Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Reflected Energy | Antenna | |||
The Apollo Hoax FAQ | General | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy - new measurement | Antenna | |||
Cecil's Math a Blunder | Antenna |