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