Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Is the Superposition Principle invalid? | Antenna |