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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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