Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
In my opinion, the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences
about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter,
and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is
associated with the meter readings.

Spot-on, Jim.

What is the technical content here? I don't see a single equation. The
moral seems to be "draw no conclusions because they might be
incorrect". Whatever happened to the scientific method where a premise
is tested against reality?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Ian White, GM3SEK wrote:
"That`s because it doesn`t actually measure watts."

Yes. As Ian said, it`s been calibrated in watts.

Your spedometer doesn`t measure miles or hours. It has been calibrated
in miles or km per hour. Nor, do you need to drive for miles or hours to
get a readout.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Those are the reasons for the point I'm always wanting to make about the
Bird: it cannot be called in evidence to "prove" anything about forward
and reflected power, because it is entirely dependent on the theories
under debate.

But that makes you a little like the people who believe that man has
never walked on the moon. No amount of proof is ever sufficient.

No, it's not even remotely like that.


So all we can do is operate within the laws of physics as we, the human
race, understand them to exist at the present time.

And the laws of scientific logic, for example: sticking to your initial
assumptions; and being very careful to avoid circular arguments.

The debate is
underway.



--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
In my opinion, the only problem is in drawing incorrect inferences
about the behavior of nature based on readings taken from the meter,
and from some of the less than fortunate terminology which is
associated with the meter readings.

Spot-on, Jim.

What is the technical content here? I don't see a single equation. The
moral seems to be "draw no conclusions because they might be
incorrect". Whatever happened to the scientific method where a premise
is tested against reality?

You lost it somewhere. The moral is "draw no conclusion that could be
incorrect".

--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:44:33 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

That means the Bird's readings of "watts" cannot be called as evidence
in the debate. Any argument based on doing so is doomed to be circular.
It *may* still be correct, but that cannot be proved through a circular
argument - you have to find some other way.

Hi Ian,

You have simply invalidated any method to prove the debate. In a
sense, yours is an appeal that nothing can be known and hence nothing
can be proven.

Utter rubbish. I am simply saying that you cannot prove something if you
already assumed it as part of the "proof".

you have to find some other way.

That's all.


Yes, I know this may be "inflammatory," but I would counter: give me
one method of determining power that does not eventually appeal to
circular definitions.

Certainly. A thermal wattmeter determines the power delivered into a
load resistor without making any assumptions about how and why it got
there. It only involves measurements of mass, time and temperature rise,
and a knowledge of specific heat capacity, so it is completely
independent of any assumptions related to RF transmission line theory.



--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:59:00 +0100, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

Certainly. A thermal wattmeter determines the power delivered into a
load resistor without making any assumptions about how and why it got
there. It only involves measurements of mass, time and temperature rise,
and a knowledge of specific heat capacity, so it is completely
independent of any assumptions related to RF transmission line theory.

Hi Ian,

So here I will follow your plunge into the rabbit hole.

That thermal wattmeter, and I know a variety of them, each very
different from the other, has a scale, just like the Bird. Every
meter has scaling circuitry for that scale, just like the Bird.
Accurate Thermal wattmeters use AC references and need to transform to
DC to drive the scale, just like the Bird. Accurate Thermal
wattmeters don't even directly measure mass, time, temperature rise,
or specific heat capacity - they infer them by comparison. The
measurement is balanced against a simpler substitute - one difference
from the Bird that is of no consequence.

Every step of the way, there is a conversion performed to meet the
needs of displaying a result, just like the Bird.

Further, the best and most accurate thermal wattmeter is as restricted
as a Bird Wattmeter because it (they) too is (are) load specific. A
50 Ohm thermal wattmeter is no more correct on a 75 Ohm line than a
Bird Wattmeter. Those same thermal wattmeters all quite deliberately
employ the same printed restrictions of operation at a known load
without reflections present.

If you are trying to make an appeal to a calorimeter, with thermometer
in hand, you are simply exacting the algorithms you must use, compared
to the already quantified results that the Bird will offer by the
similar math being embedded in the coupling and scaling of a tensioned
needle indicator in a magnetic field. Current, field, mass, tension,
deflection, time - still in the jumble, they evaluate to power. I've
calibrated meter movements, balanced needles, replaced springs,
adjusted trim pots, tuned capacitance, replaced resistors - and I have
worked and calibrated calorimeters, bolometers, thermistors,
thermocouples, barreters, Wollaston wires, diodes, thermopiles, black
bodies.... But I've said all this before, and it cannot have escaped
your attention. So just what is it about this list of thermal
technology that is so decidedly uncircular that it trumps the Bird?

There are any number of ways to measure power, none of them are
exclusive, and certainly none can claim to achieve this feat through
other than ordinary transformation of physical actions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
You lost it somewhere. The moral is "draw no conclusion that could be
incorrect".

Every technical conclusion that you can possibly draw today will
probably be proven incorrect during the next 1000 years. All we have
today is the limit of human knowledge. Newton was wrong about light.
Einstein was wrong about entanglement. Methinks you have to be a god
not to draw incorrect conclusions.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
So all we can do is operate within the laws of physics as we, the human
race, understand them to exist at the present time.

And the laws of scientific logic, for example: sticking to your initial
assumptions; and being very careful to avoid circular arguments.

OK, let's take an example. The source (SGCL) is a signal generator with
a circulator and 50 ohm resistor circulator load. The load is a 291.5
ohm resistor.

100W SGCL---Bird---50 ohm lossless coax---291.5 ohm load

We measure 50 watts delivered to the 291.5 ohm load. We measure 50
watts dissipated in the 50 ohm circulator load resistor. The Bird reads
100 watts forward power and 50 watts reflected power. Modulation proves
that the 50 watts absorbed in the circulator resistor has made a round
trip to the 291.5 ohm load and back. Everything obeys the laws of
physics embodied in the wave reflection model and the conservation of
energy/momentum principles. What else is there to know?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In article ,
(Richard Harrison) wrote:


A wire one meter long placed for maximum excitation when swept by the
passing wave will have a voltage induced across it equal to the wave`s
signal strength in volts per meter.

There are no volts or amps in the wave, only the ability to generate
volts and amps in conductors.

so if in my transmision thier is of course volts, and waves


if the waves have the ability to generate it, how can their be no volts
or amps in the wave? what force has it how did it get seperated from
the 'volts'

is it making volts from the pure wave energy which in turn moves the
electrons?

so therefore that means when i measure volts in my coax, it's because
the waves produced it my moveing the copper's electrons?

In article . com,
"Cecil Moore" wrote:

uctance and capacitance in the
transmission line and that there is really no forward EM wave energy or
momentum traveling at the speed of light and no reflected EM wave
energy or momentum traveling at the speed of light.

what would be the 'momentum' your referring to? is their a
knetic/stored piece i am misssing? or are you just referring to like
the flywheel effect for ex a large coil might have