|
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
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. You'll need to do that in order to prove your assertion. I have never disagreed with an IEEE definition. It is your understanding of them that I have occasionally disagreed with. As I said, it is only your understanding of them which conflicts with the physical definitions. I have always asserted that the IEEE definitions are of necessity, consistent with the underlying physics. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
On Jun 17, 7:02 pm, Mike Coslo wrote:
Might it just be simpler to say that you don't care for those who believe that we've discovered it all? Yes, that would be simpler and I would include anyone who believes that the scientific method leads to eternal perfection in some scientific heaven. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, 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. You'll need to do that in order to prove your assertion. I have never disagreed with an IEEE definition. It is your understanding of them that I have occasionally disagreed with. You and others have said that power cannot be transferred from one place to another, that only energy can be transferred. Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power transfer". You and others have said power doesn't flow, that it is energy that flows.Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power flow vector". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 18, 1:22 pm, 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. You'll need to do that in order to prove your assertion. I have never disagreed with an IEEE definition. It is your understanding of them that I have occasionally disagreed with. You and others have said that power cannot be transferred from one place to another, that only energy can be transferred. Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power transfer". You and others have said power doesn't flow, that it is energy that flows.Yet the IEEE Dictionary defines "power flow vector". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Two points here, one, I do not speak for others and they do not speak for me. Two, you do not speak for others as they do not speak for you. Please use quotes when referring to what I said. I do not wish to argue about what you think somebody said. Thanks. 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
On Jun 18, 4:57 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Two points here, one, I do not speak for others and they do not speak for me. Two, you do not speak for others as they do not speak for you. Please use quotes when referring to what I said. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. In many replies to my postings, you tell me what I have said in the past without quoting anything I actually said. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you demand of me? I will honor your standard when you begin to pay it more than lip service. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 18, 5:03 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
Cecil, I challenge you to produce a link to a statement by anyone who said the above, including the words "The theory was never wrong" or words inarguably to that effect. I already did that, Jim, twice now. If theories are "never discarded", then it logically follows that theories are never wrong. If a theory or any part of a theory is ever wrong, hindsight tells us that it was only a hypothesis to start with, not a theory. Thus the ether theory was not a theory at all. The atomic theory was not a theory at all. The red shift theory of the expansion of the universe may not be a theory at all and may have to be demoted to a hypothesis in order to prove that theories are never wrong. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 18, 5:03 pm, Jim Higgins wrote: Cecil, I challenge you to produce a link to a statement by anyone who said the above, including the words "The theory was never wrong" or words inarguably to that effect. I already did that, Jim, twice now. If theories are "never discarded", then it logically follows that theories are never wrong. If a theory or any part of a theory is ever wrong, hindsight tells us that it was only a hypothesis to start with, not a theory. Thus the ether theory was not a theory at all. The atomic theory was not a theory at all. The red shift theory of the expansion of the universe may not be a theory at all and may have to be demoted to a hypothesis in order to prove that theories are never wrong. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Cecil, This is really funny. You just cannot do it, can you? You rarely argue directly against someone's quote. You rephrase the issue "logically" into your own strawman, and then knock it down. A good debating trick, but not very effective here. 8-) 73, Gene W4SZ |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: On Jun 18, 4:57 pm, Jim Kelley wrote: Two points here, one, I do not speak for others and they do not speak for me. Two, you do not speak for others as they do not speak for you. Please use quotes when referring to what I said. Again, the pot calling the kettle black. In many replies to my postings, you tell me what I have said in the past without quoting anything I actually said. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you demand of me? I will honor your standard when you begin to pay it more than lip service. Cecil - Since you can't provide an instance in which I disagreed with an IEEE definition, perhaps you'll be a gentleman and retract your comments. Thanks, Jim, AC6XG |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... Thus the ether theory was not a theory at all. The atomic theory was not a theory at all. ... 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com Cecil: Really? I thought "newtonian luminous ether" simply became "Einsteinian Gravitational Ether." Regards, JS |
Water burns!
On Jun 19, 4:58 pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
You have NOT posted the link I asked for. Since I have quoted the posting three times now, I guess I am not understanding what you mean by "link". It is pretty easy to understand assuming the rules of classical logic. A logical assertion (theory) is either true or false. If any part of it is false, the entire assertion is false and is therefore logically rejected as false (discarded). -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
Since you can't provide an instance in which I disagreed with an IEEE definition, perhaps you'll be a gentleman and retract your comments. I will provide that quote from you when I have time to perform the Google search. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
On Jun 21, 5:45 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote: Since you can't provide an instance in which I disagreed with an IEEE definition, perhaps you'll be a gentleman and retract your comments. I will provide that quote from you when I have time to perform the Google search. Sure you will. :-) Concentrate your search on the original discussion where you were claiming that an IEEE definition proves that power flows through transmission lines. (I think you referred to that one again just recently.) 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
On Jun 21, 5:45 am, Cecil Moore wrote: I will provide that quote from you when I have time to perform the Google search. Sure you will. :-) The only computer to which I have present access blocks Google Group access so bear with me on that one. Or you could simply prove it to yourself. It would be during the time when you were asserting, "No work = no power", while the IEEE Dictionary requires no such limitations on the definition of "power". -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: The only computer to which I have present access blocks Google Group access so bear with me on that one. You know what they say about excuses, Cecil. :-) Will you never tire of calling people liars? 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
Will you never tire of calling people liars? Pot: Kettle, Kettle: Pot. A few postings ago, you used 23 words to call me a liar - not a very efficient use of words. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Will you never tire of calling people liars? Pot: Kettle, Kettle: Pot. The frequency of repetition begins to suggest a big lie. A few postings ago, you used 23 words to call me a liar - not a very efficient use of words. You are able to count the words, yet you neglect once again to include them as a reference. Apparently that wouldn't have suited your purpose. It never does. I'm certain that my comments were along the lines of a correction to one of your frequent mis-statements regarding something that I "said". I suggest that, rather than reading so much between the lines, supplementing and substituting your own words and ideas, you should give more regard to the explicit meaning conveyed by the words provided by the author. ac6xg |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
Concentrate your search on the original discussion where you were claiming that an IEEE definition proves that power flows through transmission lines. (I think you referred to that one again just recently.) Please follow your own advice and quote what I actually said instead of making it up as you go along. As I remember, here was my response - a quote from my years-old magazine article: "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." -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
I suggest that, rather than reading so much between the lines, supplementing and substituting your own words and ideas, you should give more regard to the explicit meaning conveyed by the words provided by the author. So your advice to me is: "Do as I say, not as I do"? How many times have you told me what I posted without ever bothering to quote what I actually wrote? Stones and glass houses come to mind. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
Concentrate your search on the original discussion where you were claiming that an IEEE definition proves that power flows through transmission lines. (I think you referred to that one again just recently.) 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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com