Cecil Moore wrote:

The standing wave current phasor has the "same rotational speed
as its components"???

It has to. Thankfully, rotational speed is the one thing that does
not change between the radio and the antenna.

How can that be when the forward current
phasor and the reflected current phasor are rotating in opposite
directions?

Rotational speed has nothing to do with direction of travel. It has
only to do with the source. Rotational speed is simply omega;
2pi*c/wavelength, or 2pi*f. When waves of equal frequency are
traveling in opposite directions, the RF waveform which comprises the
standing wave (the latter being simply the amplitude envelope of the
superposed traveling waves) has the same wavelength, and thus the same
rotational speed as the traveling waves. Although the position of the
peaks does not vary with time, their amplitude is still a time varying
function. This rudimentary effect is illustrated in the movie he

http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/D...rposition.html

Mixing on the other hand is the product (rather than the sum) of two
or more waveforms and does in fact yield different rotational speeds.

73, Jim AC6XG

On 26 Apr 2007 16:39:41 -0700, Keith Dysart wrote:

Is there some
other fault in the model that makes it sufficiently incorrect
to be unusable?

The story of the Princess and the Pea. How many mattresses before the
Princess will be satisfied?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
. . .
Mixing on the other hand is the product (rather than the sum) of two or
more waveforms and does in fact yield different rotational speeds.

And multiplying voltage and current waveforms, or squaring a voltage or
current waveform to get power gives a wave with double the rotational
speed and, unless V and I are in quadrature, a DC offset.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

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

Yes, it doesn't model a class-C amplifier.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:
Rotational speed has nothing to do with direction of travel.

I assumed that the "same rotational speed" implies
the same direction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Rotational speed has nothing to do with direction of travel.

I assumed that the "same rotational speed" implies
the same direction.

The reason I assumed that is this assertion by W7EL.
"This is the total current. It has magnitude and phase
like any other phasor, and the same rotational speed
as its components."

The total current, as graphed by Kraus and displayed
by EZNEC *DOES NOT* have the same rotational speed as
its components. It is obvious that Roy meant the
same direction when he said "same rotational speed".
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 26, 9:12 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Certainly the model I described is linear. Is there some
other fault in the model that makes it sufficiently incorrect
to be unusable?

Yes, it doesn't model a class-C amplifier.

Ah yes. At first there was a reason. But then that was taken
care of, so now we have well...

welll...

well...

It just does NOT model it.

Rather lame, methinks.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
It just does NOT model it.

You got it. Einstein said an explanation should be as
simple as possible, but not too simple. There is too
much evidence gathered over decades of arguments for
simple-minded models to work anywhere except in your
dreams.

Your earlier example proved it. In a source with
absolute zero power, you claimed that all the
reflected power was being dissipated in that
source. Maybe you should fix your trivial model
before tackling anything more complicated.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 26, 9:48 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
It just does NOT model it.

You got it. Einstein said an explanation should be as
simple as possible, but not too simple. There is too
much evidence gathered over decades of arguments for
simple-minded models to work anywhere except in your
dreams.

Okay, so you can't find anything to point at that is wrong
with the model. You could always ask. I could point to a
few things that are arguably weak with the model.

Your earlier example proved it. In a source with
absolute zero power, you claimed that all the
reflected power was being dissipated in that
source.

Of course I claimed no such thing; you do need to read
more carefully. And you have conveniently neglected the
other example which was presented right beside for
which 4 times the "reflected power" was dissipated by
the source. These two copmletely different results
call into question the nature of "reflected power".

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Okay, so you can't find anything to point at that is wrong
with the model.

What is wrong with the model is that it doesn't work
in reality. Neither does the 6000 year old model of
the age of the earth.

Of course I claimed no such thing; you do need to read
more carefully. And you have conveniently neglected the
other example which was presented right beside for
which 4 times the "reflected power" was dissipated by
the source. These two copmletely different results
call into question the nature of "reflected power".

No, they call into question the validity of the model.
The reflected energy is there and can be dissipated
by a circulator load. That the model gets it wrong is
proof of an invalid model, not proof that photons
contain zero energy. Photons contain energy that obeys
the conservation of energy principle.

The fact that zero energy is dissipated in a source
is prima facie evidence of destructive interference
and a "redistribution of energy in a direction that
allows constructive interference". Understanding
interference is the key and your model doesn't even
mention interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com