Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Though, you can't just arbitrarily change the sign in an equation in
order to make the answer come out right.

For b1 = 0, s11(a1) and s12(a2) *must* be 180 degrees
out of phase.

cos(180) IS NOT AN ARBITRARY CHANGE!

cos(180) = -1 (but you knew that already)

Joules per second doesn't have phase, Cecil. Your claim was the value
was 1 joule/sec. And the equation is stated pretty clearly in AN-95-1
as the sum of the terms. It doesn't have a minus sign, and it there
isn't a cosine term in it. a1 and a2 are complex voltages, and their
relative phase take care of itself - unless of course you square the
equation. That's how you end up with nonsense like 0=4.

I'm done with this.

AC6XG

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Once again you completely avoided the straightforward question.

No, I answered in a straightforward manner. You just didn't
like the answer.

RF energy in a transmission line is photonic. Photons
always move at the speed of light. Therefore, photonic
energy cannot stand still. QED in more ways than one.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Joules per second doesn't have phase, Cecil. Your claim was the value
was 1 joule/sec. And the equation is stated pretty clearly in AN-95-1
as the sum of the terms. It doesn't have a minus sign, and it there
isn't a cosine term in it. a1 and a2 are complex voltages, and their
relative phase take care of itself - unless of course you square the
equation. That's how you end up with nonsense like 0=4.

As you know, I have repeated all this to you before so
you cannot possibly still be confused. Why you continue
your obfuscation of the truth is really strange.

b1 = s11(a1@0deg) + s12(a2@180deg) = 0

1. When we square both sides of the equation, the
product of 2*s11(a1@0deg)*s12(a2@180deg) is at 180
degrees so the sign of the term is negative. (but you
already knew that)

2. Joules per second doesn't have phase. I have said that
over and over. The phase term in the power density
equation is the relative phase between the two associated
voltages. (but you already knew that)

3. The equation stated in AN-95-1 is a normalized voltage
equation which is the sum of phasors - no negative sign
required for phasor addition. (but you already knew that)

4. Phasor symbols don't have minus signs and the real value
of a phasor is understood to include a cosine term even
though it is omitted by convention. (but you already knew that)

5. The general case of the squared equation is the same
as the intensity (power density) equations from Hecht
and Born & Wolf. It doesn't contain a minus sign.

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

A is the angle between the two associated normalized
phasor voltages, a1 and a2, and its cosine is sometimes
negative. (but you already knew that)

I did not end up with nonsense like 0=4. You ended up
with nonsense like 0=4 by engaging in deliberate
irrational obfuscation. Why you feel the need to
act that way is really strange.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Once again you completely avoided the straightforward question.

No, I answered in a straightforward manner. You just didn't
like the answer.

RF energy in a transmission line is photonic. Photons
always move at the speed of light. Therefore, photonic
energy cannot stand still. QED in more ways than one.

Cecil,

The question was about your claim that there are different forms of
electromagnetic energy. Now you are trying to switch the topic to some
babble about photons and the speed of light.

I guess you cannot answer the energy question. This is not surprising,
since there is no valid answer that brings in some additional form of
electromagnetic energy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
b1 = s11(a1@0deg) + s12(a2@180deg) = 0

Actually, looking at it again, for b1 to be 0, the
following would have to be mathematically true.

b1 = |s11(a1)| - |s12(a2)| = 0

Now square both sides of the equation and see what
you get.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
The question was about your claim that there are different forms of
electromagnetic energy.

The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental
forces of nature. It can certainly exist in forms not
associated with photons. Excess electrons stored in a
capacitor is an example of electromagnetic energy devoid
of photons.

It is generally accepted that RF TEM waves are photonic in
nature being the result of accelerating and decelerating
electrons in a transmission line. If you agree with that
notion, then you must also admit that RF TEM wave energy
cannot stand still and the appearance of such in a
standing wave is just an illusion. Otherwise, you need
to disprove the notion that RF TEM waves are photonic.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Jim Kelley wrote:
Joules per second doesn't have phase, Cecil. Your claim was the value was
1 joule/sec. And the equation is stated pretty clearly in AN-95-1 as the
sum of the terms. It doesn't have a minus sign, and it there isn't a
cosine term in it. a1 and a2 are complex voltages, and their relative
phase take care of itself - unless of course you square the equation.
That's how you end up with nonsense like 0=4.

As you know, I have repeated all this to you before so
you cannot possibly still be confused. Why you continue
your obfuscation of the truth is really strange.

b1 = s11(a1@0deg) + s12(a2@180deg) = 0

1. When we square both sides of the equation, the
product of 2*s11(a1@0deg)*s12(a2@180deg) is at 180
degrees so the sign of the term is negative. (but you
already knew that)

2. Joules per second doesn't have phase. I have said that
over and over. The phase term in the power density
equation is the relative phase between the two associated
voltages. (but you already knew that)

3. The equation stated in AN-95-1 is a normalized voltage
equation which is the sum of phasors - no negative sign
required for phasor addition. (but you already knew that)

4. Phasor symbols don't have minus signs and the real value
of a phasor is understood to include a cosine term even
though it is omitted by convention. (but you already knew that)

5. The general case of the squared equation is the same
as the intensity (power density) equations from Hecht
and Born & Wolf. It doesn't contain a minus sign.

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

A is the angle between the two associated normalized
phasor voltages, a1 and a2, and its cosine is sometimes
negative. (but you already knew that)

I did not end up with nonsense like 0=4. You ended up
with nonsense like 0=4 by engaging in deliberate
irrational obfuscation. Why you feel the need to
act that way is really strange.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Isnt it true the Cos of the phase term will always be equal to -1 or plus
1, -1 for any value of SWR except 1:1 and 1 for a 1:1 SWR value.
I hope this dosnt seem stupid tommorow as I am somewhat sedated and it is
late.

Jimmie

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Jimmie D wrote:
Isnt it true the Cos of the phase term will always be equal to -1 or plus
1, -1 for any value of SWR except 1:1 and 1 for a 1:1 SWR value.

The context of the present discussion is a Z0-match point
at which reflections toward the source are eliminated.
For the case of a Z0-match, the cosine of the phase term
will indeed always be +1 or -1 as the fields are either
in phase or 180 degrees out of phase.

If the SWR is 1:1, there is no reflected voltage and
therefore a2 = 0 and there is no assignable phase angle
between the voltages.

In the general case, where reflections are allowed to
reach the source, the cosine value can be anything
between +1 and -1 as the angle between a1 and a2 can
have any value between zero degrees and 360 degrees.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The question was about your claim that there are different forms of
electromagnetic energy.

The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental
forces of nature. It can certainly exist in forms not
associated with photons. Excess electrons stored in a
capacitor is an example of electromagnetic energy devoid
of photons.

It is generally accepted that RF TEM waves are photonic in
nature being the result of accelerating and decelerating
electrons in a transmission line. If you agree with that
notion, then you must also admit that RF TEM wave energy
cannot stand still and the appearance of such in a
standing wave is just an illusion. Otherwise, you need
to disprove the notion that RF TEM waves are photonic.


Cecil,

Keep going. You are getting really close to winning the RRAA KONS award.

(KONS = King Of Non-Sequiturs)

All you need to add to make the top ranking is a quote from Terman.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Keep going. You are getting really close to winning the RRAA KONS award.

Apparently, you cannot afford to disagree with my posting.
Now consider the boundary conditions for a photonic wave
and you will probably agree with me that the energy in
a photonic wave cannot be stored in a capacitor without
an energy transformation from photonic energy to something
else. In short, photonic waves that appear to be standing
still are an illusion. Photonic waves cannot stand still.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Keep going. You are getting really close to winning the RRAA KONS award.

Apparently, you cannot afford to disagree with my posting.
Now consider the boundary conditions for a photonic wave
and you will probably agree with me that the energy in
a photonic wave cannot be stored in a capacitor without
an energy transformation from photonic energy to something
else. In short, photonic waves that appear to be standing
still are an illusion. Photonic waves cannot stand still.


Cecil,

I keep asking, and you keep evading. What is that "something else"?

You said that the energy must be transformed. I gave you the energy
equation that describes the general electromagnetic case, whether
stationary or "photonic waves". I have not seen any argument to that
equation or any supplement to that equation.

You continue to waffle, but you still have not given the slightest hint
regarding the required energy transformation.

For the record, I do not agree with your statement. No energy
transformation is necessary. The working rules for this stuff have been
known forever. There is no need to invent new junk science other than to
prop up all of your other junk science.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:06:07 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Keep going. You are getting really close to winning the RRAA KONS award.
Apparently, you cannot afford to disagree with my posting.

It is the illegitimate heir of Art's self-serving logic for one. Even
the "authors" can't afford to agree with them, because they couldn't
explain it.

Now consider the boundary conditions for a photonic wave

Now there is about as absurd as a statement as ever put to printing.

I keep asking, and you keep evading. What is that "something else"?

You said that the energy must be transformed.

All energy, by what is euphemistically called the "conservation of
energy," balances between a combination of Potential Energy, and
Kinetic Energy. There are no others, and they are simply the same
thing in different inertial references. Energy is inclusive of both.
What Cecil is laboring under is the wholly misapplied elevation of
plebeian units to the Olympian stature of fundamental forces.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I keep asking, and you keep evading. What is that "something else"?

I've already given you an example, Gene. Here is another.
I have a solar cell that transforms the energy in photonic
sunlight to DC energy stored in my deep-cycle marine battery.
Do you really think you could get a suntan from my deep-cycle
marine battery without another transformation back to UV?

I have not seen any argument to that
equation or any supplement to that equation.

I only respond to the part of your posting with which
I disagree. Here's an equation for you: 2 + 2 = 4

Since that same equation works on cows and dollars,
do you really expect us to believe that there is no
difference between cows and dollars? Please get real.

For the record, I do not agree with your statement. No energy
transformation is necessary.

OK Gene, then explain exactly how photons can be stored
in my deep-cycle marine battery without a transformation
from photonic energy to electronic energy. Why haven't
you patented that RF battery idea of yours?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Richard Clark wrote:
There are no others, and they are simply the same
thing in different inertial references. Energy is inclusive of both.

Well Richard, you have solved all of our energy
problems. Just shine sunlight directly on the
AC power lines. Dang, why didn't I think of that?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:06:07 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Keep going. You are getting really close to winning the RRAA KONS award.
Apparently, you cannot afford to disagree with my posting.

It is the illegitimate heir of Art's self-serving logic for one. Even
the "authors" can't afford to agree with them, because they couldn't
explain it.

Now consider the boundary conditions for a photonic wave

Now there is about as absurd as a statement as ever put to printing.

I keep asking, and you keep evading. What is that "something else"?

You said that the energy must be transformed.

All energy, by what is euphemistically called the "conservation of
energy," balances between a combination of Potential Energy, and
Kinetic Energy. There are no others, and they are simply the same
thing in different inertial references. Energy is inclusive of both.
What Cecil is laboring under is the wholly misapplied elevation of
plebeian units to the Olympian stature of fundamental forces.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


Richard,

OK, I can take the hint. This has gone on way too long. Any
entertainment value evaporated several hundred messages ago.

We could probably start another 1000 message thread if Cecil's total
munge of s-parameters in a non-uniform Z environment was addressed, but
I will let someone else tackle that one.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
For the record, I do not agree with your statement. No energy
transformation is necessary.

From Webster's: "transform - to change in composition
or condition: CONVERT"

Gene, before you go, would you please explain how a
*conversion* of photonic energy to electronic energy
in not a change in composition or condition? How
many photons can you pack into that DC battery?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:

OK, I can take the hint. This has gone on way too long. Any
entertainment value evaporated several hundred messages ago.

We could probably start another 1000 message thread if Cecil's total
munge of s-parameters in a non-uniform Z environment was addressed, but
I will let someone else tackle that one.

Over the years I've often been totally puzzled by things people do which
don't seem to make the least bit of sense. But I've come to realize that
the actions often make perfect sense -- it's just that I had a mistaken
idea of their motives. For example, an action which might be totally
baffling if one assumes that the motive is the best interest of the
country suddenly makes sense when one realizes the the actual motive is
to enrich one's friends or to increase one's power. So here's some help
in understanding the process we've observed he

In certain regions of the country, "winning" is paramount to one's
self-image -- indeed, to one's very manhood. And the sole criterion for
winning is to be the last man standing. It appears that we are, once
again, nearing the point of declaring a "winner", and it will be the
same person who has "won" countless other threads by the same means.
Sometimes it's easy and sometimes hard, but he's the undisputed master
and will not be defeated. Everyone who has thought that logic and
reason, rather than plain chutzpah and tenacity, are paramount, will be
humbled when the clear winner -- the last man standing -- is declared.

Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.

Technical truth is the only winner here, Roy. Nobody
has provided an example of a standing wave existing
without the component forward and reverse waves.
Nobody has explained how the photons in the standing
wave can possibly stand still. Looks like the wave
reflection model is alive and well in spite of the
obvious agenda to kill it off.

Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.

Technical truth is the only winner here, Roy. Nobody
has provided an example of a standing wave existing
without the component forward and reverse waves.
Nobody has explained how the photons in the standing
wave can possibly stand still. Looks like the wave
reflection model is alive and well in spite of the
obvious agenda to kill it off.

Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire lines
using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and dips they
were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at intervals of 1/2
wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they called them
'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate for the purpose
they were used for... and are still used for. Though today we understand
that the effect is caused by the superposition of forward and reflected
waves and can measure the separate component waves, the legacy term still
remains in common use.

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.
Technical truth is the only winner here, Roy. Nobody
has provided an example of a standing wave existing
without the component forward and reverse waves.
Nobody has explained how the photons in the standing
wave can possibly stand still. Looks like the wave
reflection model is alive and well in spite of the
obvious agenda to kill it off.

Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire lines
using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and dips they
were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at intervals of 1/2
wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they called them
'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate for the purpose
they were used for... and are still used for. Though today we understand
that the effect is caused by the superposition of forward and reflected
waves and can measure the separate component waves, the legacy term still
remains in common use.





WOW!!!

Yet another person who does not believe in superposition for linear systems.

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Dave wrote:
This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire lines
using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and dips they
were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at intervals of 1/2
wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they called them
'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate for the purpose
they were used for... and are still used for. Though today we understand
that the effect is caused by the superposition of forward and reflected
waves and can measure the separate component waves, the legacy term still
remains in common use.

Not only does it remain in common use, but it dictates
reality for some folks, at least in their own mind.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Dave wrote:
This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment
of early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open
wire lines using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage
peaks and dips they were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and
occured at intervals of 1/2 wavelength along their feedlines, and
didn't move, they called them 'standing waves'. A complete misnomer,
but quite adequate for the purpose they were used for... and are still
used for. Though today we understand that the effect is caused by the
superposition of forward and reflected waves and can measure the
separate component waves, the legacy term still remains in common use.

Yet another person who does not believe in superposition for linear
systems.

No, yet another person who believes that forward
waves and reflected waves do NOT interact and
therefore maintain their separate identities
moving at the speed of light in opposite directions,
in accordance with the wave reflection model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. . .
Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

Once again, I request that anyone who is interested in seeing what I
wrote please look it up at groups.google.com, and not rely on Cecil's
recollection and creative interpretation of what I wrote.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.
Technical truth is the only winner here, Roy. Nobody
has provided an example of a standing wave existing
without the component forward and reverse waves.
Nobody has explained how the photons in the standing
wave can possibly stand still. Looks like the wave
reflection model is alive and well in spite of the
obvious agenda to kill it off.

Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire
lines using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and
dips they were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at
intervals of 1/2 wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they
called them 'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate
for the purpose they were used for... and are still used for. Though
today we understand that the effect is caused by the superposition of
forward and reflected waves and can measure the separate component waves,
the legacy term still remains in common use.





WOW!!!

Yet another person who does not believe in superposition for linear
systems.

no, i heartily DO believe in superposition. what i hate the misnomer
'standing waves' that has misled many non technical people to an incorrect
view of how waves work.

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:18:24 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Once again, I request that anyone who is interested in seeing what I
wrote please look it up at groups.google.com, and not rely on Cecil's
recollection and creative interpretation of what I wrote.

Hi Roy,

It seems this technique has become rather commonplace as a recent
complaint of mine would reveal, and few are interested in snorkeling
through the sewer to find a lost reputation.

Recommendations for searching the archives should be confined to
finding facts, which are few and more easily described in the
constraints of a search engine; looking for evidence of distortions
would cripple the bandwidth capacity of the Internet.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
Roy Lewallen wrote:
Congratulations, Cecil! Your reputation among your peers is intact.
Technical truth is the only winner here, Roy. Nobody
has provided an example of a standing wave existing
without the component forward and reverse waves.
Nobody has explained how the photons in the standing
wave can possibly stand still. Looks like the wave
reflection model is alive and well in spite of the
obvious agenda to kill it off.

Are you still standing by your use of standing wave
current with its unchanging phase to "prove" that
there is no phase shift through a loading coil? I
can also use that same technique to prove there is
no phase shift in a 90 degree stub.

This is all because 'standing waves' don't exist! they are a figment of
early experimenter's attempts to make tuning measurements on open wire lines
using improvised tools. Because the current or voltage peaks and dips they
were measuring seemed to be wave shaped and occured at intervals of 1/2
wavelength along their feedlines, and didn't move, they called them
'standing waves'. A complete misnomer, but quite adequate for the purpose
they were used for... and are still used for. Though today we understand
that the effect is caused by the superposition of forward and reflected
waves and can measure the separate component waves, the legacy term still
remains in common use.




Yep, Darwin was a tool of the Devil, the Earth is flat, faith can heal
all disease, and the Earth is 6000 years old.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Once again, I request that anyone who is interested in seeing what I
wrote please look it up at groups.google.com, and not rely on Cecil's
recollection and creative interpretation of what I wrote.

I doubt that anyone is interested enough to wade through
thousands of postings so I fetched one of yours:

Current Through Coils Mar 22, 2006, 1:11 pm
Roy Lewallen, W7EL wrote:
The total current ("standing wave current" in Cecil's parlance)
certainly does have an associated phase angle, and its phasor certainly
does rotate. (By "phase" I mean time phase.) A sinusoidal traveling
current wave can be expressed as a phasor whose value is a function of
position. When you add a forward traveling wave to a reverse traveling
wave, you're adding two phasors. The result is a phasor whose value is
the vector sum of those two phasors. This is the total current. It has
magnitude and phase like any other phasor, and the same rotational speed
as its components.

The standing wave current phasor has the "same rotational speed
as its components"??? How can that be when the forward current
phasor and the reflected current phasor are rotating in opposite
directions?

Your statement above is in direct contradiction to Kraus's
graph of phase on a 1/2WL dipole where the current phase from
end to end varies away from 0 degrees by only a couple of degrees.
EZNEC agrees with Kraus. That graph is Figure 14-2 on page 464
of "Antennas for all Applications", 3rd edition. EZNEC says
the phase of the current on a 12WL dipole varies by only
two degrees over the entire antenna.

If the phase of the net current doesn't vary end to end on a
1/2WL dipole, how could you and W8JI use it to try to prove
that the phase shift through a loading coil is zero degrees?
Isn't that called assuming the proof?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Yep, Darwin was a tool of the Devil, the Earth is flat, faith can heal
all disease, and the Earth is 6000 years old.

You forgot: Forward waves and reverse waves interact to form
standing waves which is what would have to happen to satisfy
some of the assertions made in this thread.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 23, 1:18 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

Amateur transmitters are not designed to be linear
and they are NOT linear. Adding a ten cent resistor
to them is not going to make them linear.
--
73, Cecil,http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

What a crazy Alice-in-Wonderland world you live in, Cecil! It's fun
to visit you there, but I'm glad I don't have to live in it. I do
hope it's an enjoyable place for you, though I am sorry you're unable
to visit ours.

From the labs,
Bunsen

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Dr. Honeydew wrote:
What a crazy Alice-in-Wonderland world you live in, Cecil! It's fun
to visit you there, but I'm glad I don't have to live in it. I do
hope it's an enjoyable place for you, though I am sorry you're unable
to visit ours.

Can we at least agree that a class-C amplifier is not linear?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 26, 1:24 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Can we at least agree that a class-C amplifier is not linear?

By this, do you mean that the input to output transfer function
of a class-C amplifier is not linear?

Or do you mean that the output aspects of a class-C amplifier
can not be modelled as a linear circuit?

The former is certainly true, but for the latter, it seems to me
a first order model of the output circuit would be a voltage
controlled current sink (the tube), a constant voltage source
(the power supply), an RFC, a coupling capacitor and an
output filter constructed of inductors and capacitors; all of
which are linear components.

....Keith

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:24 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Can we at least agree that a class-C amplifier is not linear?

By this, do you mean that the input to output transfer function
of a class-C amplifier is not linear?

It's a little more subtle than that. I mean that the
output of an active dynamic class-C amplifier does not
lend itself to passive superposition. The component of
the sums is not the sum of the components.

Or do you mean that the output aspects of a class-C amplifier
can not be modelled as a linear circuit?

If a class-C amplifier is modeled as a linear circuit,
the model is wrong.

The former is certainly true, but for the latter, it seems to me
a first order model of the output circuit would be a voltage
controlled current sink (the tube), a constant voltage source
(the power supply), an RFC, a coupling capacitor and an
output filter constructed of inductors and capacitors; all of
which are linear components.

But the model bears little resemblance to the actual
active dynamic source which has been my objection all
along. When the tube is off, the source impedance is
essentially infinite. It is like the energy tick provided
by the weights in a pendulum clock. One can assume that
the linear pendulum is the energy source but the weights
are actually the energy source and that energy is
delivered as a step function pulse.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Dave wrote:


no, i heartily DO believe in superposition. what i hate the misnomer
'standing waves' that has misled many non technical people to an incorrect
view of how waves work.



Dave,

You say the words, but you gotta walk the talk.

When superposition applies, the superposed function is completely
equivalent to the sum of the components. There are no remaining hidden
variables still lurking in the original components, invisible to the
standing wave.

When two traveling waves combine to form a standing wave, the standing
wave result contains *all* the information and properties there are to
be had. The standing wave is just as valid as the two component waves
taken together.

Now Cecil (and others) may immediately come along and assert that we can
take one traveling wave at a time and yadda, yadda, yadda. Sure we can,
but it is now a different setup. He may also yammer on about all sorts
of special cases, with transients, circulators, non-linear setups, and
so on. Superposition does not always apply, but when it does, it works.

I have said many times that all of this is strictly a matter of
mathematical convenience. In that regard there is some agreement with
your assertion that standing waves were first recognized as a matter of
expediency. However, standing waves are *not* an approximation. A
correct standing wave function works just fine as a solution to the
standard wave equation. No traveling waves are needed at all, but you
can use the completely equivalent set of traveling waves if you prefer.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
When superposition applies, the superposed function is completely
equivalent to the sum of the components. There are no remaining hidden
variables still lurking in the original components, invisible to the
standing wave.

When two traveling waves combine to form a standing wave, the standing
wave result contains *all* the information and properties there are to
be had. The standing wave is just as valid as the two component waves
taken together.

Let me remind you of what you said earlier - that all phase
information disappears from the phase of the standing wave
and that the phase information from the component waves is
contained in the amplitude of the standing wave. Conversely,
the amplitude information from the component waves is contained
in the phase of the standing wave. This is why standing wave
current cannot be used to measure phase shift and why standing
wave amplitude cannot be used to measure the "current drop"
through a loading coil.

Roy's and Tom's measured "current drop" is actually phase
delay information. Their phase measurement is actually
information about the amplitudes of the forward and
reflected waves. They apparently didn't (and still don't)
understand that fact.

Now Cecil (and others) may immediately come along and assert that we can
take one traveling wave at a time and yadda, yadda, yadda. Sure we can,
but it is now a different setup.

This seems to contradict what you said in the paragraph just above.
Taking the component waves together is either valid or it is not,
no if's and's, or but's.

I have said many times that all of this is strictly a matter of
mathematical convenience. In that regard there is some agreement with
your assertion that standing waves were first recognized as a matter of
expediency. However, standing waves are *not* an approximation. A
correct standing wave function works just fine as a solution to the
standard wave equation.

The problem is that some people have been seduced by the standing
wave solution not realizing that the constant standing wave phase
cannot be used to measure phase shift. Roy's and Tom's measurements
of standing wave phase through a loading coil are meaningless yet,
to the best of my knowledge, you have not voiced an opinion about
those bogus measurements.

No traveling waves are needed at all, ...

The question is not whether, when properly implemented, a standing
wave analysis yields valid results. The questions a

1. Can the component forward and reverse traveling waves be used
to obtain a valid solution? If the answer is no, then the
superposition principle is invalid. If the answer is , yes,
then why do you object?

2. Have some people made errors in their analysis using standing
waves? The answer is obviously, yes, since standing wave phase
was used for loading coil phase delay invalid "measurements".
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Once again, I request that anyone who is interested in seeing what I
wrote please look it up at groups.google.com, and not rely on Cecil's
recollection and creative interpretation of what I wrote.

Incidentally, everyone (including me) was wrong in the
discussions back in 2003. There were two sides to the
argument and both sides were partially right and partially
wrong. The correct answer lies somewhere in between the
two positions.

The key to understanding the phase shift through a
loading coil is in first understanding how a stub
that is physically 41 degrees long can cause 90
degrees of phase shift. Here's an example:

---30 deg 450 ohm line---+---11 deg 50 ohm line---open

The above stub is physically 41 degrees long and
electrically 90 degrees long. Understanding how that
is possible is the key to understanding how 30 degrees
of coil and 11 degrees of stinger can resonate as if
it were 90 degrees long.

There is NOT (90 - 11 = 79) degrees of phase shift through
the coil.

There is NOT zero degrees of phase shift through the coil.

There *IS* 30 degrees of phase shift through the coil.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


Let me remind you of what you said earlier -


Cecil,

Thanks, but no thanks. I know exactly what I said, and have consistently
said the same thing.

(Life is easier when one does not need to keep inventing new tall tales
to cover up the previous tall tales.)

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Let me remind you of what you said earlier -

Thanks, but no thanks. I know exactly what I said, and have consistently
said the same thing.

Unfortunately, some of your guru friends say just the
opposite.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Tom Donaly wrote:
Yep, Darwin was a tool of the Devil, the Earth is flat, faith can heal
all disease, and the Earth is 6000 years old.

You forgot: Forward waves and reverse waves interact to form
standing waves which is what would have to happen to satisfy
some of the assertions made in this thread.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

NO THEY DON'T! the traveling waves do not interact! Your measurement of
the superimposed voltages or currents makes you THINK they interact, but you
are just fooling yourself.

note, the superposition theorem says basically that the response of a linear
network to several input signals can be represented as the sum of the
responses of the individual signals. it says nothing about being able to
take apart a signal to regain the separate inputs once you have added them
together.

i.e. suppose you have a linear system f() and feed it with signals x(t) and
y(t). the superposition theorem says:
f(x(t)+y(t))=f(x(t))+f(y(t))

so lets say the function 'f' just doubles the input voltage. and to make it
really simple assume x(t) and y(t) are just constant values x and y. now
answer the following question using superposition:

Given f(x+y)=4
And f(x)+f(y)=4
Find x and y (show your work)

Give up? Good for you! now you understand that knowing the sum does NOT
tell you the components, even in a very simple linear system.

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Dave wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:
Yep, Darwin was a tool of the Devil, the Earth is flat, faith can heal
all disease, and the Earth is 6000 years old.

You forgot: Forward waves and reverse waves interact to form
standing waves which is what would have to happen to satisfy
some of the assertions made in this thread.

NO THEY DON'T! the traveling waves do not interact! Your measurement of
the superimposed voltages or currents makes you THINK they interact, but you
are just fooling yourself.

Dave, just to be clear, here's the list I added to.

1. Darwin was a tool of the Devil.
2. The Earth is flat.
3. Faith can heal all disease.
4. The Earth is 6000 years old.
5. Forward waves and reverse waves interact to form standing waves.

It is a list of foolish absurd notions - so I agree with you.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 26, 9:14 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Or do you mean that the output aspects of a class-C amplifier
can not be modelled as a linear circuit?

If a class-C amplifier is modeled as a linear circuit,
the model is wrong.

Well, all models are wrong. The question is, "Are they good
enough?"

It seems to me
a first order model of the output circuit would be a voltage
controlled current sink (the tube), a constant voltage source
(the power supply), an RFC, a coupling capacitor and an
output filter constructed of inductors and capacitors; all of
which are linear components.

But the model bears little resemblance to the actual
active dynamic source which has been my objection all
along. When the tube is off, the source impedance is
essentially infinite.

The impedance of an ideal current sink is always infinite,
whether it is conducting no current or any current. So the
first level model I proposed above aligns with your
statement.

Certainly the model I described is linear. Is there some
other fault in the model that makes it sufficiently incorrect
to be unusable?

....Keith