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.