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

Cecil Moore wrote:
...

Cecil:

We are too old!

Leave the BS to the younger crowd. Make it important ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:
We are too old!
Leave the BS to the younger crowd.

At my age, BS means "blood sugar".

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
At my age, BS means "blood sugar".

Cecil:

Much too often, BS = Boring Stuff :-(

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Thus illustrating your belief that the IEEE claims that power
propagates through wires. Obviously, if the question were put to
them, they would say they were defining the Poynting Vector, not
inventing a new natural phenomenon. It is your belief here with which
I disagree. That has always been my point, as is plainly evident from
your quote.

73, AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote in
:

Time for group therapy. :-)


Well, that works too.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Tom Ring wrote in
:


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

I tend to agree. But it would be a hoot to get Cecil and Jim in a group
hug. Maybe even just an 807 or two.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Jim Kelley wrote:
Thus illustrating your belief that the IEEE claims that power propagates
through wires. Obviously, if the question were put to them, they would
say they were defining the Poynting Vector, not inventing a new natural
phenomenon. It is your belief here with which I disagree. That has
always been my point, as is plainly evident from your quote.

Jim, you are free to believe that the moon is made
out of green cheese. The irony is that you convinced
me years ago to give up on the concept of power
propagating as described in the IEEE Dictionary.

So now I don't believe in propagating power and
"that is my belief here with which you disagree"???

Seems whatever side I take, right or wrong, you
are determined to take the other side so you can
continue arguing about it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Mike Coslo wrote:
I tend to agree. But it would be a hoot to get Cecil and Jim in a group
hug. Maybe even just an 807 or two.

Strange thing is that Jim and I were once in agreement.
He originally provided me with the Melles-Groit web
page which agrees with my concept of wave interaction
being able to cause 100% reflection in the absence
of a short, open, or purely reactive impedance.

Now, whatever I say, right or wrong, he disagrees with
it. He once talked me out of the IEEE concept of
"power propagating in a wave". Now he seems to be
saying the IEEE was right after all.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Now he seems to be
saying the IEEE was right after all.

Seems? I believe I mentioned quite explicitly that I have never
claimed that the IEEE was wrong.

ac6xg