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