Keith Dysart wrote:
So when a poster presents a problem in a context other "typical
ham transmitters", why do you dispute the answers.

Uhhhhhh Keith, because you presented the problem to me,
not someone else. You asked me what was wrong with your
examples. I obliged you. If you don't want me to answer,
don't ask me to respond.

Perhaps, in your dissertations on optics, it would be valuable
to state that they apply only in the context of "typical ham
transmitters". This might make it clear to the reader that
your suggestions are not generally applicable and could reduce
the wasted bits.

Perhaps, you should learn to recognize the common misleading
logical diversions, including your reductio ad absurdum assertion
above, and avoid them in the future.

No indeed, the source impedance was a constant and resistive
in all my examples.

Did you bench test it or just dream it up and wave your hands?
Maybe your ten cent resistor can resolve the war in Iraq - in
your mind.

So I take it that you no longer agree with the analysis presented
in Reflections 19 and 19a. I am pretty sure that you have stated
agreement in the past.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never stated
agreement or disagreement. It is just one possibility out
of many that have been presented over the years. The fact
that there are so many theories is proof that it has not
been settled. Why don't you whip out an article that settles
everything and see what QEX thinks about it?

It would be valuable if you were to expand on the reasons for your
change of thought.

Since I haven't changed my thought, that would be difficult.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Keith Dysart wrote:
Just another reason why you have to be careful when you think
that the forward and reverse waves necessarily represent real
power. Trust the power folk on this one; they know what represents
real power, they are billing for it. And its Watts. Net. They
only power that counts is the power you can bill for.

:-) :-) :-) Uhhhhhh Keith, the power company does NOT bill
you for "Watts. Net." They bill you for the number of joules
(KWH) that you convert from 60 Hz AC to heat. Where the heck
did you learn your physics?

Last month I converted 3,452,400,000 joules to heat here
at my QTH. That's 0.000002442 cents per joule.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 12, 8:20 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
The only problem with this statement is the assumption that
the result can only be achieved with a circulator.

Please stop putting words into my mouth. I said it could
be achieved with a circulator. I did *NOT* say it could
*only* be achieved with a circulator.

Do you have a list of possible approaches?

Is there any environment in which a 10 cent resistor is the
optimal solution?

It only takes a 10 cent resistor.

That is naive in the extreme and makes you sound about
ten years old. If a 10 cent resistor would accomplish
that in the real world, nobody would ever buy a
circulator.

In my world, the solution is optimized for the problem at
hand: sometimes a circulator, sometimes a resistor,
sometimes feedback and sometimes we just don't care about
matching the source so nothing at all is needed.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Do you have a list of possible approaches?

I only use one - I don't allow reflected energy
to become incident upon my IC-706 and IC-756PRO.
That is, by far, the most common configuration
in amateur radio.

Is there any environment in which a 10 cent resistor is the
optimal solution?

To the best of my knowledge, not on the output
of any 100 watt amateur radio transmitter.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Keith Dysart" wrote in
ups.com:

....
Just another reason why you have to be careful when you think
that the forward and reverse waves necessarily represent real
power. Trust the power folk on this one; they know what represents

Keith, that was indeed my point, that talking of the forward and
reflected waves as power waves (or whatever non-phasor term is being used
today) and the assertion that those "power" waves are entirely real power
(for whatever reasons), and the talk of superposition of these waves
(where the examples seem to deal with power algebraicly with sometimes a
fudge for phase correction) cannot explain the role of a transmission
line as an energy store at any instant, nor the exchange of reactive
energy at source and load over time.

If that seems a jumble, it is because this stuff is bandied around
without much discipline.

In the same vein, I saw an assertion without sufficient qualification
that in a transmission line, 50% of the energy is stored / contained in
the electric field and 50% in the magnetic field. Again, general
statements from specific cases.

It isn't the special case of a lossless line the causes this, it is the
conclusions that are incorrectly drawn from the lossless line or
incorrectly applied that are the problem.

Owen

Owen Duffy wrote:
Keith, that was indeed my point, that talking of the forward and
reflected waves as power waves ...

If you are trying to quote me, Owen, you are misquoting me.
Exactly what is it about the following excerpts from my
2005 energy article with which you disagree?

From: "An Energy Analysis at an Impedance Discontinuity in
an RF Transmission Line", by W5DXP, WorldRadio, Oct. 2005

"Single-source RF energy in a transmission line and laser
light are both coherent electromagnetic energy waves that
obey the laws of superposition, interference, conservation
of energy, and conservation of momentum."

"The term "power flow" has been avoided in favor of 'energy
flow'. Power is a measure of that energy flow per unit time
through a plane. Likewise, the EM fields in the waves do the
interfering. Powers, treated as scalars, are incapable of
interference."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 12, 4:50 pm, "Keith Dysart" wrote:
On Apr 12, 3:23 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

K7ITM wrote:
If you don't believe there's a solution to the example Keith posted,
you have no right to believe in the results of a measurement with a
vector network analyzer, and you should certainly not trust the
indicated output level of any signal generator.

Methinks you have missed the context of the discussion.
If the model doesn't work for an IC-706 it is not much
use to amateur radio operators. I have already said that
a valid model can be had for a signal generator equipped
with a circulator load.

The only problem with this statement is the assumption that
the result can only be achieved with a circulator. It only
takes a 10 cent resistor. You really should put down your
optics books for a few hours and crack open a basic circuit
theory or transmission line text. Or google, "'lattice
diagrams' reflection". For matching at the source,
only 10 cent resistors are used.

...Keith

Well, I'm not sure that's the ONLY problem with it, Keith! ;-)

Whether the model works for me with an IC-706 will have to wait till
someone sends me an operating IC-706 to test. (They should not expect
its return...) But I can assure you that whether it does or not, it's
a VERY useful model to me, and I am an amateur radio operator. I
certainly do NOT accept that the context of this thread is amateur
transmitters--there's been so much basenote drift by this time that
practically anything relating to vector addition of signals seems fair
game.

Cheers,
Tom

PS--know any circulators that work over a range from 10kHz to 6GHz??
Know any that work at 10kHz even?

Owen Duffy wrote:
"In the same vein, I saw an assertion without sufficient qualification
that in a transmission line, 50% of the energy is stored/contained in
the electric field and 50% in the magnetic field. Again, general
statements from specified cases."

Now we accept that energy travels a guided path as an EM wave. The
electric and magnetic fields of a wave alternately contain the energy of
the wave. When the electric-field is at its maximum, the magnetic-field
is at its minimum, and vice versa.

The change in one field induces the other field and vice versa. Thus it
is the same energy which is being passed back and forth between both
fields. Therefore, over a prolonged period, 50% resides in each field.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

(Richard Harrison) wrote in news:11430-461F268E-
:

....
The change in one field induces the other field and vice versa. Thus it
is the same energy which is being passed back and forth between both
fields. Therefore, over a prolonged period, 50% resides in each field.

Richard, "over a prolonged period" is a qualification, and still it doesn't
sufficiently qualify the statement for it to be true.

Owen

K7ITM wrote:
I certainly do NOT accept that the context of this
thread is amateur transmitters--

Granted, the thread drifted away from the subject line
which has little to do with transmitters, but amateur
transmitters are what the entire Maxwell-Bruene
brouhaha is all about.

We already have a special case where a signal generator
plus circulator yields everything we need to know. One
more special case doesn't add much even if it works
which is questionable.

We do not have a valid generalized case that covers
amateur radio transmitters. IMO, that's what the
brouhaha is all about.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com