One of the issues discussed in this thread that Owen originated concerned whether or not reflected power
enters the power amp and dissipates as heat in the plates of the amp. Some of the posters apparently are
unable to appreciate that the reflected power does not cause heating of the amp, unless the reflected power
detunes the amp and the amp is left detuned from resonance, which of course is not the correct manner of
operating the amp.

In the last post of the original thread I presented the details of an experiment I performed (one of many
using the same procedure) on a Kenwood TS-830S transceiver that proves how and why reflected power in no way
causes heating of the amp when the amp is properly adjusted in the presence of the reflected power.

Usually, such a presentation as in the last post in that thread evokes a great deal of response, as for
example, Art Unwin's. So I'm somewhat surprised, and a little disappointed that my post has resulted in total
silence. Have my efforts in helping to solve the problem gone for naught?

Walt, W2DU

Walter Maxwell wrote:
Some of the posters apparently are
unable to appreciate that the reflected power does not cause heating of the amp, unless the reflected power
detunes the amp and the amp is left detuned from resonance, which of course is not the correct manner of
operating the amp.

Some would say that if "reflected power does not cause heating
of the amp", that proves that there is no power (or energy) in
the reflected waves. Those people obviously don't understand
the role of destructive and constructive interference during
the EM wave superposition process.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:55:12 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Walter Maxwell wrote:
Some of the posters apparently are
unable to appreciate that the reflected power does not cause heating of the amp, unless the reflected power
detunes the amp and the amp is left detuned from resonance, which of course is not the correct manner of
operating the amp.

Some would say that if "reflected power does not cause heating
of the amp", that proves that there is no power (or energy) in
the reflected waves. Those people obviously don't understand
the role of destructive and constructive interference during
the EM wave superposition process.

In addition, Cecil, the experiment also proves that the reflected power doesn't heat the plate, because the
output source resistance is non-dissipative.

Walt

Walter Maxwell wrote:
In addition, Cecil, the experiment also proves that the reflected power doesn't heat the plate, because the
output source resistance is non-dissipative.

I understand what happens to the direction and
momentum in the reflected wave when it encounters
an impedance discontinuity at some distance from
the source, e.g. a Z0-match.

What happens to the direction and momentum in the
reflected wave when it encounters a non-dissipative
resistance at the source?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 20, 3:43 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
I understand what happens to the direction and
momentum in the reflected wave when it encounters
an impedance discontinuity at some distance from
the source, e.g. a Z0-match.

What happens to the direction and momentum in the
reflected wave when it encounters a non-dissipative
resistance at the source?

For some years now, you have been arguing the reality of 'reverse
power'. 'Reverse power' has served you well in that it appears
to offer reasonable explanation for some phenomena:
- 'forward power' minus 'reverse power' yields transferred power
- circulators
- TV ghosting
- dissipation of pulses in generators

But there are some challenges to the premise of 'reverse power':
- where does the 'reverse power' go?
- why does the change in dissipation of a generator when 'reverse
power' changes depend more on the design of the generator than
on the magnitude of the 'reverse power'?

In an attempt to resolve these, you have apparently done extensive
studies in optics looking for an explanation based on constructive
and destructive interference but are still left with the question you
posed above and others, like the one below from another of your
posts:

All one has to do to calculate the reflected power
dissipated in the source is to understand the constructive
and destructive interference occurring at the source
output terminal. THIS IS EASIER SAID THAN DONE. [emphasis mine]

Like myself, others have encountered difficulties with the premise
of 'reverse power'. But we have taken a different path to
enlightenment than yours; we have given up on the premise that
'reverse power' represents something that is real. To do this, we
have had to find alternative explanations to all the phenomena
listed above, but once this was done, life was good.

I would suggest that you try trodding this path. Make a list of
phenomena that you think are explained by 'reverse power'. For
each phenomena, explore the possibility of alternative explanations
that do not require 'reverse power'. When you have an explanation
for each, test the explanations against each other to ensure they
are self-consistent, then take the body of non-'reverse power'
explanations and compare it the body of 'reverse power' explanations.
Which is more complete? Which violates fewer fundamentals?

You have believed in 'reverse power' for so long that you will
probably find this path difficult. Make a conscious effort when
thinking about circulators, for example, not to give up because
it does not explain ghosting. Work out the solution to ghosting
later. Similarly, when working on steady-state examples, do not
confuse yourself with transients. Do those later. And when
exploring a phenomena using a hypothetical generator, do not
simply give up because it does not accurately model a real
transmitter. Much can be learned from the simplifications of
ideal voltage and current sources.

Those who have already trodden this path are, I am quite sure,
willing to assist you in finding the solutions, if you are willing
to learn, rather than tossing distractions into the discussion.
Save the other phenomena that trouble you for a later discussion.
Keep the discussion on track.

You can not lose if you take this path. In the best ending, you
end up with a coherent explanation for all the phenomena and can
give up on your search for solutions to the troubling issues posed
by 'reverse power' and the vanishing of the energy. But even if
you do not change your view you will have a better appreciation of
the alternative explanations and should be better able to partake
in debates on their correctness.

You could start by providing a list of phenomena for which you
think the reality of 'reverse power' is the only viable explanation
and offer a willingness to learn about alternative explanations.

....Keith

Keith wrote:
"For some years now, you have been arguing the reality of "reverse
power".

For good reason. You feed a transmission line into an open circuit at
its far end, and the power arriving at the open has no where to go but
to return towards its generator. What happens at the generator upon
arrival of the power reflected from the mismatched load depends on the
vector values of incident and reflected waves as well as the impedance
of the generator.

Searching the net for "reflected r-f power" returned over 25,000
examples. Belief in reverse power is obviously common.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Keith wrote:
For some years now, you have been arguing the reality of 'reverse
power'.

Nope, for the last few years I have been arguing the
reality of a reverse or reflected EM energy wave. Energy
is what moves and is the essence of an EM wave moving
at the speed of light. All I am arguing is the validity
of the distributed network reflection model, something
that has stood the test of time for a century or so.

But there are some challenges to the premise of 'reverse power':
- where does the 'reverse power' go?
- why does the change in dissipation of a generator when 'reverse
power' changes depend more on the design of the generator than
on the magnitude of the 'reverse power'?

Reflected energy waves obey the principles of conservation
of energy and superposition some of which is discussed in
my WorldRadio energy article at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

I would suggest that you try trodding this path. Make a list of
phenomena that you think are explained by 'reverse power'.

Actually, "reflected energy" rather than "reverse power".
Here is very close to an experiment we did at Texas A&M
during the 50's. We observed the ghosting and the professor
explained reflected energy waves to us.

TVSG-----1000 feet 450 ohm ladder-line---75 ohm TV RCVR

If the TV Signal Generator is not equipped with a circulator
to get rid of the reflected energy wave, ghosts will appear on
the TV RCVR. The ghosts are exactly where they should be if
reflected wave energy exists. How would you explain the
ghosting?

You could start by providing a list of phenomena for which you
think the reality of 'reverse power' is the only viable explanation
and offer a willingness to learn about alternative explanations.

Please see above. And please abandon the words, "reverse
power" in favor of reverse or reflected EM energy wave.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Some would say that if "reflected power does not cause heating
of the amp", that proves that there is no power (or energy) in
the reflected waves. Those people obviously don't understand
the role of destructive and constructive interference during
the EM wave superposition process.

Cecil,

What reflected waves?

An equally valid description in steady state, after all the transients
have died out, includes a standing wave containing the stored energy in
the line plus a forward traveling wave carrying the energy that does
make it through the load end of the line.

No need to account for any mythical power in the reflected waves.

This description matches your quotes from Hecht and from Ramo and
Whinnery that I attached a few days ago.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
No need to account for any mythical power in the reflected waves.

How can you possibly deny the existence of the reverse
traveling wave and then be incapable of providing an
example of a standing wave existing without a reverse
traveling wave? Sounds like smoke, mirrors, and arm-
waving to me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene, W4SZ wrote:
"No need to account for any mythical power in the reflected waves."

Cecil has an IEEE dictionary which defines power in terms of the voltage
and in-phase current passing a point.

Terman says on page 96 of his 1955 opus:
"The reflected wave is identical with the incident wave except that it
is traveling toward the generator."

Bird says of its Model 43 RF Directional "Thruline" Wattmeter:
"The forward wave travels (and its power flows) from the source to the
load. It has RF Voltage Ef and current If in phase, with Ef/If=Zo.

The reflected wave originates by reflection at the load, travels (and
its power flows) from the load back to the source, and also has an RF
voltage Er and current Ir in phase, with Er/Ir=Zo."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI