W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
Has wave cancellation suddenly become a point of contention?

It was our point of contention for months. Finally, you relented.

It's been my impression that wave cancellation and interference has
always been the one thing we've agreed upon.

Your latest example obviously shows the weakness in your argument.

It obviously shows the strength of my argument since you avoid
discussing it at all costs. :-)

If I wasn't discussing it, you obviously wouldn't have had anything to
post reply comments about. That your numbers are the same in two
scenarios, each involving a different input power level perfectly
illustrates your misinterpretion of the meaning of the numbers.

I've answered the question every time it was posed.

But your "answer" is always a bogus non-answer, an empty mantra.

So now you agree that I've answered the question. The fact you disagree
with the answer is irrelevant to that point.

Energy does not get turned around - it never
flows to the left of the discontinuity.

According to Ramo & Whinnery, reflected energy does indeed flow
rearward from a mismatched load. That reflected energy possesses
momentum in the rearward direction and changes direction at the
impedance discontinuity. You still have not offered an acceptable
explanation for that energy and momentum turn around.

Apparently, neither have Ramo & Whinnery. But that's understandable,
given that the idea is entirely your invention.

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

Your only response is a diversion. That speaks volumes.

It speaks Cecilian, actually. You didn't notice the similarity in
technique? It was a response in kind to the exact form of the question
you asked.

I was the one who
INSISTED that no power ever flowed back from the discontinuity. In fact
you argued with me about it.

I NEVER argued with you about that.

I cannot recall a single instance of you ever agreeing with anything
I've written on the subject - including (V3 + V4) * (I3 + I4) = 0,
and P3+P4-(2*SQRT(P3*P4)=0. That's wave cancellation my friend, and I
posted these things at the beginning of this discussion. You've always
argued with the validity of these equations.

It was a mistake to try again to be civil to you.

When did that happen?

The wave is transformed at a load. It doesn't simply "cease to exist".

The energy in the wave is transformed from RF to heat by the dummy
load. The RF wave certainly does cease to exist.

As I said, we're now in an argument over semantics caused by your
creative use of terminology. "Cease to exist" in any case implies
something which isn't true.

But back to the point, for what amount of time do the cancelled waves
"exist" in order that they might then be able to "cease to exist"? If
you say during the transient period between T0 and steady-state, then
we're in agreement.

73, Jim AC6XG