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

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 -

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

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 -

More like a group admission of what they have stated. Hugs are west
coast BS.

tom
K0TAR

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