Theory vs Reality
 

To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove (or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.

Richard Fry wrote:
Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to be
inaccurate.

Actually what has happened, Richard, is that a bunch of engineers and
scientists, including gurus on this newsgroup, believe that their
math models dictate reality, rather than vice versa. We can thank Einstein,
himself, for the following quote:

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike ..." Albert Einstein

Too bad that some people on this newsgroup have adopted their steady-
state math models as their unquestioned religion, unrelated to reality.
--
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! =-----

the last few days??? these same discussions have been going on for years
with the same predictable outcome. i was unfortunately sucked back into the
recent ones becaues of a failure in my posting filters... that unfortunate
problem has been rectified.

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove
(or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to
be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.

Dave wrote:
the last few days??? these same discussions have been going on for years
with the same predictable outcome. i was unfortunately sucked back into the
recent ones becaues of a failure in my posting filters... that unfortunate
problem has been rectified.

Translation: My "posting filters" allow me to deny reality. :-)



-----= 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! =-----

There are no stupid questions about reflected power only stupid me asking
and I'm still stupid on the question I assume you're referring to..

--
73
Hank WD5JFR
"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove
(or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to
be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.

"Richard Fry" wrote in message
...
To me, the threads about reflected power on this NG over the last few days
are rather revealing. Some posters quote Terman, Lord Kelvin and others
with inapplicable/incomplete statements or formulae attempting to prove
(or
intimidate) NG readers into accepting that poster's particular point of
view -- even when it has been shown by field experience NOT to fit the
observed, and measured reality.

Perhaps we should be more willing to further research and modify our
favourite, personal hypotheses when valid field experiences show them to
be
inaccurate.

RF

Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers.


Actually I am encouraged. There is a lot less divergence than during the Dr.
Slick postings. I have learned things, either from actual postings, or from
having to look things up in the literature.

Tam/WB2TT

Cecil Moore wrote:
Challenges that the steady-state religion has failed to answer:

How can a standing-wave exist without a forward-traveling wave
superposed with a rearward-traveling wave?

How does reflected wave momentum change directions?

Why does a TDR indicate that reflections actually exist?

What causes TV ghosting in a transmission line if reflections
don't exist?

How does radar work if reflections don't exist?

That's what puts the straw in the men, and the red in the herrings.
If it's a reflection, then it must be power! Nothing else reflects,
evidently.

73, ac6xg

Tam/WB2TT wrote:
Actually I am encouraged. There is a lot less divergence than during the Dr.
Slick postings. I have learned things, either from actual postings, or from
having to look things up in the literature.

Challenges that the steady-state religion has failed to answer:

How can a standing-wave exist without a forward-traveling wave
superposed with a rearward-traveling wave?

How does reflected wave momentum change directions?

Why does a TDR indicate that reflections actually exist?

What causes TV ghosting in a transmission line if reflections
don't exist?

How does radar work if reflections don't exist?
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
That's what puts the straw in the men, and the red in the herrings.
If it's a reflection, then it must be power! Nothing else reflects,
evidently.

Please make some sort of a technical assertion instead of your
usual metaphysical cagada. Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

When you view your reflection in a mirror, do you ignore the
ExB power involved without which you would see nothing?
--
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:
That's what puts the straw in the men, and the red in the herrings.
If it's a reflection, then it must be power! Nothing else reflects,
evidently.

Please make some sort of a technical assertion instead of your
usual metaphysical cagada.

After you, sir. :-)

Any energy passing a point *is* power,
by IEEE definition.

That's an equality, not a definition. I suspect you're not completely
comfortable with the difference in those two things.

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.

73, Jim AC6XG