Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I guess I was not quite clear. I don't care if you are talking net
energy, gross energy, with or without circulators, or anything else.
As long as there are no sources or sinks of energy in the region of
interest, the Poynting vector tells you absolutely nothing about
energy balance or conservation of energy.

That's not the point at all. The question is pretty
simple. Does the principle of superposition give us
permission to analyze the individual forward and
reflected waves separately and then superpose the
results? If you say "no", then you don't accept the
superposition principle. If you say "yes", then
please stop harping that the only valid way to solve
a problem is your way.

Just forget about ExB (or more commonly, ExH).

Your advice is to forget acquired knowledge and tools
and put one's trust in who? You?

Cecil,

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.

It is rather ironic that you are accusing *me* of allowing only one
valid method when I have repeatedly stated a flexible approach. Is that
some sort of debating technique you learned?

Are you instead seeing a reflection of yourself? Is this some sort of
mirror trick?

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 31, 10:33 am, 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.

A strange assertion given that in another thread your energy
analysis was incapable of producing any result while alternative
techniques could readily answer the question.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
A strange assertion given that in another thread your energy
analysis was incapable of producing any result while alternative
techniques could readily answer the question.

Strange that you are willing to accept your erroneous
results based on mixing virtual and physical reflection
coefficients in the same example. Your "alternative
techniques" yielded a bogus answer.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

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

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

"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!

Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" 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.

Yep, that's another way they are different from
traveling waves. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Dave wrote:
"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!


Dave,

That is not a quote from me. Those are Cecil's words.


73,
Gene
W4SZ

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

That is not a quote from me. Those are Cecil's words.

It doesn't say it is a quote from you, Gene. Your name
is indented three levels. There are no quoted words at
4 levels, so nothing of yours was quoted. Since my
name is at two levels, everything at three levels
(except your name) is a quote of mine. Newsreader
attributions worked exactly as designed.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com