Gene Fuller wrote:
Physicists know when power is equal to work and when it represents
undissipated flow of energy. No need to keep beating that dead horse.

Not all physicists, including one physics professor who
frequents this newsgroup, knows that, Gene. Maybe if you
sent him a private email, you could convince him that what
you say above is true ...

Why is it "obvious" that standing waves cannot exist without
coherent traveling waves?

Please draw us a picture of an example where standing
waves exist without a foundation of coherent traveling
waves. Here's a little help from Hecht of "Optics" fame.

(quote)
E(x,t)=2E0t*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

This is the equation for a *standing wave*, as opposed
to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through
space; it is clearly not of the (traveling wave) form
f(x +/- vt) ...

Let the phasor E1 represent a (traveling) wave to the
left, and E2 a (traveling) wave to the right. ... (The
sum) doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant wave it
represents doesn't progress through space - it's a
standing wave.
(end quote)

Sure is hard to sweep the facts under the transmission
line rug when the EM waves are in empty space, huh?

Have you ever tried working out the mathematical details of the wave
equation when loaded with a standing wave trial solution? Did it explode
or otherwise fail? (Hint, the answer should be "no".)

Of course the answer is "no". Have you ever tried generating
a standing wave in the complete absence of traveling waves
in opposite directions? Exactly how did you do it?

The question of standing waves or traveling waves is purely one of
mathematical convenience.

Of course, that is a copout unrelated to reality. I concede
that you can perform miracles within your own mind.

The physical phenomena are identical regardless of your choice.

This from the man who asserted that standing wave phase is
meaningless (with which I agree). Point is that traveling
wave phase is NOT meaningless. So which is it?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 1 Mar, 17:22, Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave wrote:
Cecil, as an engineer you should stick with standard vocabulary.

Just trying to appease the physicists, Dave. They are
arguing that it is not power until work is done. They
say that since reflected energy is not doing any work,
it cannot be reflected power. Therefore, reflected
power doesn't exist. It's purely semantics. The very
essence of an EM wave is its energy content.

So the real question is: Since standing waves obviously
exist and just as obviously cannot exist without two
coherent waves traveling in opposite directions, does
reflected energy exist? (That question seems to cause their
skivvies to get all bunched up.)

I will just be happy when they admit that reflected
EM waves possess a certain amount of energy that cannot
stand still and according to the theory of relativity
must necessarily travel at the speed of light.

Cecil,

Physicists know when power is equal to work and when it represents
undissipated flow of energy. No need to keep beating that dead horse.

I must have missed class the day they talked about obviousness. Why is
it "obvious" that standing waves cannot exist without coherent traveling
waves? Do you believe that traveling waves are somehow more pure or more
fundamental than standing waves?

Have you ever tried working out the mathematical details of the wave
equation when loaded with a standing wave trial solution? Did it explode
or otherwise fail? (Hint, the answer should be "no".)

The question of standing waves or traveling waves is purely one of
mathematical convenience. The physical phenomena are identical
regardless of your choice. Indeed, this is the point that seems to
always trip you. There is no added information from manipulating the
form of the equations. That is the sort of thing, if done carelessly,
that leads to adding power waves and other nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gene,
there are 12 authors on this thread dealing with a very, very
complicated question. All are self perceived experts and after 130
posts they are still in deadlocked positions. The clock is ticking and
there has been no white smoke pour out of the chimney
as yet. The fighting is rough since only one can be right so he can
rise above the others and where the the others descend into the rable.
This question is one of the most serious questions to have faced
mankind for eons and it correct determination is so imperitive to the
universe and to ham radio. For that reason the debate is being
recorded for prosterity so that all who follow can judge what manner
of men they are indeed what manner of self perceived experts they are.
The winner will be the one that is more elequent more overbearing and
more obnoxious than any other in the group such that it may well be
not the best scientist to rise to the top but one who is most deviled
where others no longer can stay in their presence. This has happened
before where we have lost many an experienced antenna person to
venture off into other fields to the loss of all antenna enthusiasts.
This is a fight to maintain a position or to attain a position as an
expert in amateur radio So it is not to be taken lightly as past
winners have brought this newsgroup down to the level which we now
hold. There is not room for a lot of experts on this group so
descisions about who is most obnoxious have to be decided. So stand
clear of the garbage that is now flying in all directions and keep
your powder dry.Sooner or later one will be bragging that they
invented the WWW and then another will claim something else and it is
then that real savagery will enter the fray.
The clock is still ticking and still no white smoke comming out of the
chimney!
Art

art wrote:
This question is one of the most serious questions to have faced
mankind for eons and it correct determination is so imperitive to the
universe and to ham radio. For that reason the debate is being
recorded for prosterity so that all who follow can judge what manner
of men they are indeed what manner of self perceived experts they are.

An example comes to mind. Two obscure Australian doctors
advanced the theory that most stomach ulcers were caused
by a bacterial infection. They were mercilessly ridiculed
for many years. Then they won the Nobel Prize.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On 1 Mar, 18:58, Cecil Moore wrote:
art wrote:
This question is one of the most serious questions to have faced
mankind for eons and it correct determination is so imperitive to the
universe and to ham radio. For that reason the debate is being
recorded for prosterity so that all who follow can judge what manner
of men they are indeed what manner of self perceived experts they are.

An example comes to mind. Two obscure Australian doctors
advanced the theory that most stomach ulcers were caused
by a bacterial infection. They were mercilessly ridiculed
for many years. Then they won the Nobel Prize.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, this question that is posed is not to be ridiculed. Putting an
antenna in a attic is one of the most exciting thing to have faced
antenna experts for a few years. Its importance to the advance in
antenna is unrivalled and more than one believes he is worthy of the
nobel prize. Who will it be? I look for the smoke for guidance.
Art

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Why is it "obvious" that standing waves cannot exist without coherent
traveling waves?

Please draw us a picture of an example where standing
waves exist without a foundation of coherent traveling
waves. Here's a little help from Hecht of "Optics" fame.


[ It's all math, not physical truth. You still cling to the mistaken
notion that there is something more fundamental about traveling waves
than standing waves. That is simply nonsense. ]

(quote)
E(x,t)=2E0t*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

This is the equation for a *standing wave*, as opposed
to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through
space; it is clearly not of the (traveling wave) form
f(x +/- vt) ...

Let the phasor E1 represent a (traveling) wave to the
left, and E2 a (traveling) wave to the right. ... (The
sum) doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant wave it
represents doesn't progress through space - it's a
standing wave.
(end quote)

Sure is hard to sweep the facts under the transmission
line rug when the EM waves are in empty space, huh?

Have you ever tried working out the mathematical details of the wave
equation when loaded with a standing wave trial solution? Did it
explode or otherwise fail? (Hint, the answer should be "no".)

Of course the answer is "no". Have you ever tried generating
a standing wave in the complete absence of traveling waves
in opposite directions? Exactly how did you do it?

The question of standing waves or traveling waves is purely one of
mathematical convenience.

Of course, that is a copout unrelated to reality. I concede
that you can perform miracles within your own mind.

The physical phenomena are identical regardless of your choice.

This from the man who asserted that standing wave phase is
meaningless (with which I agree). Point is that traveling
wave phase is NOT meaningless.

[ Oh, yes it IS meaningless, when the traveling waves are exactly the
components of a standing wave. ]

So which is it?


Cecil,

You still choose not to "get it", and I don't plan to engage in a
marathon thread. Nothing has changed for a long time. I will hold to my
previous post 100%. I don't know Prof. Hecht, but I am confident he
would agree with me completely.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On 1 Mar, 20:40, Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Why is it "obvious" that standing waves cannot exist without coherent
traveling waves?

Please draw us a picture of an example where standing
waves exist without a foundation of coherent traveling
waves. Here's a little help from Hecht of "Optics" fame.

[ It's all math, not physical truth. You still cling to the mistaken
notion that there is something more fundamental about traveling waves
than standing waves. That is simply nonsense. ]





(quote)
E(x,t)=2E0t*sin(kx)*cos(wt)

This is the equation for a *standing wave*, as opposed
to a traveling wave. Its profile does not move through
space; it is clearly not of the (traveling wave) form
f(x +/- vt) ...

Let the phasor E1 represent a (traveling) wave to the
left, and E2 a (traveling) wave to the right. ... (The
sum) doesn't rotate at all, and the resultant wave it
represents doesn't progress through space - it's a
standing wave.
(end quote)

Sure is hard to sweep the facts under the transmission
line rug when the EM waves are in empty space, huh?

Have you ever tried working out the mathematical details of the wave
equation when loaded with a standing wave trial solution? Did it
explode or otherwise fail? (Hint, the answer should be "no".)

Of course the answer is "no". Have you ever tried generating
a standing wave in the complete absence of traveling waves
in opposite directions? Exactly how did you do it?

The question of standing waves or traveling waves is purely one of
mathematical convenience.

Of course, that is a copout unrelated to reality. I concede
that you can perform miracles within your own mind.

The physical phenomena are identical regardless of your choice.

This from the man who asserted that standing wave phase is
meaningless (with which I agree). Point is that traveling
wave phase is NOT meaningless.

[ Oh, yes it IS meaningless, when the traveling waves are exactly the
components of a standing wave. ]

So which is it?

Cecil,

You still choose not to "get it", and I don't plan to engage in a
marathon thread. Nothing has changed for a long time. I will hold to my
previous post 100%. I don't know Prof. Hecht, but I am confident he
would agree with me completely.

73,
Gene
W4SZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -





Darn it !
All those degrees in his possesion and all we get is a belching black
smoke column. It's going to be another long night Cecil!


Art

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:18:02 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

The case that is plotted is an extreme mismatch, ou you might argue
impractical, but it is extreme enought to show the effects clearly on a
graph. The x axis is displacement from the load (-ve towards the
generator).

Hi Owen,

Chipman shows much the same work in Chapter 8. If you got a copy you
might find it an useful resource as his math and discussion goes well
beyond the usual coverage.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote in
:

On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 00:18:02 GMT, Owen Duffy wrote:

The case that is plotted is an extreme mismatch, ou you might argue
impractical, but it is extreme enought to show the effects clearly on a
graph. The x axis is displacement from the load (-ve towards the
generator).

Hi Owen,

Chipman shows much the same work in Chapter 8. If you got a copy you
might find it an useful resource as his math and discussion goes well
beyond the usual coverage.

Re Chipman, no I don't have Chipman on the shelf. It sounds like I am
poorer for that, but there you go. Allmost all of what I have stated here
is based on just two things:
- that V/I=Zo for a travelling wave in a transmission line, and that
(Vf+Vr)/(If-Ir) at the load end of the line must equal Zload;
- that the voltage or current decays as e^(gamma*x).
Both are explained in probably any transmission line text, but the graphs
I created show a picture that, IMHO, is worth the proverbial thousand
words. Exploring the shape of the lines is revealing.

For example, you will remember Dr Ace (IIRC) asserting that rho cannot be
greater than 1, and supporting that with the challenge to demonstrate
rho1 with a Bird 43. Of course the Bird 43 cannot demonstrate rho1, it
is calibrated for Zo=50+j0 and rho1 is only possible if Zo has
sufficient -ve reactance to create an observable rho1 on a suitably
inductive load. So, at the risk of exciting another debate, rho can be
greater than one, but the maths that supports that proposition also
explains why you wont observe it on a Bird 43.

Owen

Cecil Moore wrote:

Dave wrote:

Cecil, as an engineer you should stick with standard vocabulary.


Just trying to appease the physicists, Dave. They are
arguing that it is not power until work is done.

A Poynting vector is watts/square angle [watts/degree^2]. It is not being
dissipated in free space. It is Diverging [vector relationship]. How do the
physics type adjust their definition to include the Poynting Vector?

I'll sit back and read the follow up posts for the next few weeks :-)

Gene Fuller wrote:
[ It's all math, not physical truth. You still cling to the mistaken
notion that there is something more fundamental about traveling waves
than standing waves. That is simply nonsense. ]

You apparently still cling to the mistaken notion that
standing waves can exist without their forward and
reflected wave building blocks. It is the standing
wave equation that is the math construct that only
exists in the human mind. EM waves cannot stand still.
They must necessarily move at the speed of light.
Anything else violates the principles of relativity.

I don't know Prof. Hecht, but I am confident he
would agree with me completely.

If I see Prof. Hecht, I will be sure to tell him that
you are engaging in mind-fornication with him. :-)

All you have to do to prove that you are right and I
am wrong is to provide an example of an independent
standing wave existing without the underlying forward
and reverse traveling wave components. If you can do
that, as you imply, you will also prove Einstein's
relativity to be wrong. That might be worth a Nobel
Prize.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com