Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

A stationary EM wave is a contradiction in terms,
an oxymoron.


It sounds just like a standing EM wave. :-)

Again, if you can present an example of an EM standing wave
devoid of the forward and reverse traveling wave components,
now would be a good time.

I didn't say anything was devoid of anything, Cecil. I just said your
description of a stationary EM wave sounds just like a standing EM wave.

I don't think you caught my drift (or Gene's), but go ahead and give
it another whack.

73, Jim AC6XG

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The waves you are trying to create and then quickly cancel, in
delta-t, simply never existed. Problem solved.

Problem solved by rendering an s-parameter analysis
invalid?

b1 = s11(a1) + s12(a2) = 0

So s11(a1) and s12(a2) in the s-parameter equations don't
exist and never existed. Don't you think you should tell
HP so they can change their Ap Notes?

Cecil,

You routinely confuse results and observations with underlying causes.

There is nothing wrong with s-parameter analysis. The problem is that
you keep trying to make s-parameters something they are not. Did you
perhaps notice that word "parameter"? Do you think there might be a
reason that term was chosen rather than, say, "all encompassing
equations describing the entire universe"?

S-parameters work fine for their intended purpose. However, they don't
trump Maxwell's equations or solid state physics, nor do they try to.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
The *NET* paragraph above is simply unmitigated nonsense. It appears
that mistaken notion is one of the root causes of your continuing
confusion. Until you get over this bogus idea of colliding energy
flows there is no hope for further enlightenment.

If colliding energy doesn't flow, then waves interact
away from an impedance discontinuity since the colliding
energy components are in separate EM waves traveling in
opposite directions. Which will it be? You cannot have
it both ways.

1. The ExB joules/sec components in the forward wave and the
reflected wave pass through each other with no interaction
such that the *NET* energy flow is zero.

2. The ExB joules/sec components flowing in each direction
cause all energy to stop flowing because of wave interaction.

Please tell us which one is true and which one is false.


Cecil,

You still don't believe in superposition, do you?

I don't need to worry about which of your purported answers is goofier
than the other. Superposition allows me to combine your traveling waves
into a standing wave. The energy analysis then becomes very easy, with
no paradoxes.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:

The waves you are trying to create and then quickly cancel, in
delta-t, simply never existed. Problem solved.


Problem solved by rendering an s-parameter analysis
invalid?

b1 = s11(a1) + s12(a2) = 0

So s11(a1) and s12(a2) in the s-parameter equations don't
exist and never existed. Don't you think you should tell
HP so they can change their Ap Notes?

HP would simply observe that what b1 = 0 means is that there is no
energy and there are no waves moving in the direction of b1.

73, Jim AC6XG

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Jim Lux wrote:
Sources are linear. Consider the classic voltage source. it has zero
impedance.

You talk about those sources as if they exist in reality.
They only exist in a human mind in a mathematical model.

a practical RF source, perhaps, might be nonlinear, although it's
pretty easy to come close.. Consider an oscillator isolated by an
isolator or a big pad.

I have suggested those configurations myself and those ideas
have been rejected by the other side - which claims that
all one needs to linearize a real-world source is a ten
cent resistor.

How does your superposition work
when you try to spit up a fire hose?

Just fine. No different than receiving a faint signal superimposed on a
large interfering signal at a different frequency.

Do you really think that any of those spit molecules
make it all the way to the source?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
There is nothing wrong with s-parameter analysis.

There is certainly something wrong with it if the terms
in the s-parameter never existed, as you assert.

S-parameters work fine for their intended purpose. However, they don't
trump Maxwell's equations or solid state physics, nor do they try to.

Nobody said they did, Gene, so this is just another one of
your straw men. EM waves canceling each other to zero are
perfectly compatible with Maxwell's equations. When you
use Maxwell's equations on two EM waves of equal amplitude
and opposite phase, do those equations really say that
the two waves, as you assert, never existed in the first
place?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I don't need to worry about which of your purported answers is goofier
than the other. Superposition allows me to combine your traveling waves
into a standing wave. The energy analysis then becomes very easy, with
no paradoxes.

You yourself have said that nothing is lost during superposition.
Presumably that includes energy not being destroyed.

Given that |s11(a1)|^2 = 1 joule/sec

Given that |s12(a2)|^2 = 1 joule/sec

Given that |b1|^2 = 0

What happened to the 2 joules/sec?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
HP would simply observe that what b1 = 0 means is that there is no
energy and there are no waves moving in the direction of b1.

Yes, and HF also observes that, e.g.:

|s11(a1)|^2 = 1 joule/sec

|s12(a2)|^2 = 1 joule/sec

Presumably, HP doesn't believe in destruction of
energy. Hecht says those joules existed with a
direction and momentum toward the source. What
happened to those joules to reverse their direction
and momentum?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

HP would simply observe that what b1 = 0 means is that there is no
energy and there are no waves moving in the direction of b1.


Yes, and HF also observes that, e.g.:

|s11(a1)|^2 = 1 joule/sec

|s12(a2)|^2 = 1 joule/sec

I don't think they do.

Presumably, HP doesn't believe in destruction of
energy.

I'm quite sure that's true, which is why they wouldn't agree with your
"e.g." above.

Hecht says those joules existed with a
direction and momentum toward the source.

Actually, he never does say that.

What
happened to those joules to reverse their direction
and momentum?

Clearly, according to everything that is known and is measurable,
those joules are not traveling in the direction you claim.

73, Jim AC6XG

Analyzing Stub Matching with Reflection Coefficients
 

On Apr 23, 10:23 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Dr. Honeydew wrote:
Either you believe in the superposition principle in linear
systems, or you don't. He obviously doesn't.

Superposition is known to fail in nonlinear systems.
A source is obviously not linear. The V/I of an active
dynamic source resists any attempt at linear
superposition.

So you don't believe in any of the S-parameter analysis done on linear
small-signal amplifiers, then. Might as well just toss HP AN95 in the
trash. Might as well toss the S parameters provided by pretty much
all the RF transistor manufacturers in the trash. And in fact, even
beyond that, you don't believe in any of the S-paramter analysis done
on any system that's propagating power, because that power came from a
source, and if you toss one non-linear element into the system, the
whole system is non-linear and none of this linear systems analysis
would be valid.

Enjoy your dreams, whatever kind they may be. Fortunately, they won't
keep the rest of us from continuing to successfully analyze our
systems, including the sources, with H parameters, Y parameters, S
parameters, or just plain old elemental linear circuit theory.

From the labs,
Bunsen