Superposition
 

this thread is still going?!?!? geez, how far has it evolved? maybe i
should bypass all my plonks and see who is still argueing in here and about
what? but why bother, its probably mostly the same ole arguments about
waves, reflections, conservation of this and that, and obviously by most of
the same old contributers that i have mostly blocked. why don't you guys
just go back and take fields and waves 101, it would save you all a lot of
time and energy.

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Actually, you're writing about momentum density. Momentum is
conserved, but momentum density isn't, ...

The momentum density may certainly change with area just
as the energy density may change with area. But in either
case, the total energy and total momentum are conserved.

As for any finite number being an infinite percentage above
zero, I think you should take that up with the next mathematician
you meet.

The equation for any percentage change from zero is
100(X-0)/0 Plug any value of X into that equation and
see what you get.

Division by zero is not infinity, Cecil, it's undefined.
It's good to see you agree that there's no conservation of
______ (fill in the blank)density, any more than there's a
law of the conservation of power. Have a good thanksgiving.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Superposition
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Which, of course, yields:
kg/s
which is not momentum, ...

You made a mistake somewhere, Richard. The equation I
gave is a *volume density, not an area density* so you
are one 'm' short. You should have gotten kg*m/s
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:

I'm going to ignore your hodge-podge of obfuscations and
concentrate on only one point.

The ONLY thing under discussion here is our disagreement about the
canceling waves heading back toward the source from the match point. You
claim those waves must exist and then cancel over a short distance (I
believe you reduced the distance to 'dx' or something similar.) I claim
those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be canceled.

You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

A 70.7 volt EM wave is incident upon an impedance discontinuity
with a reflection coefficient of 0.7143 at point '+'. Exactly
how does that forward wave avoid being partially reflected from
the Rho=0.7143 impedance discontinuity at point '+'?

Here's the circuit:

SGCL---50 ohm T-line---+---1/2WL 300 ohm T-line---50 ohm load
Pfor1=100w--

Why are there no reflections at point '+' where the physical
reflection coefficient is 0.7143? Gene's Magic at work?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Richard Clark wrote:
Umm, yes, if your Xeroxed authors need that much help in you
describing what they must have meant, but didn't say, then throwing in
previously undisclosed terms might do the trick.

I probably misspelled a word also, Richard, so you can
also jump on that with all four feet. Of course, it should
have been "volume" instead of "area". It's a mental mistake
that is easy to make and it certainly not the same magnitude
of your mistake of declaring that reflections from non-
reflective glass are brighter than the surface of the sun.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Division by zero is not infinity, Cecil, it's undefined.
It's good to see you agree that there's no conservation of
______ (fill in the blank)density, any more than there's a
law of the conservation of power. Have a good thanksgiving.

Division by a quantity as it approaches zero is not
always undefined, Tom. The limit, as the denominator
approaches zero, is often the first infinity, aleph-null.

The momentum in any volume of space must be conserved.
The joules in the joules/sec must be conserved. Please
don't try to hoodwink the uninitiated into believing
otherwise.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Since we are annoying "Dave" (whoever he is), I will stop now.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Superposition
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. Funny you would forget so quickly.

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Here's what you said:

I claim those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be canceled.

The physical impedance discontinuity certainly exists yet
you say it doesn't reflect any waves because the "waves
never exist at all".

So the question still remains: Exactly how does a physical
impedance discontinuity not reflect any waves (in violation
of the laws of physics)? Why doesn't a Rho of 0.7143 reflect
71.43% of the incident voltage like it is supposed to?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Superposition
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. Funny you would forget so quickly.

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Here's what you said:

I claim those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be
canceled.

The physical impedance discontinuity certainly exists yet
you say it doesn't reflect any waves because the "waves
never exist at all".

So the question still remains: Exactly how does a physical
impedance discontinuity not reflect any waves (in violation
of the laws of physics)? Why doesn't a Rho of 0.7143 reflect
71.43% of the incident voltage like it is supposed to?

Cecil,

You don't seem to be a moron. Why are you acting like one?

I very carefully limited the scope of my comment to the situation
involving the two waves that supposedly cancel within a "dx" distance.
Anything else is purely in your imagination.

It is interesting that the spear I chucked through the heart of your
argument was met simply with a claim of "obfuscation". If that's the way
you want to play, then enjoy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Superposition
 

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You say a physical impedance discontinuity can exist without
reflecting waves (in violation of the laws of physics). Please
explain how a physical impedance discontinuity can avoid
reflecting the incident wave.

Did I say that?

Yes, you did. Funny you would forget so quickly.

Strange, I don't remember any discussion at all along that line.

Here's what you said:

I claim those waves never exist at all and therefore don't need to be
canceled.

The physical impedance discontinuity certainly exists yet
you say it doesn't reflect any waves because the "waves
never exist at all".

So the question still remains: Exactly how does a physical
impedance discontinuity not reflect any waves (in violation
of the laws of physics)? Why doesn't a Rho of 0.7143 reflect
71.43% of the incident voltage like it is supposed to?

Cecil,

You don't seem to be a moron. Why are you acting like one?

I very carefully limited the scope of my comment to the situation
involving the two waves that supposedly cancel within a "dx" distance.
Anything else is purely in your imagination.

It is interesting that the spear I chucked through the heart of your
argument was met simply with a claim of "obfuscation". If that's the way
you want to play, then enjoy.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

ah, you are learning well grasshopper. it was fun to tweak these threads,
but it gets old after a while.