On Dec 12, 6:03 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
I am only concerned with
some of the concepts that you describe.

When you repeat those concepts back to me, they bear
no resemblance to the concepts that I am trying to
describe. That is proof that our disagreements are
semantic. (The only other possibility is that you
are unethical and are deliberately bearing false
witness against me.)

I use words to describe my concepts. You and I do not
agree on the definitions of those words. Reality is what
it is. It is the different definitions that we are using
that is the problem. "Transfer" is obviously one of those
words. I say all EM waves transfer energy. You say not
all EM waves transfer energy. It is simply that we are
using different definitions of the word "transfer".
There are many other words for which we have different
definitions.

Can you expand on the two different interpretations of
"transfer" that will bring these views into alignment?

Perhaps you really are disagreeing on whether EM
waves always transfer energy (using the common
definition of "transfer").

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Can you expand on the two different interpretations of
"transfer" that will bring these views into alignment?

Perhaps you really are disagreeing on whether EM
waves always transfer energy (using the common
definition of "transfer").

Jim refuses to provide a reference for his definition
of "transfer". My unabridged Webster's has 20 definitions
for the word including, "to be moved from one place to
another". I say the light waves from Alpha Centauri are
transferring, i.e. moving energy from that star to other
points in the universe. The Poynting vector for those
light waves can be computed if necessary. EM waves cannot
exist without energy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

Can you expand on the two different interpretations of
"transfer" that will bring these views into alignment?

Perhaps you really are disagreeing on whether EM
waves always transfer energy (using the common
definition of "transfer").


Jim refuses to provide a reference for his definition
of "transfer".

As I have said before, I am using whatever definition is used, for
example, by Haliday and Resnick when they talk about power. I am not
able to inquire as to what exact definition they use. All I know is
when you say that energy is "transferring" in a transmission line, and
then try to use that statement as proof that "power is moving" in a
transmission line, you have the wrong idea about transfer of energy.
That is precisely where this discussion originated, but I'm sure that
you will disagree - as it is your nature to be highly disagreeable on
this subject.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
aAll I know is
when you say that energy is "transferring" in a transmission line, and
then try to use that statement as proof that "power is moving" in a
transmission line, you have the wrong idea about transfer of energy.

I recently tried, on this newsgroup, to explain to Richard
Harrison that power does *NOT* move in a transmission line.
Richard thinks that power does move as do most of my
engineering textbooks and the IEEE. Johnson, Ramo, and Whinnery
all talk about "power flow". Because it was hairlipping you,
I removed any reference to "power flow" from my magazine
article in support of your concept that power does not flow.

I have *NEVER* said "power is moving", at least not in this
century. That is just your straw man raising its ugly head
yet once again. Jim, when you force yourself to bear false
witness about what I have said, you are essentially giving
up whatever integrity and ethics you ever had. Why you have to
resort to such underhanded unfair techniques speaks volumes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
I have *NEVER* said "power is moving", at least not in this
century.

Do you imagine that the caviat "not in this century" might make the
statement at least partially true?

That is just your straw man raising its ugly head
yet once again.

Was it not raised when you brought the definition of 'transfer' back
into the discussion - again this century?

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I have *NEVER* said "power is moving", at least not in this
century.

Do you imagine that the caviat "not in this century" might make the
statement at least partially true?

In the 20th century, I did believe in power flow but you
convinced me that I was wrong and I changed my mind. I
have not believed in power flow during the 21st century.


That is just your straw man raising its ugly head
yet once again.

Was it not raised when you brought the definition of 'transfer' back
into the discussion - again this century?

I will keep bringing it up until you furnish the definition
that you are using for the word. That you absolutely refuse
to provide a definition means it is nothing but your gut
feeling about the matter.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com