On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 16:01:21 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Simply put, you lack the meaningful discussion of just what error is
exhibited by any particular issue.

I'm sure that everyone is familiar with the famous light-bending experiment
that proved Newtonian physics wrong and Einstein right. Also, prior to Einstein,
the laws of physics were incorrect with respect to the orbit of Mercury.

Hi Cecil,

Einstein proved apples fall up? What a laugh.

Did Einstein prove
F M · A ?

Einstein's observation
E = M · C²
discounts your jejune platitudes completely.

And how different was Newton's gravity from Einstein's? Simply
exhibited by your failure to respond, shows you lack the meaningful
discussion of just what error is. Cecil, you remain the ever
unreliable correspondent.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Einstein having "changed" what "is" understood of gravity from Newton's
teachings does not invalidate Newton's work

I entirely agree, Richard! (Don't be too surprised :-)

By quantifying the errors in Newton's original 'laws', Einstein actually
*confirmed* that Newtonian mechanics are valid for everyday situations.
The only way Einstein could have found that out was by exploring beyond
Newton, and then looking back.

That's exactly what we're trying to do with the present discussions
about lines with reactive Zo. We're trying to quantify the errors in the
formulae and definitions that we normally use, and we can only do that
by exploring beyond them... very carefully.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Richard Harrison wrote:

Ian says he has a Bird wattmeter. Congratuletions! He has a good
instrument if it is in good shape. I expect his experience has been
satisfactory.

It has indeed, for all practical purposes.

But when we're constructing rigorous bench or thought-experiments to
prove or disprove some aspect of transmission line theory, we have to
remember that, in the very strictest sense, the Bird doesn't actually
measure power.


--
73 from Ian G3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book'
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:46:24 +0100, "Ian White, G3SEK"
wrote:
You
call them "unaware presumptions." WHAT presumptions are they?

The presumption is that a directional coupler directly samples power,
when in fact it doesn't. It samples voltage and current separately.

Hi Ian,

A Directional Coupler consists of two transmission lines.
Transmission Lines are the media through which B/H waves migrate
inexorably fixed together. The premise (which you alone bring as a
clouded presumption) that the Bruene bridge somehow works with
independence from this is simply a convenience in discussing its
operation, a convention of discussion at best and not a reality.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:01:54 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Richard, you really need to learn the difference between an exclusive statement
and an inclusive statement. All you need to ask yourself is, "Did Einstein
ever prove Newton to be wrong?" The answer is 'yes'.

Hi Cecil,

Did Newton ever prove Einstein was wrong? The answer is yes there
too. So where does that leave either of them, and you. You standing
there flat-footed without context as usual.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 23:05:56 +0100, "Ian White, G3SEK"
wrote:
That's exactly what we're trying to do with the present discussions
about lines with reactive Zo. We're trying to quantify the errors in the
formulae and definitions that we normally use, and we can only do that
by exploring beyond them... very carefully.

Hi Ian,

Too much is given to care, and too little is given to error.

It must have been months ago that this issue of a forced error was
revealed to occur in frequencies of absolutely no interest to the
Amateur for RF Power distribution.

From then on its been a simple ego struggle postured in high tea drama
to give some civil appearance to this tarted up "care." Given no one
has actually said anything original, nor different (and where news of
a virus eclipses this for technical discussion) it proves tedious
without mention of that same discussion of error that would illuminate
the sham in stark relief.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:
In-phase volts and amps are real power, not apparent power.

Maybe. Sort of. Not necessarily.

Please give us an example of coherent in-phase voltage and
current waves that didn't require power from a generator.

May I suggest that if you had read the posting to which I
responded and the rest of my response you would have found
exactly the example you are looking for: the forward
voltage and current on a transmission line when a standing
wave is present (and the reflected as well).

....Keith

You never measured the incident voltage. And you refused to measure the
end of the inductor, with the capacitor removed (even with the 15 pF, it should
tell us something about Vi).




This may be true, but are you saying that a capacitor can reflect an
RMS voltage wave that is greater than the one that charges it?

Yes indeed. Resonant circuits achieve this with ease.

...Keith


Absolutely incorrect! If capacitance is defined as Coulombs/Volt, then
how are you getting more coulombs than you put in? Remember, i said Root Mean
Square voltage.

How does a capacitor reflect more power than you feed it?

It's almost time for me to cut out of this discussion, if you still don't
understand me.


Slick

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 17:01:54 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard, you really need to learn the difference between an exclusive statement
and an inclusive statement. All you need to ask yourself is, "Did Einstein
ever prove Newton to be wrong?" The answer is 'yes'.

Did Newton ever prove Einstein was wrong? The answer is yes there
too.

I'll take your word for that being true. So what? The argument was
whether Einstein ever proved Newton to be wrong. He did.
--
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:
May I suggest that if you had read the posting to which I
responded and the rest of my response you would have found
exactly the example you are looking for: the forward
voltage and current on a transmission line when a standing
wave is present (and the reflected as well).

How did the standing wave get there in the first place? *POWER*
from the generator. You simply cannot have standing waves without
a power source, a forward wave, and a reflected wave.

You are asking us to completely ignore the cause of standing waves.
--
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! =-----