|
|
|
Ian White, GM3SEK wrote:
"That statement bears no physical relationship to how this instrument actually works---." We`ve been through detailled explanations of how a Bird works. Cecil did not need to do another. The wattmeter takes actual samples of the voltages and currents at any single point on the coax. These are representative of the powers which are moving toward the load and away from the load. Careful calibration allows indicarions in watts. An electric current through a speedometer is calibrated to indicate miles per hour. It works. So does the Bird Wattmeter. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
|
Richard Clark wrote:
"Where does he (Terman) equate phase with direction?" From page 90 of Terman`s 1955 edition: Bottom of the page; "Transmission Line with Short-circuited Load. Where the load end of the line is short-circuited, that is ZL=0, reference to Eq.(4-14) shows the reflection coeficient has a value of -1.0 on an angle of 0-deg. = +1.0 on an angle of 180-deg. As in the open-circuited case, the reflected wave has an amplitude equal to the amplitude of the incident wave. However, the reflection takes place with reversal in phase of voltage and without change in phase of the current." I`m a lousy typist but tried to make an exact copy of part of the page. I assume you agree the incident and reflected waves travel in opposite directions in Terman`s example. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
|
Richard Clark wrote:
"Again, what is the vector of direction for the light bulb?" Electromagnetic waves include light and heat whicjh have extremely short wavelengths. The light bulb may not be a perfect point source but the waves travel away from the source with the velocity of light and consist of electric and magnetic fields that are at right angles to each other and also at right angles to the direction of travel. Wave energy is divided 50-50 between the electric and magnetic fields. Many frequencies (colors) make up the radiation from a light bulb. Much more heat is radiated than visible light. In a radio wave the essential properties are frequency, intensity, direction of travel, and plane of polarization, For the constituents of light bulb radiation, it is the same. 300 million m/sec is the velocity and this equals the product of frequency X wavelength. Emissions of a light bulb are of extremely high frequency but of extremely short wavelenggth too. All points on a wavefront are equidistant from the source and emerged simultaneouslly so they share the same phase.. From a point source light bulb we would be in the far field. The field is transverse. The power flow (J.D. Kraus` words), or Poynting vector, is entirely radial. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Richard Clark wrote:
"To obtain a complete cancellation it requires identical powers with identical but opposing phases." Yes. That is why closely spaced balanced transmission lines have no significant radiation. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: The Bird is indirectly measuring [(E^for) x (H^for)] as forward power and [(E^ref) x (H^ref)] as reflected power. That statement bears no physical relationship to how the instrument actually works (and "indirectly" won't get you off the hook either). I was hoping someone would assert such. E^for is proportional to Vfor which is what the Bird samples. H^for is proportional to Ifor which is what the Bird samples. Within a 50 ohm environment that yields forward power. Same for reflected power. The Bird does not generate a vector cross product. There is nothing inside the instrument that's capable of doing such a thing. The hardware displays readings of detected RF voltages - not power. The forward/reflected power calibration on the meter scale is an external calculation, based on transmission line theory. You know exactly how instruments like the Bird work, because at various times you have posted accurate descriptions here. Your enthusiasm for your pet theory is making you distort the truth. -- 73 from Ian G/GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
|
Richard Harrison wrote:
Ian White, GM3SEK wrote: "That statement bears no physical relationship to how this instrument actually works---." We`ve been through detailled explanations of how a Bird works. Cecil did not need to do another. The wattmeter takes actual samples of the voltages and currents at any single point on the coax. These are representative of the powers which are moving toward the load and away from the load. Careful calibration allows indicarions in watts. An electric current through a speedometer is calibrated to indicate miles per hour. It works. So does the Bird Wattmeter. The difference is that nobody is trying to create a complete distortion of the way a speedometer works. I am not criticizing the Bird 43 at all. I own one, and use it regularly. It is a clever concept, well executed and with lots of good features. My objection is against the "other Bird 43" - not the real hardware, but a piece of vaporware that is called a "Bird" but only exists in someone's imagination. Somehow, this imagined instrument can truly *measure* how much power is flowing in the forward and reverse directions, and those measurements can be used to "prove" some point about transmission line theory. The real-life Bird 43 cannot do that. Its indications of "forward and reflected watts" are only printing on the meter scale. They come from calculations that are totally dependent on transmission line theory, so they cannot be used to prove anything *about* that subject. You cannot prove a theory by using evidence that depends on the theory you're trying to prove. That is just simple logic. The real Bird 43 is a good and useful piece of test equipment... but nobody should buy that "other" one. -- 73 from Ian G/GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Richard Clark wrote:
The net result is that there is still no vectoral addition that blacks out the light bulb simply because you can exhibit "away from and toward directions." A light bulb does not emit coherent light so your statement is 100% irrelevant to coherent RF sources and/or coherent laser sources. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Richard Harrison wrote:
I`m a lousy typist but tried to make an exact copy of part of the page. I assume you agree the incident and reflected waves travel in opposite directions in Terman`s example. All part of the reflection model. Ramo & Whinnery go so far as to present separate Poynting vectors for forward and reflected powers where Pz-/Pz+ is the power reflection coefficient. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Richard Clark wrote:
To obtain a complete cancellation it requires identical powers with identical but opposing phases. You would agree that without this condition there is no complete cancellation? What you have described is exactly what happens at a Z0-match point. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Richard Harrison wrote:
All points on a wavefront are equidistant from the source and emerged simultaneouslly so they share the same phase.. From a point source light bulb we would be in the far field. The big difference is that a light bulb doesn't emit coherent light. Coherence is a requirement for superposition and wave cancellation. The light bulb example is simply irrelevant to what happens with a single frequency coherent RF transmitter or a single frequency coherent laser. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote:
The Bird does not generate a vector cross product. There is nothing inside the instrument that's capable of doing such a thing. Didn't say it did, Ian. Using valid assumptions like E/H=Z0 and E-field forward + E-field reflected = E-field total, the multiplication is performed by a combination of phasor addition, linear addition, and non-linear scaling. It is an analog calculator. The hardware displays readings of detected RF voltages - not power. The forward/reflected power calibration on the meter scale is an external calculation, based on transmission line theory. Yes, based on samples of a voltage proportional to the E-field and samples of a current proportional to the H-field. Given the basic assumptions of the Bird, it can be proven mathematically that the Bird is displaying E-field x H-field for forward power if the slug arrow is pointed in the forward direction and displaying E-field x H-field for reflected power if the slug arrow is pointed in the reflected direction. You know exactly how instruments like the Bird work, because at various times you have posted accurate descriptions here. Your enthusiasm for your pet theory is making you distort the truth. The Poynting Vector is ***NOT*** my pet theory, Ian, it is mainstream RF engineering. All I am saying is that the Bird samples a voltage proportional to the E-field and samples a current proportional to the H-field. It then performs analog calculations on those parameters. If you think you can disprove that statement, be my guest. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Richard Clark wrote:
Entirely ignoring all these other trivial details, that cancellation is incomplete in and of necessity for real or imagined initial conditions. That's not true, Richard. If zero reflected energy reaches the source in a system with reflections, a Z0-match has been achieved. For a Z0-match to be achieved, 100% wave cancellation is necessary. For all the nearly perfectly Z0-matched systems out there, near perfect wave cancellation of reflected waves has been achieved. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote: The Bird does not generate a vector cross product. There is nothing inside the instrument that's capable of doing such a thing. Didn't say it did, Ian. Using valid assumptions like E/H=Z0 and E-field forward + E-field reflected = E-field total, the multiplication is performed by a combination of phasor addition, linear addition, and non-linear scaling. As you begin to admit when challenged, the instrument itself does nothing but add or subtract RF voltages derived by sampling the line voltage and current. No multiplication is involved. The calibration to indicate power is performed ENTIRELY on the meter scale. But the instrument didn't do the multiplication or the I^2R calculation, so it didn't actually measure power. It is an analog calculator. No, it isn't. The guy who drew the meter scale did the power calculation. The instrument itself is incapable of multiplying anything. All I am saying is that the Bird samples a voltage proportional to the E-field and samples a current proportional to the H-field. It then performs analog calculations on those parameters. If you think you can disprove that statement, be my guest. Ah, the old bait and switch trick. In your earlier statement you said it "performs multiplication", which is totally false. But for your final paragraph you've switched it to "analog calculations", which is more general and thus partly true; and then you invite me to disprove that. Cecil, I don't think you even realise you're pulling these dishonest debating tricks... but after too many years to count, I just don't have any more time for them. plonk -- 73 from Ian G/GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB) http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek |
Richard Clark wrote:
"Actually that is quite wrong. IR is not heat." He got me. According to Lincoln`s Industrial Reference, from a 100-watt MAZDA lamp the amount of energy emanating as light is 10%, and as infrared is 72%. The rest is lost to gas end loss, etc. The loss would be only 18% You can`t see infrared. The eye is most sensitive to a yellow-green color around 5550 Angstrom units. Lamps are made to emphasize white or "daylight" which is rated at about 2400 to 3100 degrees Kelvin. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote: The Bird does not generate a vector cross product. There is nothing inside the instrument that's capable of doing such a thing. Didn't say it did, Ian. Using valid assumptions like E/H=Z0 and E-field forward + E-field reflected = E-field total, the multiplication is performed by a combination of phasor addition, linear addition, and non-linear scaling. As you begin to admit when challenged, the instrument itself does nothing but add or subtract RF voltages derived by sampling the line voltage and current. No multiplication is involved. The calibration to indicate power is performed ENTIRELY on the meter scale. But the instrument didn't do the multiplication or the I^2R calculation, so it didn't actually measure power. It is an analog calculator. No, it isn't. The guy who drew the meter scale did the power calculation. The instrument itself is incapable of multiplying anything. All I am saying is that the Bird samples a voltage proportional to the E-field and samples a current proportional to the H-field. It then performs analog calculations on those parameters. If you think you can disprove that statement, be my guest. Ah, the old bait and switch trick. In your earlier statement you said it "performs multiplication", which is totally false. But for your final paragraph you've switched it to "analog calculations", which is more general and thus partly true; and then you invite me to disprove that. Cecil, I don't think you even realise you're pulling these dishonest debating tricks... but after too many years to count, I just don't have any more time for them. plonk Another day, another plonk. Repent! Cecil, before everyone plonks you. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
Ian White, G3SEK wrote:
"In your previous statement you said it "performs multiplication" which is totally false." It gives the right answers so it is not false. Multiplication is the process of finding the product resulting from the addition of a given number by a certain number of times as there are units in another number. It`s the product that counts, not the way you get there. An amplifier with a certain gain is fine. A lever that trades force for distance is fine. A digital machine, having no hardwired multiply and divide circuit and only works with ones and zeros is fine. The only important thing is you supply representative inputs to a device and it gives you the correct product of the numbers as its outpot. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Cecil. W5DXP wrote:
In a transmission line, there is only one "new direction", the opposite direction." Tes, and there is no cumulative long-term buildup on the line. We could sense an accumulation. The energy in the steady state is lost on the line or dissipated in lhe load or source. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
straightman:
The net result is that there is still no vectoral addition that blacks out the light bulb simply because you can exhibit "away from and toward directions." [.... Ta-da-dum!] stooge: A light bulb does not emit coherent light so your statement is 100% irrelevant to coherent RF sources and/or coherent laser sources. straightman: And if that source WERE entirely coherent? [Ba-Boom!] scientist (wearing white lab coat steps from behind curtain): The observer would still perceive as much light; and absolutely none of it would destructively/constructively interfere. Simply because the source can exhibit "away from and toward directions" is wholly immaterial. Direction vectors and power have nothing to do here. [voice over and closing music]: Ladies and gentlemen. The experiments performed here should not be attempted at home. Further, please do not plonk the stooge on stage as his performance is part of our audience's instruction and distracts their attention. We thank your patronage and look forward to more skits. :-) |
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: I think I'll stick with just saying that power, as a scaler quantity does not have direction and cannot be negative. So what is E^ x H^? According to Born and Wolf, it's "an abstraction that introduces a certain degree of arbitrariness". On the other hand it's integral over a volume is described as something from which "no unambiguous conclusion can be drawn". So, is that what you're hangin' your hat on, there Cecil? Or perhaps you would have preferred my response to be "it's whatever you sez it is, massa mensa". ac6xg |
Cecil Moore wrote: Richard Clark wrote: To obtain a complete cancellation it requires identical powers with identical but opposing phases. You would agree that without this condition there is no complete cancellation? What you have described is exactly what happens at a Z0-match point. Except that power and energy, like mass and time, aren't things which 'cancel'. Fields on the other hand can superpose, interfere, and cancel. 73, ac6xg |
|
Richard Clark wrote:
"The unintended consequence of this (exposure to white light) is that it suppresses the eye`s ability to perceive red light at night (why you see them (red lights) used in dark rooms and WWII movies--..)" I was in WW-2 and confirm that aboard my ship our chartroom (the compartment with an opening tp tje outside) indeed was illuminated with red lamps so that we would not be blind when we stepped outside. We were told that we used our cones in the daytime and our rods at night. How could I ever have remembered that? From Lincoln`s Reference: Glare is said to reduce the ability to see, and hastens fatigue. Glare is wasted since it lowers the effectiveness of useful light. Glare is high light energy over a measurable period of time from above normal angles of vision (30 to 90-degrees above the vertical). I think this means you don`t want a bright light shining in your eyes. It`s glaring and impairs vision for awhile. I wasn`t a signalman but I noticed our signaling light was fitted at night with a red filter called the "Nan-gear". Our phonetic alphabet in those days went: able, baker, charlie, dog---nancy. I suppose Nan was short for nighttime gear. I speculate it was hoped that the enemy would step out of white lighted quarters and not notice our red signal beams. So much for red lights and glare. It probably wouldn`t work, but you might say to the policeman: I didn`t see the red light. The white glare desensitized my eyes! Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
Nan gear was infra-red, not red. The purpose was to be non detectable
without special equipment. "Richard Harrison" wrote in message ... Richard Clark wrote: I wasn`t a signalman but I noticed our signaling light was fitted at night with a red filter called the "Nan-gear". Our phonetic alphabet in those days went: able, baker, charlie, dog---nancy. I suppose Nan was short for nighttime gear. I speculate it was hoped that the enemy would |
|
Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote:
As you begin to admit when challenged, the instrument itself does nothing but add or subtract RF voltages derived by sampling the line voltage and current. You missed the point, Ian. THE VOLTAGE SAMPLE IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE E-FIELD AND THE CURRENT SAMPLE IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE H-FIELD. Given the assumptions about the boundary conditions in which the Bird is placed, the Bird is INDEED indicating the value of the Poynting Vector no matter how indirectly. IF IT WASN'T, BIRD COULD NOT REMAIN IN BUSINESS. That's what Bird Wattmeters do - indicate the magnitude and direction of the Poynting Vector - assuming the instrument is properly used. Pz+ = E^for x H^for = Bird wattmeter reading for slug == Pz- = E^ref x H^ref = Bird wattmeter reading for slug == This is all covered in "Fields and Waves ..." by Ramo and Whinnery. I have NOT introduced anything new. I have simply tied together some loose ends from all the references available. Anyone with an open and logical mind could have done exactly the same thing. No multiplication is involved. On the contrary, non-linear calibration of linear meters is an old technique for analog multiplication. I assumed you knew that already, but maybe you are not that old. When I was in college, we put a '1' mark at one milliamp. We put a '4' mark at 2 milliamps. We put a '16' mark at 4 milliamps. It's a very, very, very old technique for analog multiplication. The calibration to indicate power is performed ENTIRELY on the meter scale. EXACTLY!!! YOU GOT IT!!! THAT'S ANALOG MULTIPLICATION!!! I did the exact same thing for analog multiplication when I was in college. Non-linear calibration of linear meters is a very, very, very old analog computing technique. Do you even remember analog computers? If not, I can loan you my analog computing college textbook. It is an analog calculator. No, it isn't. Yes, it is. I learned all those analog techniques while in college at Texas A&M in the 50's. Maybe you should review a very old reference on the subject. When I was in college, analog computers were more popular than digital computers. Op-amps using tubes were more numerous than anything digital (and the Texas A&M mascot was a T-Rex). You young sprouts are just digitally-spoiled brats. :-) In your earlier statement you said it "performs multiplication", which is totally false. But for your final paragraph you've switched it to "analog calculations", which is more general and thus partly true; and then you invite me to disprove that. It INDEED does perform analog multiplication, Ian, through the non- linear calibration of the linear meter. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. I just assumed you knew that already. Some of the OF's on this newsgroup can verify what I am saying. Cecil, I don't think you even realise you're pulling these dishonest debating tricks... but after too many years to count, I just don't have any more time for them. Your ignorance does NOT equate to dishonesty on my part, Ian. Is admitting ignorance ever worth sacrificing integrity? plonk Ian, instead of plonking me, as Roy did, why don't you just prove me wrong? Wouldn't that be extremely easy given how wrong you assert that I am? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Tom Donaly wrote:
Another day, another plonk. Repent! Cecil, before everyone plonks you. Hey Tom, have you noticed the only time I get ploinked is when some guru is on the verge of losing an argument? Is saving face worth sacrificing integrity? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Richard Harrison wrote:
Ian White, G3SEK wrote: "In your previous statement you said it "performs multiplication" which is totally false." The only important thing is you supply representative inputs to a device and it gives you the correct product of the numbers as its outpot. Apparently, Ian is too young to remember analog multiplication by non-linearly calibrating the face of linear meters which is exactly what Bird does. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Richard Clark wrote:
straightman: And if that source WERE entirely coherent? If that source were entirely coherent, superposition between the forward waves and reflected waves would result, obeying the laws of physics. Some areas could be very bright obeying the total constructive interference equation. Some areas could be totally black obeying the total destructive interference equation. You really should read _Optics_, by Hecht and get back to us. The above is EXACTLY how antenna radiation patterns are achieved. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: So what is E^ x H^? According to Born and Wolf, it's "an abstraction that introduces a certain degree of arbitrariness". On the other hand it's integral over a volume is described as something from which "no unambiguous conclusion can be drawn". So, is that what you're hangin' your hat on, there Cecil? Actually, the Poynting Vector is extremely well defined *AND* well accepted in the RF engineering community. Do you really reject the Poynting Vector concept? If so, that explains everything. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: What you have described is exactly what happens at a Z0-match point. Except that power and energy, like mass and time, aren't things which 'cancel'. Fields on the other hand can superpose, interfere, and cancel. You're still presenting that straw man riding that dead horse. Please read my lips, Jim. *ENERGY CANNOT BE CANCELED*!!! Waves can be canceled but the energy in the canceled waves must change direction in a transmission line because there are only two directions available. When fields cancel in one direction, the energy in the fields must be re-distributed in another direction. Given two, and only two, directions for that re-distribution in a transmission line, what is it about the following that you refuse to understand? "... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually annihilated. All of the photon energy present in these waves must somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction of light." -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Richard Clark wrote:
Also, this discussion bears upon the answer to "What is the wavelength of Glare?" that has remained undiscovered by binary engineers. I bet our Readers can catch this clue. :-) Richard, you apparently are not reading my postings. The wavelength of glare is exactly the same as the wavelength of the single-frequency coherent laser forward wave emissions. Do you want me to re-post the equation for wavelength Vs frequency? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Richard Harrison wrote:
It probably wouldn`t work, but you might say to the policeman: I didn`t see the red light. The white glare desensitized my eyes! There was a guy in my home town, who for decades, honked his horn when encountering a red light, because he was color blind. Everyone knew he would just blow through a red-light, honking his horn, so everyone gave him the right-of-way. Finally, he encountered a deaf person ... -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Richard Clark wrote:
This topic of Glare, being his alone, has subsequently been identified by him as being inconsequential detail, ... EXACTLY!!! When the glare is exactly the same frequency as the forward laser beam, and when refraction has been eliminated, as it is in a transmission line, your postings become completely irrelevant, but I am not surprised since you seem to be protecting some cow you consider to be sacred. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: What you have described is exactly what happens at a Z0-match point. Except that power and energy, like mass and time, aren't things which 'cancel'. Fields on the other hand can superpose, interfere, and cancel. You're still presenting that straw man riding that dead horse. Please read my lips, Jim. *ENERGY CANNOT BE CANCELED*!!! Then my reminder of that fact (above) must have served its purpose. I wrote it in response to your claim that power cancels at a Z0-match point. Hellooooo... anybody home? ac6xg |
Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: You're still presenting that straw man riding that dead horse. Please read my lips, Jim. *ENERGY CANNOT BE CANCELED*!!! Then my reminder of that fact (above) must have served its purpose. I wrote it in response to your claim that power cancels at a Z0-match point. Hellooooo... anybody home? If I ever said, "Power cancels at a Z0-match", I made a mistake. I don't think I ever said that and I believe that to be only one of your numerous straw men, but if you will provide a valid reference, I will take it back and appologize for my mental mistake. I am not perfect, BUT the onus of proof is upon you. You can provide a reference for your assertions, can't you, Jim? :-) (In case you missed it, this is a challenge to your integrity.) -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com