Jim Kelley wrote:
I am familiar with the common usage of the expression 'power flow' and
of course the Poynting vector. I've been explaining that "energy flows -
not power" on this newsgroup for 4 years and have gotten nothing but
grief for it. I think it will be more interesting to see whether your
explanation will satisfy the others.

Would you agree that the amount of energy passing a point
in a unit-time is power?
--
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:

Jim Kelley wrote:
"That`s because power doesn`t propagate, and hasten to add - neither do
Poynting vectots."

One could make a long list of serious authors who freely treat power as
moving energy. I namrd Ktaus, Ridenour, Purcell, and Walter Maxwell.

You can add Walter Johnson, Simon Ramo, and John Whinnery to
that list. "Power in the reflected wave" is commonly mentioned.
--
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:
I am familiar with the common usage of the expression 'power flow' and
of course the Poynting vector. I've been explaining that "energy flows -
not power" on this newsgroup for 4 years and have gotten nothing but
grief for it.

You are technically correct but it doesn't matter. The Sun
will rise tomorrow even if the Sun is fixed in space. I'll
even bolster your argument. RF energy moves at the speed
of light in the transmission line. The power meter is
standing still compared to the transmission line. If the
power meter were moving with the energy at the speed of
light, it wouldn't work at all. Does that help? :-)
--
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:
If the power associated with
an EM pulse is not in the pulse, where is it?

According to definition, the 'effect' of power is something which can be
realized at a place where energy either is being transferred from, or
transferred to.

Please define "transfer" in this context. The IEEE Dictionary
defines "transfer capability - the capacity and ability of a
transmission line to allow for the reliable MOVEMENT OF ELECTRIC
POWER from an area of supply to an area of need." Emphasis mine.

But power is not the thing which is being transferred from one place
to another.

Jim, we can use your logic to solve most of the racial problems
in the USA. Black Americans are not black. White Americans are
not white. These statements can be proven beyond any doubt by
using a light spectrometer.

Therefore, since there are no black people and no white people,
there can exist no clash between black culture and white culture.
All racial problems are therefore declared solved. Next problem?
--
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:

I am familiar with the common usage of the expression 'power flow' and
of course the Poynting vector. I've been explaining that "energy flows
- not power" on this newsgroup for 4 years and have gotten nothing but
grief for it. I think it will be more interesting to see whether your
explanation will satisfy the others.


Would you agree that the amount of energy passing a point
in a unit-time is power?

Or even more to the point: Do you believe the 'amount of motorcycle'
passing a point in a unit time is speed? :-)

The units speak plainly enough for themselves. Why do you ask me?
You're the one who always turns these things into a religious argument
over 'belief' systems.

73, ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
"That`s because power doesn`t propagate, and hasten to add - neither do
Poynting vectots."

One could make a long list of serious authors who freely treat power as
moving energy. I namrd Ktaus, Ridenour, Purcell, and Walter Maxwell.


You can add Walter Johnson, Simon Ramo, and John Whinnery to
that list. "Power in the reflected wave" is commonly mentioned.

Proving what, exactly? That power is "in" a reflected wave?

ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

You are technically correct but it doesn't matter.

You just spent 4 years vehemently arguing the exact opposite point of
view. It sure seemed to matter to you - before yesterday.

RF energy moves at the speed
of light in the transmission line. The power meter is
standing still compared to the transmission line. If the
power meter were moving with the energy at the speed of
light, it wouldn't work at all. Does that help? :-)

Might be the seed of an idea there for a real nerdy Saturday morning
science fiction cartoon. "Cecil and the Power Meters"

Now that's the kind of humor that actually merits a smiley face! :-)

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
The units speak plainly enough for themselves. Why do you ask me?
You're the one who always turns these things into a religious argument
over 'belief' systems.

Jim, there are more references on my side than on yours.
Your definitions are esoteric to say the least. My
definitions are mainstream IEEE and agree with many
authors of RF books and power industry standards.

"There is no before and after!" (a quote from one of
your emails to me). Would you mind proving that assertion?
--
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 =---

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
You can add Walter Johnson, Simon Ramo, and John Whinnery to
that list. "Power in the reflected wave" is commonly mentioned.

Proving what, exactly? That power is "in" a reflected wave?

Proving that "Power in the reflected wave" is common
usage in RF engineering. You are not going to get the
human race to stop using the word, "sunrise", no
matter what you say or do.
--
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 =---

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
You are technically correct but it doesn't matter.

You just spent 4 years vehemently arguing the exact opposite point of
view.

BS! Please don't confuse my ability to act as devil's advocate
with what are my basic concepts. I have told you multiple times
before over any number of years that I agree with you that power
is energy passing a point or plane in a unit of time. That can
be easily proven to be true with a little Google research. I'm
old-fashioned enough to believe that joules/sec needs a reference
measuring point or plane. That's what I was taught in the 50's and
that's the concept that I still carry around in my head.

What I have said lately is that any number of knowledgeable
engineers and authors have an expanded definition of power.
--
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 =---