Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Evidently then you haven't adequately familiarized yourself with the
nature of the equations that you use.

The last term in the following power density equation
is known as the "interference term". If it is positive,
the interference is constructive. If it is negative,
the interference is destructive.

Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(A)

Ptotal = 50w + 50w + 2*SQRT(2500)cos(45)

Ptotal = 100w + 100w(0.7071) = 170.71w

The interference term is 70.71 watts of constructive
interference indicating that there must exist 70.71 watts
of destructive interference elsewhere in the system.
If the constructive interference happens at an impedance
discontinuity in a transmission line in the direction of
the load then there must be an equal magnitude of
destructive interference toward the source.



I share Tom B's suspicions. Since Cecil's analysis is leading to
physical absurdities such as "watts of destructive interference" and
vagueries such as "elsewhere in the system", it means that something is
wrong. It could be either in his statement of the problem, the
suitability of his chosen method of analysis, or the way Cecil is
applying that method; or any combination of the above.

Either way, it is Cecil's tarbaby, and nobody else needs to get stuck to
it.

The rest of us can continue to use the methods that have existed for a
hundred years to account for the voltages, currents and phases at any
location along a transmission line, and at any moment in time.


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I share Tom B's suspicions. Since Cecil's analysis is leading to
physical absurdities such as "watts of destructive interference" and
vagueries such as "elsewhere in the system", it means that something is
wrong.

Do you think Eugene Hecht of "Optics" fame is wrong?
The unit of irradiance is "watts per unit area" and is
NOT a "physical absurdity". Hecht uses "watts per unit
area of destructive interference" quite often in his
classic textbook. He says the spacial average of all
interference must be zero so that the watts per unit
area of constructive interference must be balanced by
the watts per unit area of destructive interference
elsewhere in order to satisfy the conservation of
energy principle.

Nothing is wrong, Ian, you are simply ignorant. I suggest
you read the chapter on interference in "Optics" and try
to comprehend it. It might do you good to learn something new.

Either way, it is Cecil's tarbaby, and nobody else needs to get stuck to
it.

By all means don't try to learn and understand anything new.
Newsgroup gurus apparently already know all there is to know
and are therefore incapable of additional learning.

The rest of us can continue to use the methods that have existed for a
hundred years to account for the voltages, currents and phases at any
location along a transmission line, and at any moment in time.

And that is exactly why you don't understand reflected energy.
An understanding of of interference can be had from a voltage
analysis but you obviously have never performed such. It is
common knowledge that V1^2+V2^2 is not equal to (V1+V2)^2.
The question as to why they are not equal has been avoided
even though it is easy to answer. If (V1+V2)^2 V1^2+V2^2
then the superposition of voltages has resulted in constructive
interference. If (V1+V2)^2 V1^2+V2^2 then the superposition
of voltages has resulted in destructive interference. Away
from any source, constructive interference must always equal
destructive interference to avoid violating the conservation
of energy principle. At a Z0-match point, the reflected energy
is redistributed back toward the load by constructive interference.
An equal magnitude of destructive interference occurs toward
the source thus eliminating reflected energy toward the source.
It is the same way that thin-film non-reflective glass works.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
I share Tom B's suspicions. Since Cecil's analysis is leading to
physical absurdities such as "watts of destructive interference" and
vagueries such as "elsewhere in the system", it means that something
is wrong.

Do you think Eugene Hecht of "Optics" fame is wrong?
The unit of irradiance is "watts per unit area" and is
NOT a "physical absurdity". Hecht uses "watts per unit
area of destructive interference" quite often in his
classic textbook. He says the spacial average of all
interference must be zero so that the watts per unit
area of constructive interference must be balanced by
the watts per unit area of destructive interference
elsewhere in order to satisfy the conservation of
energy principle.

Nothing is wrong, Ian, you are simply ignorant. I suggest
you read the chapter on interference in "Optics" and try
to comprehend it. It might do you good to learn something new.

Either way, it is Cecil's tarbaby, and nobody else needs to get stuck
to it.

By all means don't try to learn and understand anything new.
Newsgroup gurus apparently already know all there is to know
and are therefore incapable of additional learning.

The rest of us can continue to use the methods that have existed for a
hundred years to account for the voltages, currents and phases at any
location along a transmission line, and at any moment in time.

And that is exactly why you don't understand reflected energy.
An understanding of of interference can be had from a voltage
analysis but you obviously have never performed such. It is
common knowledge that V1^2+V2^2 is not equal to (V1+V2)^2.
The question as to why they are not equal has been avoided
even though it is easy to answer. If (V1+V2)^2 V1^2+V2^2
then the superposition of voltages has resulted in constructive
interference. If (V1+V2)^2 V1^2+V2^2 then the superposition
of voltages has resulted in destructive interference. Away
from any source, constructive interference must always equal
destructive interference to avoid violating the conservation
of energy principle. At a Z0-match point, the reflected energy
is redistributed back toward the load by constructive interference.
An equal magnitude of destructive interference occurs toward
the source thus eliminating reflected energy toward the source.
It is the same way that thin-film non-reflective glass works.

Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.

The void technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
Why don't you present some theory and math that prove me
wrong instead of just waving your hands and uttering ad
hominem attacks?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.

The void technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
Why don't you present some theory and math that prove me
wrong instead of just waving your hands and uttering ad
hominem attacks?

Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right. So far, you've given us nothing but a few
untestable assumptions and little else. A series of declarative
sentences and obscure analogies does not a theory make. When you can
work out 1. A logical framework, using vector calculus, in order to show
us, logically, why we should pay attention to you, and 2. A series of
easily replicated experiments that you've performed, and we can perform
in turn, to see how well your ideas are supported by reality, then,
maybe we should give you a hearing, but a series of unsupported
statements followed by a barrage of objection stoppers just isn't good
enough. This may be fun for you, but, for anyone dealing with you, it's
just a waste of time.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right.

Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.

And of course, you will mount every diversion known to
man to avoid facing the technical facts as explained by
Hecht, Born & Wolf, Melles-Groit, and the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right.

Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.

And of course, you will mount every diversion known to
man to avoid facing the technical facts as explained by
Hecht, Born & Wolf, Melles-Groit, and the FSU web page.

Cecil,

Have you ever seriously read a copy of Born and Wolf? I have a couple of
editions right beside me, and I just read through the chapter on
interference again.

You would not recognize any of your claims in that chapter. B&W never
mention "interaction" at all, not even once. They completely avoid all
of the elementary Hecht-like handwaving. They don't even mention energy.
It is simply not necessary to do so. Classical physics is quite self
consistent. Assuming one does not make an error in the setup of the
problem (perhaps a poor assumption) or in the math, the energy will
always come out correctly. It is not an independent consideration.

It is possible to solve problems entirely in a framework of energy
analysis, as I have pointed out previously. Much of quantum mechanics is
done that way. However, energy consideration are not more or less
important than any other formulation. Use the method that is easiest.

In this case the problem is overspecified with impossible conditions.
Tom, Tom, and Roy have pointed out the difficulty. I agree with them.

You have specified voltage, current, and impedance at the same time.
These items cannot be arbitrary and independent.

You got it wrong. Try again.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right.

Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.

And of course, you will mount every diversion known to
man to avoid facing the technical facts as explained by
Hecht, Born & Wolf, Melles-Groit, and the FSU web page.

Sorry Cecil, quoting sources you can't possibly understand, yourself,
won't prove anything. Let me know if you ever plan on doing it right.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

On Nov 17, 3:50 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
snip
Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.


They have. But you twisted their argument. Therefore,
they are not saying what you think they are saying. What
they are saying is well proven. What you think they are
saying is not. Big difference there.

On Nov 17, 11:46 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.

The void technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
Why don't you present some theory and math that prove me
wrong instead of just waving your hands and uttering ad
hominem attacks?

That's not an ad hominem attack, it's a real critique of your
reasoning.
Ad hominem attacks are attacks on you, the person, not on your
argument. Not once was he attacking you, the person, above. He
was attacking your reasoning.

Appeal to authority = logical fallacy. Fact.

Not providing any physical empricial evidence to back your claim,
or theory backed by such evidence, when talking about physical,
empiricial stuff = worthless argument. Fact.

So your argument above contains an amazing 0% worth of valid
reasoning.

Evidence for his claim already exists. You can find it with any good
research into known physics. Look up all the famous experiments
that have been done to derive electromagnetic theory, and see all
the proofs. So the evidence for his claim is already on the table.
You now need to provide evidence and logic to refute it, if you want
to have a case.

I'd say his critique is 99% accurate. The last 1% is because he thinks
you need to "convince" people, which is not quite so as you have no
direct power to change others' beliefs: they must first want to be
convinced themselves. What you need is objective evidence and
logical basis for your arguments, which seems 100% lacking. That
last 1% is not because your argument is good.