Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

That's an equality, not a definition.

No, it is from the IEEE Dictionary. Therefore, it is a
definition, by definition.

When you view your reflection in a mirror, do you ignore the
ExB power involved without which you would see nothing?

I don't notice it until it the resulting chemical reaction takes place
on the retina of my eye. Until then, I can only imagine E crossing B,
and write the expression for it down on a piece of paper as it has no
physical manifestation.

Therefore, using your metaphysics, since I live one mile from
where I was born, I can only imagine that I ever worked for
Intel in Arizona.

There is a real world experiment that you can perform to
prove your concepts are incorrect.

TV XMTR--tuner----2 uS long 600 ohm line---75 ohm TV RCVR

The first ghost will occur 4 uS after the primary image.
This can only be explained by part of the energy in the
primary signal changing direction and momentum at the RCVR
and making a round trip to the tuner and back to the RCVR.
In order to make that round trip, the energy in the signal
had to change direction and momentum at the tuner. (There are
no reflections between the XMTR and the tuner.)

Likewise, the second ghost will occur 8 uS after the primary
image, indicating four reversals of direction and momentum
of the energy contained in the second ghost.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

That's an equality, not a definition.

No, it is from the IEEE Dictionary.

The IEEE Dictionary shows the relationship between energy passing a
point and the equivalent in units of power. That is a fact.

There is a real world experiment that you can perform to
prove your concepts are incorrect.

TV XMTR--tuner----2 uS long 600 ohm line---75 ohm TV RCVR

The first ghost will occur 4 uS after the primary image.
This can only be explained by part of the energy in the
primary signal changing direction and momentum at the RCVR
and making a round trip to the tuner and back to the RCVR.
In order to make that round trip, the energy in the signal
had to change direction and momentum at the tuner. (There are
no reflections between the XMTR and the tuner.)

Likewise, the second ghost will occur 8 uS after the primary
image, indicating four reversals of direction and momentum
of the energy contained in the second ghost.

Proving that reflections actually exist, and that when all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail. Are you trying to prove
something, or disprove it with your ghost story? You're not generating
a clear picture. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Proving that reflections actually exist, and that when all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail. Are you trying to prove
something, or disprove it with your ghost story? You're not generating
a clear picture. ;-)

Translation: You have just proven my concepts wrong so
I need a not-clear-picture diversion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Proving that reflections actually exist, and that when all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail. Are you trying to prove
something, or disprove it with your ghost story? You're not generating
a clear picture. ;-)

Translation: You have just proven my concepts wrong so
I need a not-clear-picture diversion.

Cecil, my "concepts" about ghosting predict exactly the same thing as
your "concepts" about ghosting. That's why I asked you whether you were
trying to prove, or to disprove something. The 'clear picture' thing
was just a little pun - intended to inject some levity into this rather
dour exchange.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil, my "concepts" about ghosting predict exactly the same thing as
your "concepts" about ghosting.

Jim, you remind me of my 94 year old aunt. She forgets
what she said yesterday but I love her anyway.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil, my "concepts" about ghosting predict exactly the same thing as
your "concepts" about ghosting.

Jim, you remind me of my 94 year old aunt. She forgets
what she said yesterday but I love her anyway.

Dunno. I did try to forget what _you_ said the other day though. Call
it a fault if you like.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
The IEEE Dictionary shows the relationship between energy passing a
point and the equivalent in units of power.

Feel free to look up "dictionary" in the dictionary.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:57:15 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:


Proving that reflections actually exist, and that when all you have is a
hammer, everything looks like a nail. Are you trying to prove
something, or disprove it with your ghost story? You're not generating
a clear picture. ;-)


Cecil's prior response does nothing to prove your overused,
childish hammer/nail aphorism. In any case it would only be true for
those sufficiently dim-witted as to see only a single use for a
hammer.

wrote:

Cecil's prior response does nothing to prove your overused,
childish hammer/nail aphorism. In any case it would only be true for
those sufficiently dim-witted as to see only a single use for a
hammer.

Among whom you can count yourself.

Congratulations on another finely crafted flame. I guess everybody
needs to be good at something.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:18:25 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

wrote:

Cecil's prior response does nothing to prove your overused,
childish hammer/nail aphorism. In any case it would only be true for
those sufficiently dim-witted as to see only a single use for a
hammer.

Among whom you can count yourself.

I see plenty of uses for a hammer. What's your point.

Congratulations on another finely crafted flame. I guess everybody
needs to be good at something.

What are you good at? I'm good at a lot of things. Come back
when you have a better response then the "You, too" that you learned
on the playground.