Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

I remember that one, Jim. It was when you and I sided
together against the IEEE Dictionary. The IEEE Dictionary
says that power propagates. You and I agreed that power
doesn't propagate.

I don't recall you saying that you agreed with me about that, or
anything else.

The IEEE definition you refer to probably deserves a direct quote
here, too. I don't wish to be a party to their being unfairly
maligned.

ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I don't recall you saying that you agreed with me about that, or
anything else.

Good grief, Jim. In private email you said my article
was "great" except for two items, neither of which
had anything to do with power flow, a term you well
know I discarded years ago at your insistence.

The following statement has been in my magazine article
for three years. I put it there after your critique of my
unpublished article 3+ years ago. I have quoted the article
probably a dozen times over the past few years as a result
of your strawman accusations about what I have said.

"The term 'power flow' has been avoided in favor of 'energy
flow'. Power is a measure of that energy flow per unit time
through a plane."

The IEEE definition you refer to probably deserves a direct quote here,
too. I don't wish to be a party to their being unfairly maligned.

"power-flow vector ... giving magnitude and direction of *power*
per unit-area *propagating* in the wave." emphasis mine.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I don't recall you saying that you agreed with me about that, or
anything else.


Good grief, Jim. In private email you said my article
was "great" except for two items, neither of which
had anything to do with power flow, a term you well
know I discarded years ago at your insistence.

I can recall saying that I agreed with you on many occasions. I
haven't known you to say that you agreed with anything I said. I
believe there's a difference.

The IEEE definition you refer to probably deserves a direct quote
here, too. I don't wish to be a party to their being unfairly maligned.


"power-flow vector ... giving magnitude and direction of *power*
per unit-area *propagating* in the wave." emphasis mine.

I can't say there's enough there to do a proper grammatical analysis.
I suppose they could be accused of using poor sentence structure. I'm
not prepared to argue that someone in the IEEE believes that vectors
are actually 'propagating in the wave'. :-)

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

The IEEE definition you refer to probably deserves a direct quote
here, too. I don't wish to be a party to their being unfairly maligned.


"power-flow vector ... giving magnitude and direction of *power* per
unit-area *propagating* in the wave." emphasis mine.


Also for the record: 3+ years ago, Jim Kelley convinced
me that "power flow" was a misconception. I agreed with him
and revised my magazine article to reflect that concept. Yet,
many times since then, Jim Kelley has attempted to propagate
the Big Lie that I support the concept of "power flow" all the
while being fully aware that I agree with him on the subject.
I have never encountered anyone before who refuses to allow me
to agree with him/her.

That's hilarious. You've been more than welcome to agree with me as
much as you like. As I said, I can't recall a single instance in
which you said you did. I got nothing but grief from you on the
subject - as anyone reading this group can bear witness.

73, Jim AC6XG

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
The IEEE definition you refer to probably deserves a direct quote
here, too. I don't wish to be a party to their being unfairly maligned.

"power-flow vector ... giving magnitude and direction of
*power* per unit-area *propagating* in the wave." emphasis mine.

Also for the record: 3+ years ago, Jim Kelley convinced
me that "power flow" was a misconception. I agreed with him
and revised my magazine article to reflect that concept. Yet,
many times since then, Jim Kelley has attempted to propagate
the Big Lie that I support the concept of "power flow" all the
while being fully aware that I agree with him on the subject.
I have never encountered anyone before who refuses to allow me
to agree with him/her.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I can recall saying that I agreed with you on many occasions. I haven't
known you to say that you agreed with anything I said.

Your selective memory failure is interesting. You have known
for 3+ years that I agree with you on 98% of things including
the apparently false concept of "power flow". Googling this
newsgroup will prove that fact and I have proof that you said
exactly that in a private email. Yet you continue to accuse
me of something you are fully aware is not true and then
plead memory loss. Jim, you're too young to be going senile.
Time to find another excuse for your harassment.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Also for the record: 3+ years ago, Jim Kelley convinced
me that "power flow" was a misconception. I agreed with him
and revised my magazine article to reflect that concept. Yet,
many times since then, Jim Kelley has attempted to propagate
the Big Lie that I support the concept of "power flow" all the
while being fully aware that I agree with him on the subject.
I have never encountered anyone before who refuses to allow me
to agree with him/her.

You've been more than welcome to agree with me as
much as you like. As I said, I can't recall a single instance in which
you said you did. I got nothing but grief from you on the subject - as
anyone reading this group can bear witness.

Yes, anyone reading this newsgroup knows that in response to your
numerous false accusations of supporting the concept of "power flow",
I have been posting this quotation from my magazine article for
at least three years and telling you that I agree with you on
the subject.

"The author has endeavored to satisfy the purists in this series
of articles. The term 'power flow' has been avoided in favor of
'energy flow'. Power is a measure of that energy flow per unit
time through a plane. Likewise, the EM fields in the waves do
the interfering. Powers, treated as scalars, are incapable of
interference."

I put those words into my 3+ year old magazine article because
of your input while reviewing the original article. For about
the 10th time or more, I agree with you that "power flow" is
probably an invalid concept and that powers cannot interfere.

The only thing I haven't done is kiss your ass. If that is
what you are waiting for, haul your ass over here to East
Texas and pucker up. Harassing someone who agrees with you
is at least a severe character flaw and probably pathological.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

"The author has endeavored to satisfy the purists in this series
of articles.

Apparently in response to something. Perhaps an inflammatory
discussion where the author took a contrary position on the subject?

The term 'power flow' has been avoided in favor of
'energy flow'.

The term was avoided, with the one exception. I believe the term
'flux capacitor' was avoided entirely.

Power is a measure of that energy flow per unit
time through a plane.

Among other things.

Likewise, the EM fields in the waves do
the interfering.

Likewise??

Powers, treated as scalars, are incapable of
interference."

Should go without saying (irrespective of how you treat 'them').

the 10th time or more, I agree with you that "power flow" is
probably an invalid concept and that powers cannot interfere.

It's been my hope that you would agree that waves don't cause other
waves to change direction, and as such interference doesn't cause
energy to change direction. Such a brilliant person shouldn't hold
fanciful notions of nature in my opinion. Maybe someday you'll write
another paper deferring to purists on this point.

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

On Jun 22, 3:19 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
It's been my hope that you would agree that waves don't cause other
waves to change direction, and as such interference doesn't cause
energy to change direction. Such a brilliant person shouldn't hold
fanciful notions of nature in my opinion. Maybe someday you'll write
another paper deferring to purists on this point.

We do disagree on a couple of minor points but "power flow" has not
been one of them for over three years. Yet you keep setting up
strawmen and harassing me about it three+ years after I corrected the
error in my thinking.

As far as waves causing something, you say A causes B and C. I say A
causes B which causes C. We agree that A causes C and that C cannot
exist without B. Our disagreement is a small point of logic over which
you seem to be obsessed.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

On Jun 22, 3:19 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
"The author has endeavored to satisfy the purists in this series
of articles.

Apparently in response to something. Perhaps an inflammatory
discussion where the author took a contrary position on the subject?

Maybe, but after four years it is hard to remember exactly what
transpired. The glaring question is why are you still obsessing and
harrassing me about an error I corrected in your favor 3+ years ago?
When are you going to let that ancient history go and move on?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com