View Single Post
  #184   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 10:06 PM
Jim Kelley
 
Posts: n/a
Default

W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Your
problem proves that your analysis and the notion of power flow are
flawed.


You haven't answered my question so you have not earned the right to
set up a new straw man. Why does Pref1 suddenly go to zero just as
Pref2 arrives at the impedance discontinuity?


Has wave cancellation suddenly become a point of contention?

Your latest example obviously shows the weakness in your argument.

As Timo and I have both said to you, it can be shown that that 50
joules/sec does not travel rearward.


You have not presented an iota of evidence that Pref2 does not travel
rearward.


The absence of any evidence that it does presents a more formidable
problem, in my opinion.

You have repeatedly refused to answer this simple question: How does
the energy in the reflected wave from the mismatched load get turned
around?


That's a lie, and everyone here knows it. I've answered the question
every time it was posed. Timo answer it the same way I have. Energy
does not get turned around - it never flows to the left of the
discontinuity.

We know it possesses momentum so it does turn around.


Must be the Royal 'we'.

What is
your physics mechanism for explaining the change in direction of
momentum of Pref2?


What reason can you provide for continuing to beat your neice?

You have already admitted that wave cancellation is
responsible for Pref1 being zero.


"Admitted" is a funny word for it.


After months of denying it, you finally admitted it. Admitted seems
entirely appropriate.


That's an absolute fabrication. Revisionist history. I was the one who
INSISTED that no power ever flowed back from the discontinuity. In fact
you argued with me about it. You've got a major mental glich happening
there, Cecil.

Waves cease to exist when they encounter a
matched dummy load, for instance.


The wave is transformed at a load. It doesn't simply "cease to exist".
But I can see this is leading to another of your symantics arguments.
You could avoid them in the future by using convention terminology. But
I doubt you really want to avoid them. Seems they're the 'secret
weapon' of the newsgroup warrior.

73, ac6xg