"Richard Clark" wrote
Elevated ground planes radiate from the entire structure. What they
radiate is energy. The net sum of those energies, at a distance,
combined into a load, reveal that the contribution of the radials
nullifies in horizontal polarity,
________________

Psst... the definition of "polarity" is not same as that of polarization.
Probably you meant to write "polarization," did you not?

RF

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:54:45 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote
Elevated ground planes radiate from the entire structure. What they
radiate is energy. The net sum of those energies, at a distance,
combined into a load, reveal that the contribution of the radials
nullifies in horizontal polarity,
________________

Psst... the definition of "polarity" is not same as that of polarization.
Probably you meant to write "polarization," did you not?

RF

Hi OM,

True.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Like I said, they cannot be created without energy. They can however
exist without conveying energy from one place to another.
^^^^^^^^^
It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure
way and refuse to define it. Since you haven't presented your
esoteric definition for "convey", and it is not in the IEEE
Dictionary, would this be a true statement based on your
definition of "convey"?

The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed
by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that
human eye. The EM light wave energy from the North Star that
misses earth and continues on through space did not convey any
energy from the North Star.

Those are pretty smart light waves, Jim. How did the ones that
entered the human eye now know many years ago to convey (bring)
some energy from the North Star? How did the ones that miss earth
now know many years ago to avoid conveying (bringing) any energy
from the North Star. :-)

I would guess that a statement like, "These EM waves are in the
process of conveying energy from the source to the load.", sounds
ridiculous to you?
--
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 =---

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:20:31 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Like I said, they cannot be created without energy. They can however
exist without conveying energy from one place to another.
^^^^^^^^^
It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure
way and refuse to define it.

What's sauce for goose must be **** for the gander.

Since you haven't presented your
esoteric definition for "convey", and it is not in the IEEE
Dictionary

Truly English is a dead language here. There is more effort expended
in trying to find the Rosetta stone for its interpretation than the
performance of bench work or simple computation.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

It's also arguable whether any energy is transferred from a source to
a lossless, open circuited, 1/2 wave transmission line after the
transient period.


Use a signal generator with a circulator load as the source. Cause a
noise glitch on the source signal. When will you see the glitch
across the circulator resistor? One cycle later. Reckon where that
glitch went during that one cycle? Man, that's a tough question. :-)

I notice you opted to use the word 'glitch' rather than 'transient'. :-)

ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Except that D is not caused by, and cannot be caused by C. Only
reflection can cause reflection. The claim that momentum reverses
direction without encountering a physical reflector is a violation of
conservation of momentum.


You missed the point, Jim. The wave indeed does encounter a
physical reflector and indeed cannot happen without the physical
impedance discontinuity. It meets all of your requirements.

Well then, there it is. My requirements have been met. As long you say
so, Cecil. :-)

73 de ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

It's not really fair to the readers to use a word in an obscure
way and refuse to define it. Since you haven't presented your
esoteric definition for "convey", and it is not in the IEEE
Dictionary, would this be a true statement based on your
definition of "convey"?

The EM light wave energy from the North Star that is absorbed
by a human eye conveyed energy from the North Star to that
human eye. The EM light wave energy from the North Star that
misses earth and continues on through space did not convey any
energy from the North Star.

Those are pretty smart light waves, Jim. How did the ones that
entered the human eye now know many years ago to convey (bring)
some energy from the North Star? How did the ones that miss earth
now know many years ago to avoid conveying (bringing) any energy
from the North Star. :-)

I have no idea what you are talking about, Cecil. And so, apparently,
that makes two of us.

I would guess that a statement like, "These EM waves are in the
process of conveying energy from the source to the load.", sounds
ridiculous to you?

Not unlike many of the other things you have said in this discourse.

But, take heart. You have brought your evil adversary to his knees.
Your relentless browbeating has finally taken its toll and achieved its
intended purpose. The blaring onslaught of abuse of logic, men made of
straw, mathematical sleight of hand, and alternative science has proven
too much for one person to endure. Personal intergrity has succombed to
vested interest, and I must withdraw. The internet may once again be
put to a good use. ;-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Use a signal generator with a circulator load as the source. Cause a
noise glitch on the source signal. When will you see the glitch
across the circulator resistor? One cycle later. Reckon where that
glitch went during that one cycle? Man, that's a tough question. :-)

I notice you opted to use the word 'glitch' rather than 'transient'. :-)

Yep, in order to avoid your inevitable copout: "But that's
not steady-state." There are natural noise glitches existing
in every real-world steady-state system. Those natural noise
glitches can be used to track the flow of energy in the EM
waves.

In the real-world, a system never achieves true steady-state
conditions because those natural noise glitches are always
present and, unfortunately for your argument, can be easily
tracked.
--
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:
You missed the point, Jim. The wave indeed does encounter a
physical reflector and indeed cannot happen without the physical
impedance discontinuity. It meets all of your requirements.

Well then, there it is. My requirements have been met.

I keep telling you that the only technical disagreement
we have left concerns only the minutest of details
after semantic adjustments have been made to account
for our differing definitions of words.

According to your definition of "convey", the energy
associated with EM waves isn't necessarily conveyed.

According to my definition of "convey", the energy
associated with EM waves is necessarily in the process
of being conveyed.
--
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:

I have no idea what you are talking about, Cecil.

I'm obviously talking about the different definitions of "convey"
that you and I use. By your definition, the pack mule is never in
the process of conveying a person down the path into the Grand
Canyon. Conveyance of the person cannot be verified until the
person dismounts. If the person never dismounts, the pack mule
never was conveying the person. IMO, that's a silly definition.

I would guess that a statement like, "These EM waves are in the
process of conveying energy from the source to the load.", sounds
ridiculous to you?

Not unlike many of the other things you have said in this discourse.

Yet, barring unexpected removal of the load from the system, most
hams are intelligent enough to predict conveyance of energy from
the source to the load. Otherwise, what would be the purpose of
getting on the air?
--
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 =----