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

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