mihorn, Here is a response, from herman, to a post of mine to him.
( Again doubled spaced for ease to read the quote) |
Hi Jim (Jea48), I recall the discussion in that 2010 thread, in which I participated. IMO the long series of arguments between Herman and Simply_q was basically silly and unnecessary, and to a large extent revolved around the meaning of the word "flow." IMO, for pretty much all practical purposes it is reasonable to speak of current as "flowing," even if that is arguably not what physically happens. The basic point, as you and I and most of those on both sides of the issue agree, is that when a voltage is applied to a load via a cable energy is transferred in just one direction. Assuming, that is, that the load is resistive, and that reflection effects that can occur mainly at RF frequencies due to impedance mismatches are negligible. (Which BTW, as I indicated in my post dated 12-2-16 can under some circumstances very conceivably cause a cable to exhibit directional characteristics regardless of the existence or non-existence of wire directionality). Unfortunately, though, it seems clear that agreement on one-way transfer of energy (assuming a resistive load and negligible signal reflections at frequencies that matter) will not lead to agreement on whether or not wire directionality exists. Best regards, -- Al |
jea48 Done, removed, look at that, now the page has returned to a normal view. Wow!!! he has other ways of doing voodoo as well, it’s like his "buyers cart" link laid a virus into the page. Maybe he does have magical powers!!!!!!!! I’m starting to creep myself out. Geoff do you sell these??? https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/38/db/ab/38dbab3060dcb41ef107a39d1141beb7.jpg Cheers George |
