Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


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?

Ancient history seems to be something you like to revisit with
regularity. Problem is Cecil, you feel you can rewrite it in any way
that best suits your purpose.

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

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

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"?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

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?

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
...

Is the following post "near" to what you seek? And, if so, this URL
will get you close:
http://www.radiobanter.com/showthrea...=73853&page=11

July 20th 05, 07:22 PM
Jim Kelley

Posts: n/a
Default


Cecil Moore wrote:

For engineers, the direction of the arrow for the Power
Flow Vector in joules/sec is generally accepted to be the
same as the direction of the joules.

I am an engineer, Cecil. I just happen to work in the field of physics.
I could be wrong, but I don't think a Bird wattmeter measures or
displays Power Flow Vector.

From the IEEE Dictionary: "power-flow vector - Vector-
characterizing energy propagation caused by a wave and
giving magnitude and direction of power per unit-area
propagating in the wave."


Please note the "*DIRECTION OF POWER* ... *PROPAGATING*
in the wave", a direct contradiction to your above assertion.

The power measured at the source somehow finds its way to the
load in spite of not having any direction (according to you. :-)

Well, it's true for me and probably for most other people who have a
grasp of the subject. It's actually energy which does the moving.
Power is just the rate at which energy finds its way there.

It's like this. Let's say you're riding your Harley through town at 50
MPH and somebody pulls out of a side street right in front of you. Does
the speed of your motorcycle collide with the car, or does your
motorcycle collide with it?

73, ac6xg

JS

Water burns!
 

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 -

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 -

Hi Mike -

Time for group therapy. :-)

73, ac6xg

Water burns!
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
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.

Jim, do you see anything hypocritical about:

1. You assert that I falsely accused you of saying
something that you never said.

2. You did not provide a direct quote to prove that
I ever posted any such thing.

When are you going to live up to your own advice?
Never mind. That's a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

John Smith I wrote:
Is the following post "near" to what you seek? And, if so, this URL
will get you close:
http://www.radiobanter.com/showthrea...=73853&page=11

That was a discussion of how the field of engineering
treats the concept of "power" differently than the field
of physics. Power engineers have no problem with the concept
of "power transmission". Most RF engineers have no problem
with the concept of RF "power transmission" down a transmission
line or from one antenna to another. Even the IEEE Dictionary
alludes to power being propagated in the direction of the
power flow vector. Of course, when the IEEE does it, they have
simply used a "poor choice of words". If you or I did it, it
would be a capital offense. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Water burns!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
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.

Jim, do you see anything hypocritical about:

1. You assert that I falsely accused you of saying
something that you never said.

2. You did not provide a direct quote to prove that
I ever posted any such thing.

When are you going to live up to your own advice?
Never mind. That's a rhetorical question.

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.

Water burns!
 

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.

I'm sure I could find many other examples if I wasted more
time searching.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com