Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
rearward-traveling momentum energy in those two waves is conserved by
changing direction to become part of a forward-traveling wave.

Yeeesh. You had it on, dog, up until that. And don't try to tell me
(again) that I'm lying that you said it.

(Remember when you wrote this? "If reflected energy makes its way back
into the final amp, it was never generated in the first place, by
definition." Hint: apply the same idea to your "rearward-traveling
momentum" and you'll have it.)

Egads Jim, exactly how much of reality do you think I am capable of
ignoring? Obviously, not as much as you. Why not just say, "God is
the cause of everything I (Jim) cannot explain or understand."?
The meaning would be virtually identical to your present positions.

I *don't* agree with that definition above and your implication that
momentum and energy don't need to be conserved is simply metaphysics
in action. You can argue against energy conservation all you want.
*Conservation of Momentum* has got you over a barrel in this argument
whether you realize it or not. Somehow, the momentum in the wave
reflected from a mismatched load is reversed. Please explain how
that happens without changing directions. Somehow, the energy in
the wave reflected from a mismatched load changes directions. Please
enlighten us on exactly the mechanism involved. Hint: J.C.Slater
explained it all in _Microwave_Transmissions_ before you were born.
--
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! =-----