Try as you might to play the part of a victim, Cecil, it just doesn't
suit you.


Two months from now when you yet once again accuse me of
supporting the concept of "power flow", what do you suggest
I call you instead of a "liar"?

You may recall Cecil, that you started this when you accused me of
saying something that I never said. My suggestion to you still
remains that in order to avoid these kinds of disputes in the future,
please provide direct quotes. That way neither of us will be calling
the other a liar. Fair enough Mr. Victim?



Wow, we really do need the sunspots again, eh guys?


Time for a group hug......


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

More like a group admission of what they have stated. Hugs are west
coast BS.

tom
K0TAR

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
...

Cecil:

We are too old!

Leave the BS to the younger crowd. Make it important ...

Regards,
JS

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
We are too old!
Leave the BS to the younger crowd.

At my age, BS means "blood sugar".

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
At my age, BS means "blood sugar".

Cecil:

Much too often, BS = Boring Stuff :-(

Regards,
JS

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

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.


Accessing Google, the first thing I found was:

Jim Kelley wrote:
... nowhere will
you see the IEEE refer to watts traveling through a wire.

Yet the IEEE says:
"power-flow vector ... giving magnitude and direction of *power*
per unit-area *propagating* in the wave."

The unit of power is the watt. Waves travel through wires. The
IEEE Dictionary says, in so many words, that watts per unit
area are propagating in the wave along the wire. "Propagating"
and "flowing" are close enough to be considered synonyms.

Thus illustrating your belief that the IEEE claims that power
propagates through wires. Obviously, if the question were put to
them, they would say they were defining the Poynting Vector, not
inventing a new natural phenomenon. It is your belief here with which
I disagree. That has always been my point, as is plainly evident from
your quote.

73, AC6XG

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote in
:

Time for group therapy. :-)


Well, that works too.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Tom Ring wrote in
:


More like a group admission of what they have stated. Hugs are west
coast BS.

I tend to agree. But it would be a hoot to get Cecil and Jim in a group
hug. Maybe even just an 807 or two.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Thus illustrating your belief that the IEEE claims that power propagates
through wires. Obviously, if the question were put to them, they would
say they were defining the Poynting Vector, not inventing a new natural
phenomenon. It is your belief here with which I disagree. That has
always been my point, as is plainly evident from your quote.

Jim, you are free to believe that the moon is made
out of green cheese. The irony is that you convinced
me years ago to give up on the concept of power
propagating as described in the IEEE Dictionary.

So now I don't believe in propagating power and
"that is my belief here with which you disagree"???

Seems whatever side I take, right or wrong, you
are determined to take the other side so you can
continue arguing about it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
I tend to agree. But it would be a hoot to get Cecil and Jim in a group
hug. Maybe even just an 807 or two.

Strange thing is that Jim and I were once in agreement.
He originally provided me with the Melles-Groit web
page which agrees with my concept of wave interaction
being able to cause 100% reflection in the absence
of a short, open, or purely reactive impedance.

Now, whatever I say, right or wrong, he disagrees with
it. He once talked me out of the IEEE concept of
"power propagating in a wave". Now he seems to be
saying the IEEE was right after all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Now he seems to be
saying the IEEE was right after all.

Seems? I believe I mentioned quite explicitly that I have never
claimed that the IEEE was wrong.

ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Now he seems to be saying the IEEE was right after all.

Seems? I believe I mentioned quite explicitly that I have never claimed
that the IEEE was wrong.

In 1998, as a result of me quoting the IEEE Dictionary phrase,
"power propagating in a wave", you made postings saying that
power doesn't flow. Although you did not explicitly claim the
IEEE was wrong, you clearly implicitly disagreed with the IEEE
concept of "power propagating in a wave", which I supported at
that time. If you had not disagreed, you and I would not have
been arguing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

In 1998, as a result of me quoting the IEEE Dictionary phrase,
"power propagating in a wave", you made postings saying that
power doesn't flow. Although you did not explicitly claim the
IEEE was wrong, you clearly implicitly disagreed with the IEEE
concept of "power propagating in a wave", which I supported at
that time. If you had not disagreed, you and I would not have
been arguing.

Your memory apparently fails you a bit here. If you'll take a better
look at those correspondences you'll find that what actually
transpired is you were attempting to use the IEEE definitions to
support your argument that power flows in a transmission line. It was
my contention then that the IEEE did not support such a view, and that
remains my view.

73, Jim AC6XG

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
It was my contention
then that the IEEE did not support such a view, and that remains my view.

Do you support the IEEE's contention that
"power propagates in a wave"? It's a simple
yes/no question, Jim.

You are between a rock and a hard place so we
can expect nothing except infinite diversions
and zero straight answers.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

It was my contention then that the IEEE did not support such a view,
and that remains my view.


Do you support the IEEE's contention that
"power propagates in a wave"? It's a simple
yes/no question, Jim.

Your question is based on an incorrect assumption, Cecil. As you are
well aware, a correct answer cannot be given to such a question. As
far as I know, you're the only one who derives that particular meaning
from that particular IEEE definition. So unless you can get the
person who wrote the definition to confirm your belief, the dispute at
this point would appear to be between you and him. A more reasonable
point of view would be that IEEE is simply defining the Poynting
Vector. If that puts me between a rock and a hard place then I guess
that's something I'll just have to bear. :-)

73, AC6XG

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Do you support the IEEE's contention that
"power propagates in a wave"? It's a simple
yes/no question, Jim.

Your question is based on an incorrect assumption, Cecil. As you are
well aware, a correct answer cannot be given to such a question. As far
as I know, you're the only one who derives that particular meaning from
that particular IEEE definition.

It's not based on any assumption at all, Jim.
It is a *direct quote* in plain English from the
IEEE Dictionary. Your response reminds me of
Bill Clinton.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 27, 4:43 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Do you support the IEEE's contention that
"power propagates in a wave"? It's a simple
yes/no question, Jim.

Of course, the IEEE makes no such contention. Only by
careful selection of the words you choose to see can
this claim be made.

The IEEE definition of "power-flow vector", from
IEEE 100, "The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
Standards Terms", Seventh Edition, opens with:

"Vector-characterizing energy propagation caused
by a wave"

Seems like they pretty much have it right. The
definition continues with:

"and giving magnitude and direction"

Yes, it is a vector. And the definition concludes
with:

"of power per unit-area propagating in the wave
(i.e., analogous to Poynting vector)."

Yes, they could have substituted "energy per
unit-time" for "power", but, given the complete
context, clarity would not be enhanced and the
sentence would be much more awkward.

Only someone skilled in the use of sentence
fragments would claim that the IEEE contends
that "power propagates in a wave".

Methinks you owe the IEEE an apology.

....Keith

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Do you support the IEEE's contention that
"power propagates in a wave"? It's a simple
yes/no question, Jim.


Your question is based on an incorrect assumption, Cecil. As you are
well aware, a correct answer cannot be given to such a question. As
far as I know, you're the only one who derives that particular meaning
from that particular IEEE definition.


It's not based on any assumption at all, Jim.
It is a *direct quote* in plain English from the
IEEE Dictionary. Your response reminds me of
Bill Clinton.


Let's see now ... P = integral of watts/steradian^2 or watts/square wavelength,
over the surface of integration.

I'm late to this question. Radiated power is an EM wave propagating outward from
a radiating source. The units of the surface power density are watts per square
[you provide the units].

YES!

Water burns!
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
"of power per unit-area propagating in the wave
(i.e., analogous to Poynting vector)."

Yes, they could have substituted "energy per
unit-time" for "power", ...

But they didn't - I rest my case.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
"of power per unit-area propagating in the wave"

Yes, they could have substituted "energy per
unit-time" for "power", ...

Does "energy per unit-time" propagate?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
t...
Keith Dysart wrote:
"of power per unit-area propagating in the wave"

Yes, they could have substituted "energy per
unit-time" for "power", ...

Does "energy per unit-time" propagate?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Looking at my energy bills, it just dissipates! :-(

Mike G0ULI

Water burns!
 

Mike, G0ULI wrote:
"Looking at my energy bills, it just dissipates."

Mike was responding to Cecil`s question:
"Does energy per unit time propagate?"

Of course it does. Energy at point A flows to point B where it does
work. The rate at which energy flows is power.

My ultimate authority for radio and electronics is Terman, and his 4th
edition of "Radio and Electronic Engineering" published in 1955. It is
my technical bible. On page 904 Terman discusses the Sommerfeld analysis
of ground-wave propagation. Terman says:

"The field strength at unit distance in Eq. (22-1) depends on power
radiated by the transmitting antenna, and the directivity of the antenna
in the vertical and horizontal planes."

The IEEE dictionary won`t dispute Terman. If it does, it needs
correction.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Water burns!
 

On Jun 29, 10:24 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:
The IEEE dictionary won`t dispute Terman. If it does, it needs
correction.

The IEEE and Terman are both reputable sources and
it seems unlikely that they would have substantive
disagreements.

But it is always possible, for those with the desire,
to manufacture dispute by the careful selection of
sentence fragments.

The defense is to be very cautious about trusting
the veracity of quotes from sources with questionable
reputations and motives.

....Keith

Water burns!
 

On 29 Jun, 07:55, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:24 am, (Richard Harrison)
wrote:

The IEEE dictionary won`t dispute Terman. If it does, it needs
correction.

The IEEE and Terman are both reputable sources and
it seems unlikely that they would have substantive
disagreements.

But it is always possible, for those with the desire,
to manufacture dispute by the careful selection of
sentence fragments.

The defense is to be very cautious about trusting
the veracity of quotes from sources with questionable
reputations and motives.

...Keith

A man after my own heart!
This is where the difference in
"learning" and "undestanding" comes to the fore
Art Unwin KB9MZ....XG

Water burns!
 

Keith Dysart wrote:

...
The defense is to be very cautious about trusting
the veracity of quotes from sources with questionable
reputations and motives.

...Keith

I don't believe Terman would have minded being "questioned" at all. I
think he did the best which could have been done for his time, and given
what was available then. I believe he would have loved to set any
errors in accepted principals correct--I don't believe he ever stopped
looking. He just couldn't do everything, as especially not all at once!

However, the shallow minded who follow in his shadow, who set up a
religion around his work. Who canonize his book, who memorize equations
and formulas which only apply to narrow applications of very specific
physical arrangements ... they can do little better than defend what he
left, they certainly are unable to add to it, and probably lack the
where-will-all to even question it logically!

JS

Water burns!
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
John Smith just called me shallow minded. ...

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard:

I did NO such thing, if you need an enemy, pick another, I make a better
co-explorer ...

If I were to set about a list of "Old Dogs Who Can't Learn New Tricks",
you'd be way down on it ... I have no idea what you do in your spare
time; I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you examine
the new closely--and certainly do so before throwing out the old!

Regards,
JS