Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On 18 Apr 2007 09:54:20 -0700, Keith Dysart wrote:

Opportunity squandered.

Hi Keith,

Was there any doubt about this eventual outcome? No one argues with a
flat-earther except with the expectation of amusement - unless, of
course, the flat-earther is the White House science advisor.

Write for those who read, not for those who squander your effort.

By the way, when I run your LTSpice example I get 10µS of black
screen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 18, 2:21 pm, Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Superposition is a mathematical as well as physical operation. You
maintain that the process of adding x to y must somehow change x and y.

Absolutely false, Jim. Please produce my posting that said
that superposition of x and Y *must* somehow change x and y.

I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood what you meant when you angrily
insisted that waves interact.

You must have indeed (deliberately?) misunderstood. If you would quote
me, as you have demanded that I quote you, you would not be so quick
to obfuscate. The key word in your statement of what I said is "must".
I have NEVER said that two waves MUST interact. All I have ever said
is that it is possible for two waves to interact. If only two waves
out of 100 trillion waves interact, then everything I have said is
true and what you have said is false.

I have said just the opposite.

I must admit to not having seen that post.

It's back there somewhere but I will repeat the concept here.

1. Billions of waves don't superpose, i.e. billions of waves don't
interact.

2. Billions of waves superpose without interference, i.e. billions of
waves
don't interact.

3. Billions of waves interfere without interaction.

4. Sometimes two waves interfere with interaction between the two
waves. The interaction results in permanent change. The two reflected
waves involved in the cancellation of reflections at the surface of a
thin film cannot be recovered.

Please stop refusing to produce my postings that you are quoting as
you have a pathologicao tendency to misquote me.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 18, 11:54 am, Keith Dysart wrote:
It is unfortunate, but you are back where you started;
choosing not to learn. Opportunity squandered.

And BTW, so are you. You ignored my earlier posting which poked holes
in your model so I am going to repeat it until you respond to it. We
know exactly what happens to the reflected energy when a signal
generator equipped with a circulator and load are used in the
following experiment.

100W SGCL----50 ohm 1/4WL stub----short

A Bird wattmeter reads 100 watts forward and 100 watts reflected. The
source sources 100 watts and the circulator resistor dissipates 100
watts which is all of the reflected power.

Keith's 70.7V/50 ohm source----50 ohm 1/4WL stub----short

A Bird wattmeter reads 100 watts forward and 100w reflected. The
current in the source is zero. The source is not only not sourcing any
forward power, it is also not sinking any reflected power. So much for
Keith's source sinking all the reflected power because it's source
impedance is equal to 50 ohms, the Z0 of the transmission line.

Please don't ignore this posting like you did last time.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

"No waves are harmed in the process" implies that waves can
never be canceled.

No. The fact that waves do not have an effect on other waves does not
mean that their fields don't superpose.

Superposition is a mathematical as well as physical operation. You
maintain that the process of adding x to y must somehow change x and
y. You insist that superposing x and y means that x effects change to
y, and y effects change to x. But the process of superposing x and y
does not have an effect on either x or y. The only effect is we now
have the algebraic sum of x and y.

ac6xg

It has been pointed out to me that Cecil has never used the word
'must' in the context of the above discussion. I will now rewrite my
article deleting the controversial entry . Hopefully the idea that
'waves can interact' can be safely inferred from Cecil's strenuous
argument against the report that waves don't interact.

Cecil Moore wrote:

"No waves are harmed in the process" implies that waves can
never be canceled.

No. The fact that waves do not have an effect on other waves does
not
mean that their fields don't superpose. [i.e. Cecil infers
incorrectly.]

Superposition is a mathematical as well as physical operation.
Because of the fact that the word interact means 'to act upon one
another', your assertion that waves can interact means
x can effect change to y, and y can effect change to x.

Since you insist that waves can have an effect on other waves, then
you should at least be able to detail either mathematically or
phenomenalogically the effect y has on x, and x has on y as well as
provide some natural process that would cause this effect. Please
elaborate. Thanks.

ac6xg

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 18, 4:06 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 09:54:20 -0700, Keith Dysart wrote:

Opportunity squandered.

Hi Keith,

Was there any doubt about this eventual outcome? No one argues with a
flat-earther except with the expectation of amusement - unless, of
course, the flat-earther is the White House science advisor.

Write for those who read, not for those who squander your effort.

The larger efforts are done for a few reasons:
- my learning. It helps to think out the problem and attempt to
articulate it. And I have started experimenting with Spice many years
after I last tried it. It is much more usable now.
- others. I hope that there are some lurkers and others who can learn
something from the musings.
- and perhaps Cecil will learn, which would help the larger community
by reducing the amount of incorrect information being promulgated.

By the way, when I run your LTSpice example I get 10µS of black
screen.

That usually occurs because LTSpice can not find the .plt file or it
has a syntax error. It needs to have the same name as the .asc file
and reside in the same directory. I tested by copying the content
from Google Groups. Perhaps that is a path to get the correct
content.

....Keith

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On 18 Apr 2007 17:03:40 -0700, Keith Dysart wrote:

By the way, when I run your LTSpice example I get 10=B5S of black
screen.

That usually occurs because LTSpice can not find the .plt file or it
has a syntax error. It needs to have the same name as the .asc file
and reside in the same directory. I tested by copying the content
from Google Groups. Perhaps that is a path to get the correct
content.

.=2E.Keith

Hi Keith,

From your post:
X: ('=B5',0,0,1e-006,1e-005)
it was the occurence of an errant B5.

You may also note similar oddities preceding your closing signature
and the substitution of B5 in the first line above for the extended
character for micro.

Your newsreader is not fully ASCII compliant. I use agent which is
totally text oriented (it does not render HTML unless so ordered).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 18, 5:01 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Apr 18, 11:54 am, Keith Dysart wrote:

It is unfortunate, but you are back where you started;
choosing not to learn. Opportunity squandered.

And BTW, so are you. You ignored my earlier posting which poked holes
in your model so I am going to repeat it until you respond to it. We
know exactly what happens to the reflected energy when a signal
generator equipped with a circulator and load are used in the
following experiment.

Well, we shall see. Let us call this Experiment A.

100W SGCL----50 ohm 1/4WL stub----short

A Bird wattmeter reads 100 watts forward and 100 watts reflected. The
source sources 100 watts and the circulator resistor dissipates 100
watts which is all of the reflected power.

True, except for one quibble which I will detail near the end of this
post.

Let us call this next one Experiment B.

Keith's 70.7V/50 ohm source----50 ohm 1/4WL stub----short

A Bird wattmeter reads 100 watts forward and 100w reflected. The
current in the source is zero. The source is not only not sourcing any
forward power, it is also not sinking any reflected power. So much for
Keith's source sinking all the reflected power because it's source
impedance is equal to 50 ohms, the Z0 of the transmission line.

I have never claimed that the source in any way sank the 'reflected
power'.
I have stated that there is no re-reflection of the reflected wave at
the
source. Since the source is matched to the line, the reflection
coefficient is 0 and the wave just .... Well it must go into the
source
since tau is one. But at least it is not reflected when rho is zero.

As you observe for Experiment B, the current is zero so as you
say "The source is not only not sourcing any forward power, it is
also not sinking any reflected power."

Of course the current is also zero at the same point for
Experiment A, so there as well, the source is not only not sourcing
any forward power, it is also not sinking any reflected power.

A bit more analysis for Experiment A yields some more questions.
Terminate the line with a 50 Ohm resistor. The source is now
providing power to the line, there is no reflection on the line and
the circulator dissipates nothing.
Remove the resistor. The reflection returns. The circulator once
again dissipates 100 W. But as you said, in this condition,
"The source is not only not sourcing any forward power, it is also
not sinking any reflected power." So where did that 100 W being
dissipated in the circulator come from?

I suggest a further extension to both Experiment A and
Experiment B. Replace the 1/4 WL stub with a 1 and 1/4 WL
stub. Now, at each 1/4 WL along the line coming back from
the load, no energy is flowing because either the current is
0 or the voltage is 0. So this absence of energy flow happens
not just at the source but repeatedly along the line. This
makes it difficult to accomodate the thought that the
forward or reflected travelling waves are transporting energy
along the line (at least at the quarter wave points).

Now back to the quibble. You said: "The source sources 100 watts
and the circulator resistor dissipates 100 watts which is all of the
reflected power."

It would be more precise to say "The source sources 100 watts
and the circulator resistor dissipates 100 watts which is numerically
equal to the reflected power." I contend that it is this "numerical
equality" that has led many astray into believing that the
circulator is dissipating the "reflected power". But as we have seen,
no energy crosses the 0 current node into the generator so the
"reflected power" can not make it to the circulator (or the source
resistance, if the generator happens to have one).

Please don't ignore this posting like you did last time.

As requested.

....Keith

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Richard Clark wrote:

Was there any doubt about this eventual outcome? No one argues with a
flat-earther except with the expectation of amusement - unless, of
course, the flat-earther is the White House science advisor.

Write for those who read, not for those who squander your effort.

By the way, when I run your LTSpice example I get 10µS of black
screen.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Oh come now Richard, the White House Science Advisor would never say
that the earth is flat! Obviously our satellites and the shuttle orbit
the earth. He would probably argue that it was only 4000 or so years
old and that man coexisted with the dinosaurs however. And carbon
dating is horribly inaccurate. And forget about all the other isotopes
we use to date with, they are worthless, too.

Oh yeah, and global warming is not happening and weren't these stupid
climate scientists claiming an ice age was upon us in the 70's? They
just can't make up their minds and stick to it even when presented with
new evidence.

tom
K0TAR

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On 18 Apr 2007 17:03:40 -0700, Keith Dysart wrote:

By the way, when I run your LTSpice example I get 10=B5S of black
screen.
That usually occurs because LTSpice can not find the .plt file or it
has a syntax error. It needs to have the same name as the .asc file
and reside in the same directory. I tested by copying the content
from Google Groups. Perhaps that is a path to get the correct
content.

.=2E.Keith

Hi Keith,

From your post:
X: ('=B5',0,0,1e-006,1e-005)
it was the occurence of an errant B5.

You may also note similar oddities preceding your closing signature
and the substitution of B5 in the first line above for the extended
character for micro.

Your newsreader is not fully ASCII compliant. I use agent which is
totally text oriented (it does not render HTML unless so ordered).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

Very interesting. I also use Agent for reading newsgroups. I copied and
used Keith's long message without the slightest difficulty. Everything
worked as he said it would.

Wonder what is different?

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 18, 8:16 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Keith,

From your post: X: ('=B5',0,0,1e-006,1e-005)

it was the occurence of an errant B5.

You may also note similar oddities preceding your closing signature
and the substitution of B5 in the first line above for the extended
character for micro.

Your newsreader is not fully ASCII compliant. I use agent which is
totally text oriented (it does not render HTML unless so ordered).

I am appalled that I am sending such junk, but my environment is
less than it once was. Where once I had Unix and direct feed, I
am now reduced to using WinXP, Internet Explorer and Google for
posting, though I can use Outlook Express to view. I was lulled into
a false sense of security since both render the posts perfectly, but
when I save the Outlook Express, it claims to have received
text/plain but some characters have been replaced. And Google
'show original' does the same. I suppose 3 dots must mean
something to someone so it substitutes the middle one.
Agghhh.

....Keith