On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:59:20 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:55:40 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:18:14 -0500, "Richard Fry" wrote:

"Walter Maxwell" wrote
(RF): And if so, would that also mean that such a tx would not be prone
to producing r-f intermodulation components when external signals
are fed back into the tx from co-sited r-f systems?

This issue is irrelevant, because the signals arriving from a co-sited
system would not be coherent with the local source signals, while load-
reflected signals are coherent. The destructive and constructive
interference that occurs at the output of a correctly loaded and tuned
PA requires coherence of the source and reflected waves to achieve
the total re-reflection of the reflected waves back into the direction
toward the load.

Hi Walt,

It is not irrelevant, merely illustrative of the concept of reflection
that is consistent with a coherent source.

Your points of phase are the sine non quo to the discussion, but all
too often arguers only take the half of the 360 degrees available to
argue a total solution. Even more often, they take only one or two
degrees of the 360.

Richard, it's been my observation that many of those who argue are clueless concerning the phase relationships
required to obtain the destructive and constructive interference that achieves the re-reflection of the
reflected waves. A reflection resulting from a discontinuity in the path of a signal delivered by a souce is
guaranteed to be coherent with the source wave. If there is no coherence between the reflected wave and the
source wave there may be an interference, but none of the type that results in total destructive and
constructive interference relevant to impedance matching. I don't understand what you mean by 'taking only one
of two degrees of the 360.'

But even for coherent reflections, if the PA tank circuit has very low loss
for incident power (which it does), why does it not have ~ equally low loss
for load reflections of that power? Such would mean that load reflections
would pass through the tank to appear at the output element of the PA, where
they can add to its normal power dissipation.

The paragraph above seems to me to imply that RF doesn't understand the destructive and constructive
interference phenomena involved with re-reflection.

This is the symmetry of the illustration of external signals. You
used external signals yourself as part of your case study; hence the
relevance has been made by you.

Whoa, Richard! You'll have to point out where I've discussed external signals in any case study involving
phase relationships between forward and reflected waves. I've never done so knowingly.

Also, does not the result of combining the incident and reflected waves in
the tx depend in large part on the r-f phase of the reflection there
relative to the r-f phase of the incident wave? And the r-f phase of the
reflection is governed mostly by the number of electrical wavelengths of
transmission line between the load reflection and the plane of
interest/concern -- which is independent of how the tx has been
tuned/loaded.

And we return to the sine non quo for the discussion: phase.

That's true, but although RF apparently realizes that the phase relationship is relevant, he doesn't seem to
understand the details of the phase requirements that achieve the necessary interferences that accomplish the
impedance matching.

If the ham transmitter designs that your paper applies to produce a total
re-reflection of reverse power seen at their output tank circuits, then
there would be no particular need for "VSWR foldback" circuits to protect
them. Yet I believe these circuits are fairly common in ham transmitters,
aren't they? They certainly are universal in modern AM/FM/TV broadcast
transmitters, and are the result of early field experience where PA tubes,
tx output networks, and the transmission line between the tx and the antenna
could arc over and/or melt when reflected power was sufficiently high.

RF

Richard, your statement above begs the question, "Are you aware of the phase relationships between forward and
reflected voltages and between forward and reflected currrents that accomplish the impedance-matching effect
at matching points such as with stub matching and also with antenna tuners?

It seems he is on the face of it, doesn't it? Afterall, he is quite
explicit to this in the statement you are challenging.

No Richard, I don't believe he is. I don't see the 'explicitness' you seem to find. It's the complete lack of
the explicitness that makes me believe he doesn't quite get it.

When the matching is accomplished the phase relationship between the foward and reflected voltages can become
either 0° or 180°, resulting in a total re-reflection of the voltage. If the resultant voltage is 0°, then the
resultant current is 180°, thus voltage sees a virtual open circuit and the current sees a virtual short
circuit. The result is that the reflected voltage and current are totally re-reflected IN PHASE with the
source voltage and current. This is the reason the forward power in the line is greater than the source power
when the line is mismatched at the load, but where the matching device has re-reflected the reflected waves.

Nothing here contradicts anything either of you have to say.

True, but RF just hasn't said it all, because, as I said above, I don't believe he understands the details of
the phase requirements to achieve the match.

This phenomenon occurs in all tube transmitters in the ham world when the tank circuit is adjusted for
delivering all available power at a given drive level.

This introduces the two concepts of the "need for match" and the
"match obtained." They are related only through an action that spans
from one condition to the other. They do not describe the same
condition, otherwise no one would ever need to perform the match:

I don't comprehend your statements in the paragraph above.

When this condition occurs the adjustment of the
pi-network has caused the relationship between the forward and reflected voltages to be either 0° or 180° and
vice versa for currents, as explained above. When this condition occurs, destructive interference between the
forward and reflected voltages, as well as between the forward and reflected currents, causes the reflected
voltage and current to cancel. However, due to the conservation of energy, the reflected voltage and current
cannot just disappear, so the resulting constructive interference following immediately, causes the reflected
voltage and current to be reversed in direction, now going in the foward direction along with and in phase
with the forward voltage and current.

If a tree were to fall onto the antenna, a new mismatch would occur.
Would the transmitter faithfully meet the expectations of the Ham
unaware of the accident? No, reflected (0-179 degrees) energy would
undoubtedly offer a 50% chance of excitement in the shack. The
consequences of dissipation would be quite evident on that occasion.
For the other 180 (180-359) degrees of benign combination; then
perhaps not.

If a tree were to fall onto the antenna the new mismatch would surely detune the transmitter, causing unwanted
dissipation, of course, but only a lid would fail to retune the transmitter before removing the tree.

In transmitters with tubes and a pi-network output coupling circuit there is no 'fold back' circuitry to
protect the amp, because none is needed, due to the total re-reflection of the reflected power.

That would more probably be due to cost averse buying habits of the
Amateur community, and the explicit assumption of risk by them to
react appropriately in the face of mismatch. Tubes were far more
resilient to these incidents than transistors of yore.

It is only in
solid-state transmitters that have no circuitry to achieve destructive and constructive interference that
requires fold back to protect the output transistors.

They too have access to the services of a transmatch that is probably
more flexible than the tubes' final. If they didn't use a tuner, then
the foldback would render many opportunistic antennas as useless.
Again, as a cost item, this solution (fold-back) is dirt cheap and was
driven by the market economies of a more onerous and costly repair
through a lengthy bench time to replace the transistor (which has an
exceedingly high probability of a quicker failure for a poor job).

IMHO, Richard, the mfgrs of solid-state rigs with no means of matching the output to a load other than 50
ohms short changed the ham, thus requiring him to be satisfied with the power fold back, or buy an antenna
tuner.

Walt, W2DU

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:30:56 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

I don't understand what you mean by 'taking only one
of two degrees of the 360.'

Hi Walt,

I offered:
they take only one or two degrees of the 360.

Arguments that are confined only at 0 or 180 (the one OR two degrees)
and are submitted as proofs as though they boxed the compass. All too
often I've seen one condition (at one phase angle) offered as a
negation of internal heating to prove the source lacks its own
internal resistance. When I've taken exactly the same circuit and
explored the 180th degree alternative, I've demonstrated melt-down
clear and simple. The dissipation of energies does not always lead to
this consequence, but if we were to average the analysis over a
complete 360 degrees, we can only arrive at the obvious evidence of
resistance and calories expended.

But even for coherent reflections, if the PA tank circuit has very low loss
for incident power (which it does), why does it not have ~ equally low loss
for load reflections of that power? Such would mean that load reflections
would pass through the tank to appear at the output element of the PA, where
they can add to its normal power dissipation.

The paragraph above seems to me to imply that RF doesn't understand the destructive and constructive
interference phenomena involved with re-reflection.

Then asking a question to clarify would be in order. To me, it reads
quite ordinarily as a statement of symmetry. In my own words, it
would say that if a tank circuit can pass energy from source to load
in one direction, it can certainly perform the same transformation in
the opposite direction. After all, that is the function of
transformation and a passive circuit composed of L and C is strictly
linear. Circuit analysis allows us to treat a load as a source in the
complete circuit description.

This is the symmetry of the illustration of external signals. You
used external signals yourself as part of your case study; hence the
relevance has been made by you.

Whoa, Richard! You'll have to point out where I've discussed external signals in any case study involving
phase relationships between forward and reflected waves. I've never done so knowingly.

It seems to me that in your initial post in the original thread (that
was largely ignored for comment) you made mention of injecting a
signal from an external source into the mouth of the dragon for the
purposes of measuring the source Z. Am I wrong?

And we return to the sine non quo for the discussion: phase.

That's true, but although RF apparently realizes that the phase relationship is relevant, he doesn't seem to
understand the details of the phase requirements that achieve the necessary interferences that accomplish the
impedance matching.

That is not what I read.

It seems he is on the face of it, doesn't it? Afterall, he is quite
explicit to this in the statement you are challenging.

No Richard, I don't believe he is. I don't see the 'explicitness' you seem to find. It's the complete lack of
the explicitness that makes me believe he doesn't quite get it.

That has not been my impression of the complete post.

Nothing here contradicts anything either of you have to say.

True, but RF just hasn't said it all, because, as I said above, I don't believe he understands the details of
the phase requirements to achieve the match.

That has not been my impression of the complete post.

This phenomenon occurs in all tube transmitters in the ham world when the tank circuit is adjusted for
delivering all available power at a given drive level.

This introduces the two concepts of the "need for match" and the
"match obtained." They are related only through an action that spans
from one condition to the other. They do not describe the same
condition, otherwise no one would ever need to perform the match:

I don't comprehend your statements in the paragraph above.

The initial mismatch and its correction do not describe the same
condition. There is a first state, and then the operator imposes a
second state in reaction.

If a tree were to fall onto the antenna, a new mismatch would occur.
Would the transmitter faithfully meet the expectations of the Ham
unaware of the accident? No, reflected (0-179 degrees) energy would
undoubtedly offer a 50% chance of excitement in the shack. The
consequences of dissipation would be quite evident on that occasion.
For the other 180 (180-359) degrees of benign combination; then
perhaps not.

If a tree were to fall onto the antenna the new mismatch would surely detune the transmitter, causing unwanted
dissipation, of course, but only a lid would fail to retune the transmitter before removing the tree.

Of course, but then this is a single instance: a mismatch causing
possible increased dissipation within the source. "Possible" is in
proportion to phase relationships; dissipation is always.

If you retune to correct the mismatch's potential to destruction (or
to provide full power through-put); then you have moved to another
state or configuration. That new state admits the potential negative
consequence of the first state.

IMHO, Richard, the mfgrs of solid-state rigs with no means of matching the output to a load other than 50
ohms short changed the ham, thus requiring him to be satisfied with the power fold back, or buy an antenna
tuner.

A tube rig requires the same means of matching. It's a wash.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:10:40 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:30:56 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

I don't understand what you mean by 'taking only one
of two degrees of the 360.'

Hi Walt,

I offered:
they take only one or two degrees of the 360.

Arguments that are confined only at 0 or 180 (the one OR two degrees)
and are submitted as proofs as though they boxed the compass. All too
often I've seen one condition (at one phase angle) offered as a
negation of internal heating to prove the source lacks its own
internal resistance. When I've taken exactly the same circuit and
explored the 180th degree alternative, I've demonstrated melt-down
clear and simple. The dissipation of energies does not always lead to
this consequence, but if we were to average the analysis over a
complete 360 degrees, we can only arrive at the obvious evidence of
resistance and calories expended.

But even for coherent reflections, if the PA tank circuit has very low loss
for incident power (which it does), why does it not have ~ equally low loss
for load reflections of that power? Such would mean that load reflections
would pass through the tank to appear at the output element of the PA, where
they can add to its normal power dissipation.

The paragraph above seems to me to imply that RF doesn't understand the destructive and constructive
interference phenomena involved with re-reflection.

Then asking a question to clarify would be in order. To me, it reads
quite ordinarily as a statement of symmetry. In my own words, it
would say that if a tank circuit can pass energy from source to load
in one direction, it can certainly perform the same transformation in
the opposite direction. After all, that is the function of
transformation and a passive circuit composed of L and C is strictly
linear. Circuit analysis allows us to treat a load as a source in the
complete circuit description.

Richard, assume a mismatched load has produced both voltage and current refleftions on the line that result in
a particular reactive impedance at the line input. The line input is connected to the output of the
transceiver that has a pi-network output coupling circuit. When the network has been adjusted to deliver all
the available power into the line the output source impedance is the complex conjugate of the line input
impedance. In this condition the reflected voltage and current waves are totally re-reflected back into the
line, while adding in phase to the voltage and current waves from the source, respectively. Consequently, the
reflected waves do not pass rearward through the network to be incident on the plate. Only if the network is
mistuned, such as being connected to the reactive input of the line without being retuned to resonance, in
which case the excessive plate current due to being mistuned will result in an inordinate amount of heating of
the plate.

This is the symmetry of the illustration of external signals. You
used external signals yourself as part of your case study; hence the
relevance has been made by you.

Whoa, Richard! You'll have to point out where I've discussed external signals in any case study involving
phase relationships between forward and reflected waves. I've never done so knowingly.

It seems to me that in your initial post in the original thread (that
was largely ignored for comment) you made mention of injecting a
signal from an external source into the mouth of the dragon for the
purposes of measuring the source Z. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong here, because I made no mention of the 'mouth of a dragon'. That comment must have come
from another poster, twarn't I.

And we return to the sine non quo for the discussion: phase.

That's true, but although RF apparently realizes that the phase relationship is relevant, he doesn't seem to
understand the details of the phase requirements that achieve the necessary interferences that accomplish the
impedance matching.

That is not what I read.

It seems he is on the face of it, doesn't it? Afterall, he is quite
explicit to this in the statement you are challenging.

No Richard, I don't believe he is. I don't see the 'explicitness' you seem to find. It's the complete lack of
the explicitness that makes me believe he doesn't quite get it.

That has not been my impression of the complete post.

Nothing here contradicts anything either of you have to say.

True, but RF just hasn't said it all, because, as I said above, I don't believe he understands the details of
the phase requirements to achieve the match.

That has not been my impression of the complete post.

Richard, try this on for size and then determine whether you believe RF understands the function of the
phasing in impedance matching:

Assume a 150-ohm pure resistance terminates a 50-ohm line, producing a voltage reflection coefficient rhoV
=0.5 at 0°, a current reflection coefficient rhoi, yielding a 3:1 mismatch. We want to place a series stub at
the appropriate position on the line to yield a match at that point. The appropriate position on the line is
where the real portion of the line impedance is 50 ohms, with a residual reactance, which in this case is
-j57.7 ohms, determined by the 3:1 mismatch. A series stub having a terminal impedance of +j57.7 ohms cancels
the residual reactance, achieving a match at the stub point.

Now to the phase relationships that occur here that I believe RF has not considered.

First, the line rhoV at the stub is 0.5 at -60°, and the stub rhoV is 0.5 at +60°, with the resultant rho =
0°.
Second, the line rhoi at the stub is 0.5 at +120°, and the stub rhoi is 0.5 at -120°, with the resultant rho =
180°.
Third, with resultant voltage and current at 0° and 180°, respectively, we have achieved a virtual open
circuit to waves reflected from the 150-ohm mismatch, causing total re-reflection of the reflected waves at
the stub point. Proof that total re-reflection has occurred is by observing that there is no evidence of any
reflected waves rearward from the stub point to the source.

Now, when adjusting the output network of a tube-type transceiver to deliver all the available power into a
line having reflections, the adjustment of the network accomplishes the same function as the stub on the line
in the above discussion. Consequently, this is the reason why the reflected power is totally re-reflected at
the output terminals of the network, and is never seen at the plate of the amp to cause heating.

This is the concept I believe Richard Fry is not appreciating. If I'm wrong on this I hope he'll straighten me
out.

Walt

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:20:25 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

Richard, assume a mismatched load has produced both voltage and current refleftions on the line that result in
a particular reactive impedance at the line input. The line input is connected to the output of the
transceiver that has a pi-network output coupling circuit.

I call this condition 1. It exhibits a mismatch and it exhibits the
probability of the reflected energy being absorbed by the source to
the degree of the phase relationships.

When the network has been adjusted to deliver all
the available power into the line the output source impedance is the complex conjugate of the line input
impedance.

I call this condition 2. It exhibits just what you describe:

In this condition the reflected voltage and current waves are totally re-reflected back into the
line, while adding in phase to the voltage and current waves from the source, respectively. Consequently, the
reflected waves do not pass rearward through the network to be incident on the plate. Only if the network is
mistuned, such as being connected to the reactive input of the line without being retuned to resonance, in
which case the excessive plate current due to being mistuned will result in an inordinate amount of heating of
the plate.

It seems to me that in your initial post in the original thread (that
was largely ignored for comment) you made mention of injecting a
signal from an external source into the mouth of the dragon for the
purposes of measuring the source Z. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong here, because I made no mention of the 'mouth of a dragon'. That comment must have come
from another poster, twarn't I.

From March 14:
"2. The amplifier is now powered down and the load resistance RL is
measured across the input terminals of the resonant pi-network tank
circuit (from plate to ground) with an HP-4815 Vector Impedance
Meter."

Richard, try this on for size and then determine whether you believe RF understands the function of the
phasing in impedance matching:

....

Now, when adjusting the output network of a tube-type transceiver to deliver all the available power into a
line having reflections, the adjustment of the network accomplishes the same function as the stub on the line
in the above discussion. Consequently, this is the reason why the reflected power is totally re-reflected at
the output terminals of the network, and is never seen at the plate of the amp to cause heating.

If you follow my separation of arguments above, you will find it
demands that the source MUST have the intervention of an outside agent
to resolve its probability of facing destructive energy. In the arts,
this is called Deus ex Machina. In the world of science, we would
have to say that the source is extremely non-linear when its internal
state of Z (a distinctly non-Thevenin characteristic) changes to
follow the load.

In short, of course no energy finds its way in, we twisted knobs to
make that a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without this intervention
reflected energies present the real probability of destruction by
heat.

This is the concept I believe Richard Fry is not appreciating. If I'm wrong on this I hope he'll straighten me
out.

I will let him speak for himself.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:14:07 -0800, Richard Clark wrote:

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:20:25 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

Richard, assume a mismatched load has produced both voltage and current refleftions on the line that result in
a particular reactive impedance at the line input. The line input is connected to the output of the
transceiver that has a pi-network output coupling circuit.

I call this condition 1. It exhibits a mismatch and it exhibits the
probability of the reflected energy being absorbed by the source to
the degree of the phase relationships.

Richard, although it exhibits a mismatch, and thus detunes the source, the probability of the reflected energy
being absorbed by the source is zero. The additional power dissipated in the source is due to lowered
impedance of the network resulting from off-resonance operation, thus increasing the plate current. The
reflected energy does not enter the network, but only results in a decrease in the power delivered relative to
that when the reactance in the load is cancelled by correct retuning of the source network.

When the network has been adjusted to deliver all
the available power into the line the output source impedance is the complex conjugate of the line input
impedance.

I call this condition 2. It exhibits just what you describe:

In this condition the reflected voltage and current waves are totally re-reflected back into the
line, while adding in phase to the voltage and current waves from the source, respectively. Consequently, the
reflected waves do not pass rearward through the network to be incident on the plate. Only if the network is
mistuned, such as being connected to the reactive input of the line without being retuned to resonance, in
which case the excessive plate current due to being mistuned will result in an inordinate amount of heating of
the plate.

It seems to me that in your initial post in the original thread (that
was largely ignored for comment) you made mention of injecting a
signal from an external source into the mouth of the dragon for the
purposes of measuring the source Z. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong here, because I made no mention of the 'mouth of a dragon'. That comment must have come
from another poster, twarn't I.

From March 14:
"2. The amplifier is now powered down and the load resistance RL is
measured across the input terminals of the resonant pi-network tank
circuit (from plate to ground) with an HP-4815 Vector Impedance
Meter."

Richard, try this on for size and then determine whether you believe RF understands the function of the
phasing in impedance matching:

...

Now, when adjusting the output network of a tube-type transceiver to deliver all the available power into a
line having reflections, the adjustment of the network accomplishes the same function as the stub on the line
in the above discussion. Consequently, this is the reason why the reflected power is totally re-reflected at
the output terminals of the network, and is never seen at the plate of the amp to cause heating.

If you follow my separation of arguments above, you will find it
demands that the source MUST have the intervention of an outside agent
to resolve its probability of facing destructive energy. In the arts,
this is called Deus ex Machina. In the world of science, we would
have to say that the source is extremely non-linear when its internal
state of Z (a distinctly non-Thevenin characteristic) changes to
follow the load.

In short, of course no energy finds its way in, we twisted knobs to
make that a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without this intervention
reflected energies present the real probability of destruction by
heat.

Twisting the knobs is what adjusts the output impedance of the network to the complex conjugate of the load.
But without this intervention the real probability of destruction by heat is not resulting from the reflected
energy reaching the plate--it is only that the reflected energy detuned the network, causing the plate current
to rise because the network is off resonance.

This is the concept I believe Richard Fry is not appreciating. If I'm wrong on this I hope he'll straighten me
out.

I will let him speak for himself.

OK, Richard F, speak up.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:56:02 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

I call this condition 1. It exhibits a mismatch and it exhibits the
probability of the reflected energy being absorbed by the source to
the degree of the phase relationships.

Richard, although it exhibits a mismatch, and thus detunes the source, the probability of the reflected energy
being absorbed by the source is zero. The additional power dissipated in the source is due to lowered
impedance of the network resulting from off-resonance operation, thus increasing the plate current. The
reflected energy does not enter the network, but only results in a decrease in the power delivered relative to
that when the reactance in the load is cancelled by correct retuning of the source network.

Hi Walt,

Examples of separable energies in lines abound. We needn't have to go
into circulators, isolators, directional couplers (the real ones, not
the Bruene variety) and the rest, which all exhibit classic separation
to achieve many design goals. Hence, it follows that reverse energy
is real. The longer you pour energy into a mismatch, the longer it
will reflect it back. Longer brings time into the discussion and
hence power. Power is directly correlateable to heat.

Now, the amount of heat is directly correlateable to phase relations.
If they are aligned at one of the cardinal points, heat will drive up.
If they are aligned at the other cardinal point (180 degrees away)
heat will fall. Heat is positive proof of resistance. Being hot or
cold is sensation, not heat per se. That is, if the source cools,
this is not proof of the source not exhibiting a source resistance -
phase does not create nor diminish resistance. Or to put it another
way, source resistance is not a function of phase.

There is a continuum of phase relationships expressed in angles
between 0 and 360. Half will tend to heat, half will tend to cool.
Energy is dissipated for the full 360 degrees.

When that reverse energy arrives by transmission line, it sees a load.
Complex as it is, it must resolve to find itself within this continuum
of response. Examples of plate incandescence or arcing are not
trivial parlor tricks. You can force the situation with a lumped
equivalent, but a lumped equivalent will not prove any invalidity of
the transmission line model it replaces (which, on the face of it, is
an ironic appeal). This can be simply proven in that a lumped
equivalent does not exhibit ALL the characteristics of energy storage
in a long line.

Some (others than you, Walt) may be tempted to trot out the ghosts in
the TV line proof. That is certainly one characteristic that a lumped
equivalent can never exhibit (and yet the equivalent acts like the
line to an amazing degree for many considerations). No, I won't delve
into the endless debate about transient vs. steady state. This is an
argument about as insipid as can be offered (by others than you, Walt)
as if it made any difference. Rather, a resonant line will exhibit
identical properties of resonance at harmonics - a lumped equivalent
will not. It is quite obvious that a lumped equivalent is not wholly
equivalent, except for a highly constrained example. To say (by
others than you, Walt) it supports a general solution that invalidates
the line's reality is as absurd a notion as any that are trotted
around the track here. In short, if a line exhibits itself as a
source of energy for any example, no equivalent can negate that
physical truth in a proof for other use.

Hence, it follows that:
1. reflected energy is real and consequential;
2. sources exhibit resistance to energy flow;
3. 1 & 2 combine by their phase to result in a change of heat -
dissipation;
4. the operator of either a tube or transistorized rig can adjust the
phase of 1 through the intermediary of tuning (or conjugating);
5. absolutely no intervention impacts 2, except by degree;
6. successful/unsuccessful intervention still proves 3.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:56:02 GMT, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

I call this condition 1. It exhibits a mismatch and it exhibits the
probability of the reflected energy being absorbed by the source to
the degree of the phase relationships.

Richard, although it exhibits a mismatch, and thus detunes the source, the
probability of the reflected energy
being absorbed by the source is zero. The additional power dissipated in
the source is due to lowered
impedance of the network resulting from off-resonance operation, thus
increasing the plate current. The
reflected energy does not enter the network, but only results in a
decrease in the power delivered relative to
that when the reactance in the load is cancelled by correct retuning of
the source network.

Hi Walt,

Examples of separable energies in lines abound. We needn't have to go
into circulators, isolators, directional couplers (the real ones, not
the Bruene variety) and the rest, which all exhibit classic separation
to achieve many design goals. Hence, it follows that reverse energy
is real. The longer you pour energy into a mismatch, the longer it
will reflect it back. Longer brings time into the discussion and
hence power. Power is directly correlateable to heat.

Now, the amount of heat is directly correlateable to phase relations.
If they are aligned at one of the cardinal points, heat will drive up.
If they are aligned at the other cardinal point (180 degrees away)
heat will fall. Heat is positive proof of resistance. Being hot or
cold is sensation, not heat per se. That is, if the source cools,
this is not proof of the source not exhibiting a source resistance -
phase does not create nor diminish resistance. Or to put it another
way, source resistance is not a function of phase.

There is a continuum of phase relationships expressed in angles
between 0 and 360. Half will tend to heat, half will tend to cool.
Energy is dissipated for the full 360 degrees.

When that reverse energy arrives by transmission line, it sees a load.
Complex as it is, it must resolve to find itself within this continuum
of response. Examples of plate incandescence or arcing are not
trivial parlor tricks. You can force the situation with a lumped
equivalent, but a lumped equivalent will not prove any invalidity of
the transmission line model it replaces (which, on the face of it, is
an ironic appeal). This can be simply proven in that a lumped
equivalent does not exhibit ALL the characteristics of energy storage
in a long line.

Some (others than you, Walt) may be tempted to trot out the ghosts in
the TV line proof. That is certainly one characteristic that a lumped
equivalent can never exhibit (and yet the equivalent acts like the
line to an amazing degree for many considerations). No, I won't delve
into the endless debate about transient vs. steady state. This is an
argument about as insipid as can be offered (by others than you, Walt)
as if it made any difference. Rather, a resonant line will exhibit
identical properties of resonance at harmonics - a lumped equivalent
will not. It is quite obvious that a lumped equivalent is not wholly
equivalent, except for a highly constrained example. To say (by
others than you, Walt) it supports a general solution that invalidates
the line's reality is as absurd a notion as any that are trotted
around the track here. In short, if a line exhibits itself as a
source of energy for any example, no equivalent can negate that
physical truth in a proof for other use.

Hence, it follows that:
1. reflected energy is real and consequential;
2. sources exhibit resistance to energy flow;
3. 1 & 2 combine by their phase to result in a change of heat -
dissipation;
4. the operator of either a tube or transistorized rig can adjust the
phase of 1 through the intermediary of tuning (or conjugating);
5. absolutely no intervention impacts 2, except by degree;
6. successful/unsuccessful intervention still proves 3.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I wish somone would convince my boss reverse power isnt real. Then he
wouldnt be so angry about the power meter head I blew up because I forgot to
put an attnuator on it. Even with the -20db of the coupler ther is still 20
watts peak on the reverse side.

Richard Clark, KB7QHC wrote:
"There is a continuum of phase relationships expressed in degrees
between 0 and 360."

We are discussing transmission lines and assuming near perfection.
Indeed the phase of the wave depends on that of the generator when it
was launched and the phase of the generator continues to advance with
time, but a good line enforces its Zo, a resistance.

Terman says on page 85 of his 1955 opus:
"The incident wave on the transmission line can therefore be described
as a voltage accompanied by a current that is everywhere in phase with
and proportional to, the voltage and dropping back uniformly in phase as
the load is approached."

The transmission line treats the wave reflected from a discontinuity
exactly the same as it does the incident wave.

The reflected wave is identical with the incident wave except that it is
traveling toward the generator.

At an open circuit or high-impedance load, there is tto much line
current for the high-impedance to accept gven the limited voltage. The
surplus current must reverse phase and the wave must travel back toward
the generator. There is no change in the phase of the voltage.

At a short circuit or low-impedance load, there is too much line voltage
for the low-impedance to accept, given the limited current. The surlus
voltage must reverse phase and the wave must travel back toward the
generator. There is no change in the phase of the current.

There are two phasing conditions between the voltage and current on an
ideal transmission line, 0 degrees and 180 degrees.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI