(Tom Bruhns) wrote in message om...
(Dr. Slick) wrote in message om...

...
But thanks for checking my work, and this is a subtle detail that
is good to know.

Checking YOUR work?? I haven't seen anything you've done. You won't
even do the very simple algebra that will show you the right answer,
or at least if you have, you haven't shared it with us.

Why should we not simply ignore you, when you won't do us the courtesy
of going through some simple calcs that we ask you to, so you can see
it for YOURSELF?

Quit hiding behind the skirts of someone else's (flawed) work, and do
a little bit of work yourself, and share THAT with us. If you're
incapable of doing two or three steps of simple algebraic
manipulations to collect linear terms, let us know and we can perhaps
direct you to some help on that.

Bah,
Tom


A bit angry aren't we? Typical of one who has absolutely lost an argument...

When you can show us your free energy device, we would love to see it!

Slick

"Your Rage Has Imbalanced You!" - Lancelot

(Dr. Slick) wrote in message m...

When you can show us your free energy device, we would love to see it!

What free energy device? _I've_ never made any such claims. I don't
recall that Roy, Ian, Reg, George, or even Bill S has made such
claims. I didn't notice that King, Mimno and Wing made such claims,
nor Henry Duckworth, nor... You get the idea?

When you can show me your steps getting from the simple TEM line
equations to Vr/Vf, I'd love to see them. You don't have to be an
expert or authority to do that. It's just simple highschool algebra.

Cheers,
Tom

wrote:

Ahhhhh, finally. The not unexpected descent into non-sequitors.

Much safer than actually thinking about questions which might cause
you to change your world view.

Actually, my Mother just died and her funeral is on Saturday - so angels
are on my mind at the moment. Please forgive my mental lapse. It may
happen to you someday.
--
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! =-----

wrote:
Ahhhhh, finally. The not unexpected descent into non-sequitors.

Much safer than actually thinking about questions which might cause
you to change your world view.

Oh, and allow me to add: Like my EE prof at Texas A&M in the 50's, I
consider instantaneous power to be a completely useless concept, fully
appropriately related to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
After all, how much power can traverse a point in zero time?
Hint: energy per delta-t if t=0 is zero!

I will never forget my prof's words: "Instantaneous power is about as
useful as tits on a boar hog." But I have an open mind - please convince
me that you are more brilliant than the head of the EE department at
Texas A&M.
--
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! =-----

"Tom Bruhns" wrote
"Reg Edwards" wrote
Magid has the most rigorous derivation of power and energy flow on
transmission lines,
==========================
The following short question is adressed to all contributors to this
newsgroup who feel impelled to bolster their lack of self-confidence by
dragging in the chapter and verse of their favourite worshipped authors
and
Gurus, most of whom nobody has ever heard of and highly unlikely ever to
get
their hands on.

How do you know that?
============================

Gee, Reg, since you took that out of context, it seems a bit unfair.
Roy wrote it, and after the comma was, "I've seen." I don't know it,
but I'm willing to take Roy at his word on the matter.
===========================

The question asked was -

"How do you know that Magid has the most rigorous derivation of . . . . . .
".

Of what the derivation was was of no consequence. It was a matter of
judgement of Magid's (or anybody else's) qualifications and authority. What
was the purpose of referring to somebody hardly anybody has ever heard of?
---
Reg.

Gee, Reg, if all references had to be by someone you've heard of, we'd
be pretty much restricted to Heaviside and Edwards.

The purpose was to let people know that there's a derivation which looks
to me to be rigorous and which comes to an interesting conclusion -- the
same conclusion I reached some time ago with my own analysis, in fact.

A valid analysis is a valid analysis regardless of who did it. But for
anyone who is interested, Magid taught at M.I.T. and Brooklyn
Polytechnic Institute. In the introduction, the author states:

"I wish to express my profound indebtedness and thanks to Professors
Richard B. Adler, Lan Jen Chu, and Robert M. Fano of the Electrical
Engineering Department of M.I.T., both for their continued support and
encouragement in this project and for their and their present
publisher's (The M.I.T. Press) permission to draw freely on many of
their concepts, ideas, and even, in a few cases, some well-chosen words
from their abovementioned textbooks. I owe a special debt of gratitude
to Professor Chu for the innumerable hours that he unselfishly devoted
to assisting me in organizing this book."

I know this is meaningless to you, Reg, since you undoubtedly haven't
heard of any of those professors, either, let alone read any of their
classic papers. Perhaps you haven't heard of M.I.T., either, or at least
disdain it due to its location on the wrong side of the Atlantic. That's
fine. Thankfully, good engineering will continue to get done without
your approval. If you're interested only in analyses by people you've
heard of, that's fine. It's obviously a very short list, so you'll be
able to continue to reject just about anything out of hand.

Seeing something written certainly doesn't make it so. But seeing it in
a text that's undergone considerable scrutiny by very knowledgeable
people makes it worthy, to me, of careful consideration. Certainly it
deserves a lot more respect than off-hand comments from people with
little constructive or rational to offer. And certainly a lot more than
conclusions stated with great fan-fare and authority but not backed up
by any development or evidence.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Reg Edwards wrote:

The question asked was -

"How do you know that Magid has the most rigorous derivation of . . . . . .
".

Of what the derivation was was of no consequence. It was a matter of
judgement of Magid's (or anybody else's) qualifications and authority. What
was the purpose of referring to somebody hardly anybody has ever heard of?
---
Reg.

Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...
W5DXP wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

p(t) = v(t) * i(t). Period. No phase, no vectors, no cross products.


Millions of power engineers have been taught that V*I*cos(theta) is power.
Are you disagreeing with that teaching?

Yes.

Yes, indeed. The power engineers who have to deal with electronic
power supply loads are quick to realize that sine waves aren't enough
for them. Things have changed in that regard since the 50's. It
became such a problem that there are now requirements for power factor
correction (or more accurately, for a maximum power factor, and
maximum harmonic content).

Cheers,
Tom

(Tom Bruhns) wrote in message om...
(Dr. Slick) wrote in message m...

When you can show us your free energy device, we would love to see it!

What free energy device? _I've_ never made any such claims. I don't
recall that Roy, Ian, Reg, George, or even Bill S has made such
claims. I didn't notice that King, Mimno and Wing made such claims,
nor Henry Duckworth, nor... You get the idea?


If you claim the [rho] into a passive network can be greater than
one, indeed this would be a free energy device!


Slick

Y'all gotta r'call things are taught kinda differnt in Texas. I never
had a professor tell me that any concept was "useless as tits on a boar
hog", as Cecil's professor told him about instantaneous power. And that
admonition sure did stick with him, you might say like a fly on . . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Tom Bruhns wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote in message ...

W5DXP wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:


p(t) = v(t) * i(t). Period. No phase, no vectors, no cross products.


Millions of power engineers have been taught that V*I*cos(theta) is power.
Are you disagreeing with that teaching?

Yes.


Yes, indeed. The power engineers who have to deal with electronic
power supply loads are quick to realize that sine waves aren't enough
for them. Things have changed in that regard since the 50's. It
became such a problem that there are now requirements for power factor
correction (or more accurately, for a maximum power factor, and
maximum harmonic content).

Cheers,
Tom

Roy:

Isn't that "Stank on...."? Or did we live in different parts of Texas?
::grin::

73 de AI8W, Chris

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Y'all gotta r'call things are taught kinda differnt in Texas. I never
had a professor tell me that any concept was "useless as tits on a boar
hog", as Cecil's professor told him about instantaneous power. And that
admonition sure did stick with him, you might say like a fly on . . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Tom Bruhns wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote in message
...

W5DXP wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:


p(t) = v(t) * i(t). Period. No phase, no vectors, no cross products.



Millions of power engineers have been taught that V*I*cos(theta) is
power.
Are you disagreeing with that teaching?


Yes.



Yes, indeed. The power engineers who have to deal with electronic
power supply loads are quick to realize that sine waves aren't enough
for them. Things have changed in that regard since the 50's. It
became such a problem that there are now requirements for power factor
correction (or more accurately, for a maximum power factor, and
maximum harmonic content).

Cheers,
Tom