Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:06:36 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Superposition is in contradiction to superposition and is in error!
It should be easy to prove.

Stupidity²

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Apr 5, 11:13 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
This is also true for the
components in our simple generators so superposition holds
there as well.

I've asked Richard how to hook up two IC-706's in
series to get them to meet the requirements of
the superposition principle. Maybe you can show
us how to do it.

Sure, but I thought it would be obvious that there are many
ways, but take the following as an example.

Place them side by side on the bench.
Take a piece of coax sufficiently long to reach between the
output jacks.
Put an appropriate plug on each end of the coax.
Plug the plugs into the output jacks.

....Keith

PS. Was there a real question there somewhere?
What outcome were you expecting to observe?

And there will be no progress until you explain why you think
that superposition and conservation of energy are in conflict.
You have, for years, claimed that conservation of energy holds,
a claim with which there is general agreement.
Only a week ago you started a thread to argue that superposition
holds, another claim with which there is general agreement.
And yet suddenly you are prepared to discard superposition.
Do you not think it worthwhile to examine the reasons to ensure
that you are not making a mistake?
After all, superposition is a powerful technique and none of the
text books mention special caveats that constrain how it can
be applied to generators.
Where is the source of your conflict?

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Apr 5, 11:13 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
This is also true for the
components in our simple generators so superposition holds
there as well.

It is not true for the average commercial amateur
radio transmitter.

I've asked Richard how to hook up two IC-706's in
series to get them to meet the requirements of
the superposition principle. Maybe you can show
us how to do it.

Sure, but I thought it would be obvious that there are many
ways, but take the following as an example.

Place them side by side on the bench.
Take a piece of coax sufficiently long to reach between the
output jacks.
Put an appropriate plug on each end of the coax.
Plug the plugs into the output jacks.

In order to satisfy the results predicted by superposition,
I don't see how you can double the voltage by putting
them in parallel. That's why I asked you to put them
in series. Please put them is series such that the
two component voltages are doubled and the two component
currents are doubled when both transmitters are powered
on.

Also please tell us how the powered-down transmitter
handles the voltage and current that it is exposed
to when the other transmitter is powered up. I
seriously doubt your implication that it is a linear
process.

PS. Was there a real question there somewhere?
What outcome were you expecting to observe?

I am expecting the signal from the powered-on
transmitter not to make it through the circuitry
of the powered-down transmitter. I am expecting
smoke when you try to superpose two coherent 100w
signals into a single 400w signal.

And there will be no progress until you explain why you think
that superposition and conservation of energy are in conflict.

There's a name for people who try to tell others what
they think. I do not think there is a conflict and am
absolutely NOT asserting that the conservation of energy
principle and the superposition *principles* are in
conflict. Such is a figment of your imagination. Please
listen closely:

THE AVERAGE AMATEUR RADIO TRANSMITTER DOES NOT MEET
THE RULES NECESSARY FOR THE SUPERPOSITION PRINCIPLE
TO APPLY! Got it?

There's nothing wrong with the superposition principle.
It simply doesn't apply to certain circuits including
the average commercial amateur radio transmitter.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Superposition is in contradiction to superposition and is in error!
It should be easy to prove.

Stupidity²

Richard, anyone who has to stoop to editing postings
in order to change the meaning is the personification
of stupidity. You have evolved such stupid behavior
into an art form.

I wonder what would think about
your violation of netnews rules?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:10:07 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I wonder what would think about
your violation of netnews rules?

What a wheeze :-0
Has Hecht split the sheets with you?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

On Apr 6, 5:02 am, Cecil Moore wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the superposition principle.
It simply doesn't apply to certain circuits including
the average commercial amateur radio transmitter.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Hi Cecil -

There are examples of superposition in commercial equipment. Check
out the QSC Audio web page. In particular note the specs on their
stereo power amps in bridged mode.

Your expectation of obtaining 400 watts from two 100 watt radios hints
at a possible error in your understanding regarding simultaneously
superposing voltages and currents. Just a thought.

73, Jim AC6XG

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:06:36 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Superposition is in contradiction to superposition and is in error!
It should be easy to prove.

Stupidity²

½ ¼ ? ß ? ? ? ? µ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ± ? ? ? ? ÷ ? ° ? · ? ^(n) ²

IBM extended ascii, ain't it great? grin

JS

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Your expectation of obtaining 400 watts from two 100 watt radios hints
at a possible error in your understanding regarding simultaneously
superposing voltages and currents. Just a thought.

Put two 70.7 vdc batteries in series with a 50 ohm load.
Switch in one battery at a time. Each battery will
supply 100 watts. Now switch in both batteries. They
will supply a combined 400 watts. The batteries are
required to supply the extra constructive interference
energy assuming each battery maintains its constant
70.7 vdc voltage output.

This is what has to happen when two coherent RF voltages
are superposed in phase. I just don't think an IC-706
will do that, i.e. it is not a linear device, thus
violating the requirements for superposition. In phase
superposition would require that:

Vtot = V1/_0 deg + V2/_0 deg = |V1|+|V2|

Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(0)

Ptot = 100w + 100w + 2*SQRT(100w*100w) = 400w

Presupposition of linearity of any amateur radio
transmitter without proof is foolish as is the
presupposition that a ten cent resistor or a $10
resistor will gobble up all the reflected energy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

John Smith I wrote:
IBM extended ascii, ain't it great? grin

What is surprising is that if I simply enter a
Shift-6 and a '2', it somewhere gets changed
to that IBM extended superscript squared
character.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Your expectation of obtaining 400 watts from two 100 watt radios hints
at a possible error in your understanding regarding simultaneously
superposing voltages and currents. Just a thought.


Put two 70.7 vdc batteries in series with a 50 ohm load.
Switch in one battery at a time. Each battery will
supply 100 watts. Now switch in both batteries. They
will supply a combined 400 watts. The batteries are
required to supply the extra constructive interference
energy assuming each battery maintains its constant
70.7 vdc voltage output.

This is what has to happen when two coherent RF voltages
are superposed in phase. I just don't think an IC-706
will do that, i.e. it is not a linear device, thus
violating the requirements for superposition. In phase
superposition would require that:

Vtot = V1/_0 deg + V2/_0 deg = |V1|+|V2|

Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(0)

Ptot = 100w + 100w + 2*SQRT(100w*100w) = 400w

Presupposition of linearity of any amateur radio
transmitter without proof is foolish as is the
presupposition that a ten cent resistor or a $10
resistor will gobble up all the reflected energy.

Holy cow. Happy Good Friday by the way.

A 100 watt source is something which ostensibly produces a maximum of
70.7 volts and a maximum 1.414 amps into a 50 ohm load. There are two
ways to superpose the outputs of 100 watts sources such as this. One
way is to superpose voltages by arranging them in series. The total
output voltage available would then 141.4 volts. But doing so does
not allow the source to produce current beyond some limit. Maximum
current would still ostensibly be 1.414 amps. To increase the
available current one could arrange the sources in parallel and
basically 'superpose' the currents. However this does not increase
the available voltage. That is still ostensibly 70.7. volts. Total
current from the two sources in parallel into a 50 ohm load would now
be 2.828 amps.

A car battery does not have a 100 watt limit, or in particular, a
1.414 amp limit. When you put two batteries in series you are more of
less superposing the voltages, but you aren't superposing currents.
Since the battery doesn't have a 1.414 amp current limit, the
batteries can each now produce 141.4 volts divided by 50 ohms worth of
current. Since they are arranged in series, each battery will produce
2.828 amps of current. It isn't a superposition thing. Put the
batteries in parallel as a check on your notion of superposition.

Your numbers highlight the problem using irradiance equations with
power terms in them. You're getting the wrong answer because power
doesn't interfere, so it's pretty ridiculous to put it into an
interference equation in the first place. Look at the risk you run
doing it. There is nothing wrong with the proper use of superposition
and interference. Given that, what do you think the problem might be?

73, Jim AC6XG

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Jim Kelley wrote:


Total current from the two sources in
parallel into a 50 ohm load would now be 2.828 amps.

I misspoke he The current limit of two sources in parallel would be
2.828 amps, not the current into 50 ohms.

73, jk

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

...

Will the fun never cease 8-)

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/...ures/koan.html

Regards,
JS

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
There
is nothing wrong with the proper use of superposition and interference.
Given that, what do you think the problem might be?

Please don't tell me you don't understand constructive
interference.

Quoting "Principles of Optics", 4th edition, by Born
and Wolf, page 257:
*************************************************
Suppose now that two monochromatic waves E1 and E2
are superposed at some point P. The total electric
field at P is

E = E1 + E2 (6) so that

E^2 = E1^2 + E2^2 + 2*E1*E2 (7)
*************************************************
[Note from w5dxp: Each one of those terms in
equation (7) is proportional to power which is
proportional to intensity! The last term in the
equation is certainly proportional to interference.

Resuming the quote from Born and Wolf:
*************************************************
Hence the total intensity at P is

I = I1 + I2 + J12 (8) where

I1 = E1^2 and I2 = E2^2 (9a)

are the intensities of the two waves, and

J12 = 2E1*E2 (9b) is the *interference term*."
*************************************************
As you know, the power associated with the wave is
proportional to E^2 so if E1 = E2, the power in
the superposed waves is four times the power in
a single wave. That's the nature of total constructive
interference as explained by Hecht in "Optics", 4th
edition, page 388.

Hint: When two identical EM waves are superposed
*in phase* in free space, the ratio of the E-field
to the B-field must remain equal to 377. The E-field
doubles and the B-field doubles so the (power) in the
wave quadruples to

Ptot = (E1+E2)x(B1+B2) = 4*E1xB1

Such is the nature of constructive interference. If
Keith can get two IC-706's to do that, I will believe
that superposition is valid for IC-706's.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Hi Cecil -

I'm glad to learn that you finally got yourself a decent optics text.
Now, please spend some time studying it. Take very careful note of
exactly what it says, and try to get rid of your preconceived notions.
Don't read between the lines, and don't selectively edit. If you
do, you will just end up leading yourself down another wrong path.

73 de ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the proper use of superposition and
interference. Given that, what do you think the problem might be?


Please don't tell me you don't understand constructive
interference.

Quoting "Principles of Optics", 4th edition, by Born
and Wolf, page 257:
*************************************************
Suppose now that two monochromatic waves E1 and E2
are superposed at some point P. The total electric
field at P is

E = E1 + E2 (6) so that

E^2 = E1^2 + E2^2 + 2*E1*E2 (7)
*************************************************
[Note from w5dxp: Each one of those terms in
equation (7) is proportional to power which is
proportional to intensity! The last term in the
equation is certainly proportional to interference.

Resuming the quote from Born and Wolf:
*************************************************
Hence the total intensity at P is

I = I1 + I2 + J12 (8) where

I1 = E1^2 and I2 = E2^2 (9a)

are the intensities of the two waves, and

J12 = 2E1*E2 (9b) is the *interference term*."
*************************************************
As you know, the power associated with the wave is
proportional to E^2 so if E1 = E2, the power in
the superposed waves is four times the power in
a single wave. That's the nature of total constructive
interference as explained by Hecht in "Optics", 4th
edition, page 388.

Hint: When two identical EM waves are superposed
*in phase* in free space, the ratio of the E-field
to the B-field must remain equal to 377. The E-field
doubles and the B-field doubles so the (power) in the
wave quadruples to

Ptot = (E1+E2)x(B1+B2) = 4*E1xB1

Such is the nature of constructive interference. If
Keith can get two IC-706's to do that, I will believe
that superposition is valid for IC-706's.

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
IBM extended ascii, ain't it great? grin

What is surprising is that if I simply enter a
Shift-6 and a '2', it somewhere gets changed
to that IBM extended superscript squared
character.

With an extended ascii chart (giving the decimal value of the character)
and the alt-key combined with the number pad, it is possible to enter
extended ascii. However, not all news servers will honor all extended
ascii characters and not all news readers will represent them correctly
(plus, you probably have to set the news reader to allow them in it's
settings.)

Hold down the alt key while entering 2-5-3 (253) from the numeric
keypad, release the alt key and "²" is presented--so can all extended
ascii be created in notepad, dos edit, etc. ...

JS

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I'm glad to learn that you finally got yourself a decent optics text.
Now, please spend some time studying it. Take very careful note of
exactly what it says, and try to get rid of your preconceived notions.
Don't read between the lines, and don't selectively edit. If you do,
you will just end up leading yourself down another wrong path.

Jim, it is obvious that you do not understand
constructive interference between coherent EM waves.

The stuff I quoted from Born and Wolf agrees with Hecht
and contradicts what you have said. In particular, equation
(7) on page 257 contradicts your earlier posting. Given
that power is proportional to E^2, please explain how the
following equation is possible in 377 ohm space in light
of your earlier posting.

E^2 = E1^2 + E2^2 + 2E1*E2

From that equation, Born and Wolf develop the interference
term which they call J12, same as Hecht's I12, same as
Dr. Best's 2*SQRT(P1*P2).

This is exactly what Hecht described in "Optics". Seems
that you don't realize that the square of the sum is
more than the sum of the squares when constructive
interference between two coherent EM waves occurs.

Two identical EM waves in free space must maintain the
377 ohm free space ratio. Therefore, if the E-field doubles,
the B-field must also double, contrary to your earlier posting
that said that voltage and current could not double
simultaneously but that is exactly what happens in a fixed
Z0 environment like free space or a transmission line.

I explained this to Dr. Best way back in 2001. That you
don't yet understand it is the cause of our many arguments.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

John Smith I wrote:
Hold down the alt key while entering 2-5-3 (253) from the numeric
keypad, release the alt key and "²" is presented--so can all extended
ascii be created in notepad, dos edit, etc. ...

I've got that chart hanging on my wall. It's just
interesting that if I type a shift-6 and then a 2,
it comes back as a superscript-2. Alt-253 doesn't
do anything in Thunderbird.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
Hold down the alt key while entering 2-5-3 (253) from the numeric
keypad, release the alt key and "²" is presented--so can all extended
ascii be created in notepad, dos edit, etc. ...

I've got that chart hanging on my wall. It's just
interesting that if I type a shift-6 and then a 2,
it comes back as a superscript-2. Alt-253 doesn't
do anything in Thunderbird.

Cecil:

Whoa! I am not arguing with you man.

I just thought I would toss that out, not everyone may be as savvy as
yourself.

This conversation holds my interest, I just "look out the windows" from
time to time, teacher used to scold me for that too ... I'll redouble my
efforts to stay focused :-)

Regards,
JS

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I'm glad to learn that you finally got yourself a decent optics text.
Now, please spend some time studying it. Take very careful note of
exactly what it says, and try to get rid of your preconceived notions.
Don't read between the lines, and don't selectively edit. If you do,
you will just end up leading yourself down another wrong path.


Jim, it is obvious that you do not understand
constructive interference between coherent EM waves.

The stuff I quoted from Born and Wolf agrees with Hecht
and contradicts what you have said.

Cecil - I have had Born and Wolf on my shelf for years. I use it
regularly. I understand interference. It's not difficult. I work
with it on a regular basis in fact - both optically, and at RF.

In particular, equation
(7) on page 257 contradicts your earlier posting. Given
that power is proportional to E^2, please explain how the
following equation is possible in 377 ohm space in light
of your earlier posting.

E^2 = E1^2 + E2^2 + 2E1*E2

Power doesn't interfere. It doesn't even propagate, Cecil. (You might
note the distinct absence of any descriptions of how power
propagates in the physics texts. Hopefully you'll also note the
absence of any discussion of how power constructively and
destructively interferes in Born and Wolf.) And as the above equation
points out quite plainly, electric fields interfere. Electric fields
do propagate, along with their counterpart: magnetic fields.

From that equation, Born and Wolf develop the interference
term which they call J12, same as Hecht's I12, same as
Dr. Best's 2*SQRT(P1*P2).

I think you'll find the equations to be largely the same in most
optics texts, Cecil. No need to point that out.

73, Jim AC6XG

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

John Smith I wrote:
Whoa! I am not arguing with you man.

That's good, cuz I'm not arguing with you either.
What do we do now?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
E^2 = E1^2 + E2^2 + 2E1*E2

Power doesn't interfere. It doesn't even propagate, Cecil.

Exactly as I said in my energy analysis article:
"The term "power flow" has been avoided in favor of "energy
flow". Power is a measure of that energy flow per unit time
through a plane. Likewise, the EM fields in the waves do the
interfering. Powers, treated as scalars, are incapable of
interference."

So please cease and desist with the straw man already.
You are simply quoting my article back to me.

And you are missing the point. When you said that voltage
and current cannot both double during superposition you
were 100% wrong. That error of yours is what our years
long argument has been about. Keith is apparently making
the same error as you.

Consider two identical EM waves superposing in free space.
Contrary to what you asserted in your previous posting,
the E-field doubles in magnitude AND the B-field doubles
in magnitude. The result is a quadrupling of the power
contained in the superposed wave compared to the power
contained in each original wave.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Revisiting the Power Explanation
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Cecil:

Put on yer shades, here come some chicks!

8-)
JS