Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

The folks on this newsgroup who argue that the concept
of reflected energy is invalid and only standing waves
exist seem forced to abandon the principle of
superposition which states that a system can be
analyzed by considering the components separately
and adding them later.

So does the Superposition Principle give us permission
to analyze the forward wave and the reflected wave
separately, or not?

An S-Parameter analysis obviously considers the
forward wave and reflected wave separately. Is such
an analysis invalid or simply honoring the rules set
forth in the Principle of Superposition?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

The only dispute about superposition that I have observed is
that it does not apply to the computation of power which can
easily be demonstrated by the most trivial of examples.

Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

....Keith

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

Do you really expect us to believe that those voltages
and currents can exist without energy? Maybe an example
of EM voltage and EM current existing without ExB joules/sec
would help.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Mar 30, 12:44 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
The folks on this newsgroup who argue that the concept
of reflected energy is invalid and only standing waves
exist seem forced to abandon the principle of
superposition which states that a system can be
analyzed by considering the components separately
and adding them later.

So does the Superposition Principle give us permission
to analyze the forward wave and the reflected wave
separately, or not?

An S-Parameter analysis obviously considers the
forward wave and reflected wave separately. Is such
an analysis invalid or simply honoring the rules set
forth in the Principle of Superposition?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com


We have done extensive research here at Muppet Labs, and we can assure
you, the Superstition Principle is alive and well, especially with
regard to radio amateurs' analyses of transmission lines.

From the Labs,
Dr. Honeydew

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:oMdPh.4051$u03.1743
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

So does the Superposition Principle give us permission

Cecil, would you state the superposition principle as you know it?

Owen

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

Do you really expect us to believe that those voltages
and currents can exist without energy? Maybe an example
of EM voltage and EM current existing without ExB joules/sec
would help.

Cecil,

If you actually understood the way the Poynting Theorem works, you would
not waste your time worrying about ExB. It provides no useful
information in support of your wacky energy flow ideas.


Hint: Although the Poynting vector is defined as ExB, this is only a
flux. If you are interested in information relating to conservation of
energy it is necessary to integrate over a closed volume. The total
integral of the flux over the surface of that volume is then equal to
the rate of change of energy within the volume.

In your favorite example, where energy is coursing back and forth along
the two directions of a lossless transmission line, this integral over
any volume you choose will be exactly zero. Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components. The same amount of energy exits the integration
volume as enters it. Only in the case where there is a source or where
there is loss will the Poynting energy calculation yield a non-zero value.

If you want further information you can check advanced textbooks such as
"Classical Electrodynamics" by Jackson or "Principles of Optics" by Born
and Wolf. I am sure there are many other references, but those are the
two I check almost daily.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Cecil, would you state the superposition principle as you know it?

I'll just quote Hecht on that. He gives the three
dimensional differential wave equation and follows it
up with a linear combination of individual waves in
an equation that cannot be reproduced here and says,

"Known as the *Principle of Superposition*, this property
suggests that the resultant disturbance at any point in a
medium is the algebraic sum of the separate constituent
waves."

The unreproducible equation essentially says that the
total wave function is equal to the algebraic sum of
the individual wave functions.

Hecht goes on to treat the forward wave and reflected
wave as the "separate constituent waves", something
that we have been told by the "reflected waves don't
exist" gurus on this newsgroup, is an invalid thing
to do.

It seems to me that the superposition principle gives us
permission to consider the forward and reflected waves
separately and "algebraically sum" the results. That is
exactly what the S-Paramater analysis is based upon.
The S-Parameter analysis considers a1 to be the incident
forward wave and a2 to be the incident reflected wave.
They are treated separately and then "algebraically
summed".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

So net energy equals zero? So what! We are NOT discussing net
energy here. We are discussing the forward Poynting vector
and the reflected Poynting vector as described in "Fields and
Waves ...", by Ramo and Whinnery. The Superpositon Principle
gives us permission to do so and the final result is identical
to any other valid analysis. Why are you guys so irrationally
afraid of the wave reflection model? What is your ulterior
motive in denying the existence of reflected waves during
steady-state? It has seemingly turned into a steady-state
religion administered by the steady-state high priests.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:p7iPh.3356$YL5.856
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

Owen Duffy wrote:
Cecil, would you state the superposition principle as you know it?

I'll just quote Hecht on that. He gives the three
dimensional differential wave equation and follows it
up with a linear combination of individual waves in
an equation that cannot be reproduced here and says,

"Known as the *Principle of Superposition*, this property
suggests that the resultant disturbance at any point in a
medium is the algebraic sum of the separate constituent
waves."

The unreproducible equation essentially says that the
total wave function is equal to the algebraic sum of
the individual wave functions.

Hecht goes on to treat the forward wave and reflected
wave as the "separate constituent waves", something
that we have been told by the "reflected waves don't
exist" gurus on this newsgroup, is an invalid thing
to do.

It seems to me that the superposition principle gives us
permission to consider the forward and reflected waves
separately and "algebraically sum" the results. That is
exactly what the S-Paramater analysis is based upon.
The S-Parameter analysis considers a1 to be the incident
forward wave and a2 to be the incident reflected wave.
They are treated separately and then "algebraically
summed"

Cecil, this is not a complete definition, and you have not related it to
the subject under discussion, tranmission lines, and the quantities that
are being discussed.

To my mind, there is nothing in YOUR definition above (it is not Hecht's,
it is your partical quote and elaboration) that states that it is valid
to sum energy waves or power waves (whatever those terms mean) as you
seem to want to do, or to treat them independently if that is what
'separately' means as you use it, or the specifics of what quantities are
summed.

Several people have been freely writing expressions that take the
algebraic sum of phasor quantities Vf and Vr, and If and Ir. You are
citing and partially quoting obscure sources not directly relevant to the
subject to justify your summation of energy waves or power waves or
whatever you are calling them today.

Sit down and write a complete definition of your knowledge of the
"Superposition Principle" as you understand it using quantities
encountered in a transmission line analysis, like voltage, current,
power.

Owen

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
To my mind, there is nothing in YOUR definition above (it is not
Hecht's,
it is your partical quote and elaboration) that states that it is valid
to sum energy waves or power waves (whatever those terms mean) as you
seem to want to do, or to treat them independently if that is what
'separately' means as you use it, or the specifics of what quantities
are
summed.

Here is the way one sums the power in two energy waves. This
is one of the things that Dr. Best, ve9srb, got right in
his Nov/Dec 2001 QEX article, "Wave Mechanics of Transmission
Lines, Part 3: Power Delivery and Impedance Matching". This
article is what got me to thinking along my present lines.

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

where A is the phase angle between the two energy waves.

This is the same as the irradiance equation from the field of
optics and applies perfectly to transmission lines. The first
time I saw the equation was in Dr. Best's QEX article so I
certainly cannot take credit for it.

All this information has been available on my web page for
years.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Mar 30, 9:40 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Here is the way one sums the power in two energy waves. This
is one of the things that Dr. Best, ve9srb, got right in
his Nov/Dec 2001 QEX article, "Wave Mechanics of Transmission
Lines, Part 3: Power Delivery and Impedance Matching". This
article is what got me to thinking along my present lines.

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

Curiosity question: Which of the two possible values for
the square root did you use? Elaborate on the reasons
for your choice?

....Keith

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Mar 30, 8:54 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

You always seem to like changing the experiment and then not
acting surprised when you get different results.

Odd is it not?

....Keith

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(A)

Curiosity question: Which of the two possible values for
the square root did you use? Elaborate on the reasons
for your choice?

Probably should be written 2*|SQRT(P1*P2)|*cos(A) to
satisfy the purists. The sign of the interference
term must match the type of interference which is
determined by the sign of cos(A).

The third term in the equation is the interference term.
A positive value indicates constructive interference.
A negative value indicates destructive interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

You always seem to like changing the experiment and then not
acting surprised when you get different results.

I don't see an experiment described in Gene's posting
so you must be describing yet another dream of yours.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Mar 30, 10:04 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(A)

Curiosity question: Which of the two possible values for
the square root did you use? Elaborate on the reasons
for your choice?

Probably should be written 2*|SQRT(P1*P2)|*cos(A) to
satisfy the purists. The sign of the interference
term must match the type of interference which is
determined by the sign of cos(A).

More curiousity: Can P1 and P2 have different signs, that is,
the power is going in different directions? If so, how does the
resulting complex SQRT work into the result?

....Keith

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
More curiousity: Can P1 and P2 have different signs, that is,
the power is going in different directions?

Please reference Chapter 9, Interference, in "Optics",
by Hecht, 4th edition. The two interfering waves are
traveling in the same direction. The associated
powers exist together at a point of interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Owen Duffy wrote in
:

....
Hecht's, it is your partical quote and elaboration) that states that

How did that 'c' get in there? Should have been:

Hecht's, it is your partial quote and elaboration) that states that

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:35:47 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Keith Dysart wrote:
More curiousity: Can P1 and P2 have different signs, that is,
the power is going in different directions?

Please reference Chapter 9, Interference, in "Optics",
by Hecht, 4th edition. The two interfering waves are
traveling in the same direction. The associated
powers exist together at a point of interference.

It's a shame you have only one reference that is so impoverished as to
restrict itself to this "same direction." Otherwise, you would have
been able to answer Keith's question without asking him to figure out
what you couldn't. It is, after all, a commonplace of superposition
(that is what this thread is about, isn't it?) - or are you the
doubting Thomas this thread's subject alludes to?

The stumbling over absolute values was funny too. I was wondering who
was going to pull that rug.

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Mar 30, 11:35 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
More curiousity: Can P1 and P2 have different signs, that is,
the power is going in different directions?

Please reference Chapter 9, Interference, in "Optics",
by Hecht, 4th edition. The two interfering waves are
traveling in the same direction. The associated
powers exist together at a point of interference.

This is getting way too confusing. After adding absolute value
to clarify which of two possible roots is being used (though
without any rigorous rationale), it turns out that different
formulae are needed depending on the direction.

So some times
Ptot = Pf - Pr
while at other times
Ptot = P1 + P2 + Pfudge

Are there other conditions we need to be aware of when computing
Ptot?

How does this align with your previous quote?
"Known as the *Principle of Superposition*, this property
suggests that the resultant disturbance at any point in a
medium is the algebraic sum of the separate constituent
waves."

Neither of the equations is the "algebraic sum".

....Keith

How does this align with your

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Keith Dysart wrote:
Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

Do you really expect us to believe that those voltages
and currents can exist without energy? Maybe an example
of EM voltage and EM current existing without ExB joules/sec
would help.
--
and yet again you cross up terms... voltage and current are on wires. E and
B are fields between or outside of wires. while they can be handled
similarly they should not be compared directly as you are asking. and yes,
there is at least one very good example of a voltage without ExB... just
charge a balloon up with some stray electrons and leave it alone long enough
to reach steady state... voila, E with no B. Please do this experiment and
reply when you have truly reached steady state.

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

"Dave" wrote ...

"Cecil Moore" wrote

Keith Dysart wrote:
Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

Do you really expect us to believe that those voltages
and currents can exist without energy? Maybe an example
of EM voltage and EM current existing without ExB joules/sec
would help.
--
and yet again you cross up terms... voltage and current are on wires. E
and B are fields between or outside of wires. while they can be handled
similarly they should not be compared directly as you are asking. and
yes, there is at least one very good example of a voltage without ExB...
just charge a balloon up with some stray electrons and leave it alone long
enough to reach steady state... voila, E with no B. Please do this
experiment and reply when you have truly reached steady state.
I've been waiting for someone to open the door so that Art could take
part in this thread.Dave, your use of the balloon as an example will do the
job nicely. Art will now be able to contribute quite a lot, although I'm not
sure that he ever reaches steady state!

Mike W5CHR

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
So some times
Ptot = Pf - Pr

Waves traveling in opposite directions have no effect
on each other. The result is standing waves.

while at other times
Ptot = P1 + P2 + Pfudge

Actually, Ptot = P1 + P2 +/- Pinterference

Coherent waves traveling in the same direction have an
effect on each other. As quoted from "Optics", the last
term in the irradiance (power) equation is known as the
"interference term".

Neither of the equations is the "algebraic sum".

Of course not, power does not follow the superposition
principle. The irradiance (power) equation is the correct
way to add the power scalars that exist in superposed waves.

I'm posting an energy brain teaser problem under a new
thread by that name. Try solving the problem by conventional
methods and then try an energy analysis.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate the forward and reverse waves the Poynting
vector energy calculation would still come out to exactly zero for
each component as well as the sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

So net energy equals zero? So what! We are NOT discussing net
energy here. We are discussing the forward Poynting vector
and the reflected Poynting vector as described in "Fields and
Waves ...", by Ramo and Whinnery. The Superpositon Principle
gives us permission to do so and the final result is identical
to any other valid analysis. Why are you guys so irrationally
afraid of the wave reflection model? What is your ulterior
motive in denying the existence of reflected waves during
steady-state? It has seemingly turned into a steady-state
religion administered by the steady-state high priests.


Cecil,

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.

You could have a completely incorrect analysis of forward and reverse
waves, and the Poynting analysis will not reveal the error. The required
integral will still come out to exactly zero.

Radio amateurs and radio charlatans love to talk about Poynting vectors,
but it is obvious that most of those folks simply don't understand the
full picture. Just forget about ExB (or more commonly, ExH). It is
completely useless in support for the typical RRAA discussions.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

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

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

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

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

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

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

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

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

On Mar 31, 9:18 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Neither of the equations is the "algebraic sum".

Of course not, power does not follow the superposition
principle.

Well that is a great leap forward. Since that was the point
of my response to your first post, I am curious as to why
you chose to object.

Do you now agree?

....Keith

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

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

Is the Superposition Principle invalid?
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
Well that is a great leap forward. Since that was the point
of my response to your first post, I am curious as to why
you chose to object.

Exactly what is it that I objected to?

Do you now agree?

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

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!