Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote

Old, worn out, diversionary technique. Doesn't work.
If you can prove that I ever said power can be
superposed, I will send you a $100 bill.

Have you stopped beating your girlfriend? See,
I know how to do that also.
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

What do you know how to do, Cecil? Stop beating
your girlfriend? (big grin)

Mike w5chr

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

If you can prove that I ever said power can be
superposed, I will send you a $100 bill.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:20:35 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(A)

Sorry Richard, that is not superposition. That is the
way the power is calculated when two EM waves are
superposed. And no, Eugene Hecht did not superpose
irradiances. For being wrong, please send me a
$100 bill. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Did Karl Rove write that flip-flop for you?

I'm afraid what you inferred is something that
I didn't imply. At no time have I ever said or
implied that scalar values can be superposed.
I have said many times that they cannot be.

Hecht's irradiance equations are valid for
computing transmission line power. As far as
I know, Dr. Best first applied the irradiance
equations to transmission lines in his 2001 QEX
article. Before that, I had never heard of the
irradiance equation.

Those threads with Dr. Best are archived by
Google for the spring/summer of 2001.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I have said many times that you can choose to analyze the individual
components or you can analyze the superposed combination, i.e., a
standing wave. It is purely a matter of mathematical convenience.
However, if you get different answers, including more or less
completeness, then you have made an error. That is the essence of
superposition. If that property was not true, then superposition would
be of little value.

An energy analysis yields exactly the same results as any
other valid method of analysis and is often much easier.
There are no "different answers", yet you imply there are.
An energy analysis obeys all of the principles of physics.
Optical physicists have been solving energy analysis
problems for centuries.

It's a simply yes/no question: Does the analysis of the
forward wave and reflected wave separately abide by the
rules of the principle of superposition? The answer is
obviously "yes" because identical results are obtained
using either method.

It is rather ironic that you are accusing *me* of allowing only one
valid method when I have repeatedly stated a flexible approach.

Stated, yes. Practiced, no. I don't attack your methods,
Gene, yet you repeatedly attack other valid methods that
yield results identical to yours with less effort. You
only pay lip service to your "flexible approach". Your
practiced approach is pretty narrow-minded - your way or
no way.


Cecil,

You have argued with me many times that my preference of analyzing
standing waves is insufficient; that there is more information contained
in the two component traveling waves than in the standing wave.
Superposition says that is not correct, but I don't suppose you will
accept that.

However, you are in luck. This is Burger King Day. Have it your way.

I think I will drop out of this thread. Feel free to call yourself the
winner. Also, go right ahead and give interference the unit of
watts/meter2 along with all of the other misinterpretations from your
guru-authors.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:
Did Karl Rove write that flip-flop for you?

I'm afraid what you inferred is something that
I didn't imply. At no time have I ever said or
implied that scalar values can be superposed.
I have said many times that they cannot be.

Hecht's irradiance equations are valid for
computing transmission line power. As far as
I know, Dr. Best first applied the irradiance
equations to transmission lines in his 2001 QEX
article. Before that, I had never heard of the
irradiance equation.

Those threads with Dr. Best are archived by
Google for the spring/summer of 2001.

Cecil,

I think you missed the first publication by a hundred years or more.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:59:54 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

If you can prove that I ever said power can be
superposed, I will send you a $100 bill.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 01:20:35 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(A)

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
You have argued with me many times that my preference of analyzing
standing waves is insufficient; that there is more information contained
in the two component traveling waves than in the standing wave.
Superposition says that is not correct, but I don't suppose you will
accept that.

No, you have it wrong. All I have ever done is defend
my method of analyzing forward and reflected waves
separately and then superposing while you have done
your best to discredit that approach. You have said it
is an invalid approach and tried to prove it by
asserting that standings waves are completely different
from traveling waves because the phase has disappeared
and is gone forever. Your exact words:

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be
seen again.

You cannot have it both ways, Gene. If, as you say,
phase disappears from standing waves, then they are
quite different from traveling waves (which they are).

In a standing wave, the phase is constant.
In a traveling wave the phase is changing.

In a standing wave, the amplitude varies.
In a traveling wave the amplitude is constant.

In a lot of ways, standing waves and traveling
waves are opposites.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I think you missed the first publication by a hundred years or more.

Could be. Do you have a reference within the field
of RF transmission lines? Dr. Best gives W. Johnson
and Chipman as references but I don't recall seeing
that equation in either book.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:13:27 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

that is not superposition. That is the
way the power is calculated when two EM waves are
superposed.

Texans....

Did Karl Rove write that flip-flop for you?

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Gene Fuller wrote:
In a lot of ways, standing waves and traveling
waves are opposites.

'standing' waves aren't waves at all, they are figments of your
instrumentation. simple instrumentation (read light bulb and loop of wire)
that was originally used to 'tune' antennas could detect only the peaks and
dips of the superimposed forward and reflected currents... because these
'looked' like waves that stood still on the line when you plotted them they
became known as 'standing' waves. and this also led to the horrible use of
the 'standing wave ratio' as a measure of how good an antenna was matched to
the feed line. all of this over the years has led hams to consider
'standing' waves as a real thing when it is really just a consequence of the
superposition principle. We would all be much better off if someone many
years ago had labeled the first 'SWR' meter in units of db for measuring
return loss, or v-forward/v-reverse, or some other real physical unit. not
that the meter would function any differently, but we would all be better
off understanding what is really being measured!