On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:41:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot
possibly enclose a negative.

Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative?????
WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in
the way of accepted math principles.

Personal feelings, hmmm? You are the one enclosing the statement with
excessive marks, bucko. And I also note that what is enclosed is a
hoot!

Hint: If one of those powers
is negative, the square root will be imaginary.

We can all tell where imagination springs from. Give me better than a
hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your
emotional markings.

I've got page 139, the one you referenced, in front of me. It says
absolutely nothing about reflections from the source.

Duh!

Two for Two. You still can't do any better than your tarted up
versions of what you "think" I said? Your ability to find a Google
copy is no better than your cut-and-paste library skills. You can
(and have) spin these fantasies out to 600 postings if you put your
mind to it. Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman
at some future date?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 27 Sep 2003 23:16:40 -0700, (Tom Bruhns) wrote:

Now can you children quit bickering?

Whatasmatta Tom? Not getting enough attention?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Bruhns wrote:
Now can you children quit bickering?

Does it really hurt anything to remind everyone that +1 at 180 degrees
equals -1 at zero degrees?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
If neither powers are negative, the square root of them cannot
possibly enclose a negative.

Huh?????? The square root of +100W/+100W cannot be negative?????
WOW! Sounds like you are letting your personal feelings get in
the way of accepted math principles.

Personal feelings, hmmm? You are the one enclosing the statement with
excessive marks, bucko. And I also note that what is enclosed is a
hoot!

Owls are not really all that intelligent, Richard, even if they are
MENSA's mascot. You really should upgrade to parrots if you want an
intelligent bird.

Give me better than a
hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your
emotional markings.

By convention, direction can change power to a negative number. That is
positive power flowing in a negative direction. To the best of my
knowledge, there is really no such thing as negative energy as would be
required for negative power.

Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman
at some future date?

I've got page 139 in front of me. It doesn't say what you said it said.
It says a conjugate match will ensure maximum power transfer.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:35:30 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Owls are not really all that intelligent, Richard, even if they are
MENSA's mascot. You really should upgrade to parrots if you want an
intelligent bird.

I didn't think you could deal with the negative power intelligently.

Give me better than a
hint of negative power - you obviously didn't embrace it between your
emotional markings.

By convention, direction can change power to a negative number.

What convention, Shriners?

That is
positive power flowing in a negative direction. To the best of my
knowledge, there is really no such thing as negative energy as would be
required for negative power.

Thus it follows your negative that doesn't exist in your own formula,
doesn't exist as a figment of someone else's over-indulgent
imagination. I already said as much.

Could we at least expect you may actually read Chipman
at some future date?

I've got page 139 in front of me. It doesn't say what you said it said.
It says a conjugate match will ensure maximum power transfer.

Duh!

You are still at a loss to respond to the post, and instead in your
own tradition of the unreliable correspondent decide to respond to
your own rhetoric. Three for three now. It is painfully obvious you
haven't got a clue what you are answering to.

This is a curious state of affairs where your imagination works
overtime to build these fantasies of power flow signs, and then paint
up these supposed quotes of mine with such pale and weak colors.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Thus it follows your negative that doesn't exist in your own formula,
doesn't exist as a figment of someone else's over-indulgent
imagination. I already said as much.

The sign of the reflection coefficient has absolutely nothing
to do with negative power. The sign of the reflection coefficient
is simply a math convention where -1 at zero degrees equals +1
at 180 degrees.

You are still at a loss to respond to the post, ...

Exactly where does Chipman talk about reflections from the source?
As far as I can tell, the concept of reflections from the source
originated with you, not with Chipman.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:18:39 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
You are still at a loss to respond to the post, ...

Exactly where does Chipman talk about reflections from the source?
As far as I can tell, the concept of reflections from the source
originated with you, not with Chipman.

Hi Cecil,

You deliberately isolate my complaint, and then entirely ignore it.
Does this give you some insight into you being observed as an
unreliable correspondent? Is it so difficult to search Google to find
the actual post that you claim you can quote from memory (sic)? If
you do find it difficult, what makes me think you have the library
research skills to find any printed material to a citation?

Your inability to quote or follow Chipman's work is equal in the poor
treatment you post in regards to Optics here, a field you are so naive
about, and so terribly unfamiliar with, you cannot even perform the
simplest of field solutions.

This is indeed the price and evidence of your career in binary
electronics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Tom Bruhns wrote:
(Note that our resolution of measured voltage and current into the two
modes generally assumes that we know the line's Zo, and the degree to
which we don't know that will introduce an error in our determination
of rho. But that's a whole 'nuther topic...)

To my way of thinking, rho is entirely dependent upon the impedances,
and the voltages (reflected voltages in particular) are dependent upon
rho. Not the other way around.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote in message ...

Does it really hurt anything to remind everyone that +1 at 180 degrees
equals -1 at zero degrees?

No, and I already agreed with that in another posting in this thread.
Perhaps you missed it. But it's just flat wrong to claim that the
negative value for sqrt(x^2) can be correct when you know that the the
original value of x is not negative: x in this case is the magnitude
of a complex number, and that magnitude is real and never negative.

Not only is that wrong, but it's also potentially confusing to lurkers
who may read into it that the only two values of rho which can result
in |rho|=1 are rho=+1 and rho=-1, and that's wrong. Just do it right
and say that your square root = |rho| = +1 and not -1, because it's a
magnitude, and that rho then can be magnitude 1 at ANY phase angle,
not just 0 and 180.

None of which has anything to do with the two of you continuing to
squabble like a couple of young children.

Cheers,
Tom

Richard Clark wrote:
You deliberately isolate my complaint, and then entirely ignore it.

I give up trying to communicate with you as have most others.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----