On Jun 16, 8:05 am, wrote:

So which definition do you use for a given word Cecil, the common,
usually abiguous one, the precise, context based one, or whichever
leads to the most semantic games?

It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he
said to be true in some context.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he
said to be true in some context.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, Jim.
Your narrow definitions from the field of physics
are not even accepted within the RF engineering
community.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Jun 16, 1:19 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he
said to be true in some context.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, Jim.
Your narrow definitions from the field of physics
are not even accepted within the RF engineering
community.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Hi Cecil -

I am not in the business of defining physical phenomena. I do
occasionally refer to the definitions published in physics books
though. From my perspective, these definitions are uniformly
consistent with those used in engineering. In any instance where you
find them to differ, I would like to suggest that a re-examination of
your understanding of the phenomena might help resolve those
differences.

73, Jim AC6XG

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.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

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

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

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