View Single Post
  #23   Report Post  
Old March 21st 07, 08:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
Keith Dysart Keith Dysart is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 124
Default Revisiting the Power Explanation

On Mar 21, 1:32 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Belief has nothing to do with it. Observations suffice. If you have any
doubt that EM radiation can be reflected, just look in a mirror. Did you
need to 'believe' you saw your reflection to confirm your observation?


I have yet to question the reflection of EM radiation, just the
existence of
"reverse power" in transmission lines.

Red Herring. There is no 'failure' in the accounting of reflected power.
The observations and numbers work out quite nicely.


A simple example that I can never make add up is a 50 Watt generator
with a 50 ohm output impedance, driving a 50 ohm line which is open at
the end. Using the "reverse power" explanation, 50 W of "forward
power"
from the generator is reflected at the open end, providing 50 W of
"reverse
power". Since the generator is matched to the line there is no
reflection
when this "reverse power" reaches the generator so it disappears into
the generator. If this is truly power, it must go somewhere else, be
dissipated, transformed into some other form or stored (based on the
conservation of energy principle). Where did it go?

Most correspondents agree that what happens depends on the design
of generator; dissipation either increases, decreases or stays the
same (compared to when the line was terminated in 50 Ohms and the
power going down the line is dissipated in the termination). This
does
not make an easy explanation for where that supposedly real power
goes. Of course, if it is not real power, then there is no issue,
which
leads one back to looking for explanations other than "reverse power".

....Keith