Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot possibly enclose a negative. Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative????? WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of accepted math principles. Hint: If one of those powers is negative, the square root will be imaginary. Cecil, You are going to run your bike's mileage warrantee out by pedalling to the library for one page copies at a time. Why don't you spend a couple hours there and read it instead? I've got page 139, the one you referenced, in front of me. It says absolutely nothing about reflections from the source. All it seems to say is that conjugately matched loads accept more power than non-conjugately matched loads but we knew that already. Incidentally, pages 140-143 discusses "Transmission line sections as two-port networks" using the h-parameter analysis. Who said transmission lines didn't have ports? -- 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! =----- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:41:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot possibly enclose a negative. Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative????? WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of accepted math principles. Personal feelings, hmmm? You are the one enclosing the statement with excessive marks, bucko. And I also note that what is enclosed is a hoot! Hint: If one of those powers is negative, the square root will be imaginary. We can all tell where imagination springs from. Give me better than a hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your emotional markings. I've got page 139, the one you referenced, in front of me. It says absolutely nothing about reflections from the source. Duh! Two for Two. You still can't do any better than your tarted up versions of what you "think" I said? Your ability to find a Google copy is no better than your cut-and-paste library skills. You can (and have) spin these fantasies out to 600 postings if you put your mind to it. Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman at some future date? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
wrote: Richard Clark wrote: If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot possibly enclose a negative. Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative????? WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in the way of accepted math principles. Personal feelings, hmmm? You are the one enclosing the statement with excessive marks, bucko. And I also note that what is enclosed is a hoot! Owls are not really all that intelligent, Richard, even if they are MENSA's mascot. You really should upgrade to parrots if you want an intelligent bird. Give me better than a hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your emotional markings. By convention, direction can change power to a negative number. That is positive power flowing in a negative direction. To the best of my knowledge, there is really no such thing as negative energy as would be required for negative power. Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman at some future date? I've got page 139 in front of me. It doesn't say what you said it said. It says a conjugate match will ensure maximum power transfer. -- 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! =----- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:35:30 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: Owls are not really all that intelligent, Richard, even if they are MENSA's mascot. You really should upgrade to parrots if you want an intelligent bird. I didn't think you could deal with the negative power intelligently. Give me better than a hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your emotional markings. By convention, direction can change power to a negative number. What convention, Shriners? That is positive power flowing in a negative direction. To the best of my knowledge, there is really no such thing as negative energy as would be required for negative power. Thus it follows your negative that doesn't exist in your own formula, doesn't exist as a figment of someone else's over-indulgent imagination. I already said as much. Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman at some future date? I've got page 139 in front of me. It doesn't say what you said it said. It says a conjugate match will ensure maximum power transfer. Duh! You are still at a loss to respond to the post, and instead in your own tradition of the unreliable correspondent decide to respond to your own rhetoric. Three for three now. It is painfully obvious you haven't got a clue what you are answering to. This is a curious state of affairs where your imagination works overtime to build these fantasies of power flow signs, and then paint up these supposed quotes of mine with such pale and weak colors. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
Thus it follows your negative that doesn't exist in your own formula, doesn't exist as a figment of someone else's over-indulgent imagination. I already said as much. The sign of the reflection coefficient has absolutely nothing to do with negative power. The sign of the reflection coefficient is simply a math convention where -1 at zero degrees equals +1 at 180 degrees. You are still at a loss to respond to the post, ... Exactly where does Chipman talk about reflections from the source? As far as I can tell, the concept of reflections from the source originated with you, not with Chipman. -- 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! =----- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:18:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: You are still at a loss to respond to the post, ... Exactly where does Chipman talk about reflections from the source? As far as I can tell, the concept of reflections from the source originated with you, not with Chipman. Hi Cecil, You deliberately isolate my complaint, and then entirely ignore it. Does this give you some insight into you being observed as an unreliable correspondent? Is it so difficult to search Google to find the actual post that you claim you can quote from memory (sic)? If you do find it difficult, what makes me think you have the library research skills to find any printed material to a citation? Your inability to quote or follow Chipman's work is equal in the poor treatment you post in regards to Optics here, a field you are so naive about, and so terribly unfamiliar with, you cannot even perform the simplest of field solutions. This is indeed the price and evidence of your career in binary electronics. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Clark wrote:
You deliberately isolate my complaint, and then entirely ignore it. I give up trying to communicate with you as have most others. -- 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! =----- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|