Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:


I certainly do *NOT* claim there's energy in the
canceled waves after they are canceled.

Perhaps then you'd care to describe more fully the steady state
condition wherein the canceled waves are not canceled?

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Someone wrote:
"The energy in canceled waves is why the forward power is often greater
than the source power."

Bird says:
"Power delivered to and dissipated in a load is given by:

Wl = watts into load = Wf - Wr"

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I certainly do *NOT* claim there's energy in the
canceled waves after they are canceled.

Perhaps then you'd care to describe more fully the steady state
condition wherein the canceled waves are not canceled?

Since I never said anything resembling that, you are
just up to your old semantic tricks, well known to
this newsgroup. If you still lack a conceptual grasp
of the process, please avail yourself of the flash
demo at:

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

Set the two waves to equal magnitudes and opposite phases.
Hint: there can be no wave cancellation without waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Someone wrote:
"The energy in canceled waves is why the forward power is often greater
than the source power."

Bird says:
"Power delivered to and dissipated in a load is given by:

Wl = watts into load = Wf - Wr"

The point I was trying to make is that the forward power
into a Z0-match point can be 100 watts while the forward
power out of the Z0-match point is 200 watts. In that
case, the Z0-match point is an interferometer of sorts.
An ideal non-reflective thin-film coating on glass is a
Z0-match. Hint: characteristic impedances are directly
related to indexes of refraction.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Richard Harrison wrote:

Someone wrote:
"The energy in canceled waves is why the forward power is often greater
than the source power."

Bird says:
"Power delivered to and dissipated in a load is given by:

Wl = watts into load = Wf - Wr"

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Good point, Richard. Wf = Wl + Wr. Amidst all this consternation
about conserving the energy in canceled waves, we should not lose
sight of the fact that it is *reflections* (not canceled waves) which
cause forward power to measure greater than power dissipated in the
load.

ac6xg

cancelled but not cancelled, was Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current now,
 

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:


I certainly do *NOT* claim there's energy in the
canceled waves after they are canceled.

Perhaps then you'd care to describe more fully the steady state condition
wherein the canceled waves are not canceled?

ac6xg


now lets really have some fun with the cancelled wave and disappearing
energy crowd that redirects power from here to there and sloshes it back and
forth so it doesn't go anywhere.

This is after all an antennas group, so lets take a real antenna. I have 2
160m verticals that are 1/2 wavelength apart over a pretty darn good ground.
Now, I can feed them either in phase to get a broadside pattern, or I can
feed them 180 degrees out of phase to get an end fire pattern. Everyone
here should agree that this works as it has been well demonstrated over the
years, and even nec predicts it so art should be happy.

Now you may ask, why is this any big revelation... well, because it is a
perfect example of waves that cancel but don't disappear, slosh, or get
redirected anywhere. consider the case where the 2 verticals are fed 180
degrees out of phase. on a line 1/2 way in between them and perpendicular
to them there is perfect cancellation of the two waves... and yet, you can
move just a little bit off this line of symmetry and viola, the waves are
both there and add as expected. in fact if you walk from one vertical to
the other and keep on going on that line you will come to the center point
where the waves perfectly cancel, then keep walking and just 1/4 wave later
when you get to the next vertical, and everywhere from there on the two
waves add together.

Now how does that happen?? is there some kind of magical reflection field
set up so that no power can cross that midpoint line?? maybe this is the
first evidence of a star trek type forcefield that magically deflects
phasors while still letting you see the photons?? So where does the power
go??? at that mid point E=0, H=0, ExH must also be 0 at all time, and
everywhere along that symmetry plane... so how can the waves add up again on
the other side? quantum tunneling? art's magical levitating cosmic
diamagnetic particles??? virtual photons?? oh, I forgot, these verticals
are copper clad steel, doesn't the steel mess them up or something because
the cosmic particles fly away? or is the thin copper enough to let them
settle on an otherwise insulated slippery vertical surface??

I know what the equations say... I also know what the contest results say...
the waves keep going, and going, and going... and the qso's keep coming, and
coming, and coming. So lets see how well art's magical mystery antenna
plays in the ultimate 160m contest this weekend... how about it art, I'm
sure everyone would love to see you prove your little antenna can out play
something bigger??

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Set the two waves to equal magnitudes and opposite phases.
Hint: there can be no wave cancellation without waves.

More to the point, there can be no waves under the conditions you
describe. So, again, just when do these waves actually exist, Cecil?
We apparently agree that it's not when they cancel. The only other
possibility I can think of would be when they don't cancel. So, when
don't they cancel? Does it occur in steady state?

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Good point, Richard. Wf = Wl + Wr. Amidst all this consternation about
conserving the energy in canceled waves, we should not lose sight of the
fact that it is *reflections* (not canceled waves) which cause forward
power to measure greater than power dissipated in the load.

Now all you have to do is figure out how those reflected
waves reverse their momentum to become forward waves.
You have never offered any explanation for that phenomenon
while criticizing everyone else's explanations.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Good point, Richard. Wf = Wl + Wr. Amidst all this consternation
about conserving the energy in canceled waves, we should not lose
sight of the fact that it is *reflections* (not canceled waves) which
cause forward power to measure greater than power dissipated in the load.


Now all you have to do is figure out how those reflected
waves reverse their momentum to become forward waves.
You have never offered any explanation for that phenomenon
while criticizing everyone else's explanations.

I don't criticize everyone else's explanations, Cecil. We've
discussed this countless times. It's not new or revolutionary, and
there are of course pictures of it in physics books that you can look
at. Born and Wolf has one, and so does Roller Blum, Physics Volume 2
- as I've pointed out before. You even have a similar chart
illustrating it on your web page. Obviously I didn't invent it. It's
been right there all along, just as I've told you countless times
before, and naturally it (of necessity) blends seamlessly with all of
your other favorite quotations.

In considering the transmission line matching transformer scenario (or
the antireflection coating), when we sum up all of the partial
reflections at each interface during the transient period, the sum
ultimately reaches and establishes the steady state conditions. The
sum of the reflections at each iteration show exactly how energy makes
its way from source to load.

But to follow the energy path correctly we absolutely have to approach
the problem either from the standpoint of fields or as voltages.
Power doesn't propagate. Fields do - therefore only an analysis from
that standpoint avoids pitfalls and misconceptions. If you want to
see how energy moves, then power should be calculated after a proper
voltage analysis, not in lieu of one. When approached in this manner,
it is very simple to see how energy actually does move through the
system. Note that you get the same answer in the end either way.
Both approaches obviously conserve energy. Scattering parameters and
irradiance equations are accurate shortcuts to that end. But one
should be careful not to read (or invent) too much physical science
into the shortcuts. They're mathematical shortcuts, not
phenomenological descriptions of nature.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

[material worthy of consideration]

"Cancellation" is undeniably a misnomer. In the same way there is no
"cancellation" in a dummy load--rf simply becomes heat.

Somehow, within a coaxial tank circuit, something "appears" as
"cancellation" of waves, but they are NOT "really" canceled--canceled,
when used in the posts here has a way of SEEMING to imply that the laws
of conservation of energy are being broken--I rest assured, they are not.

In the end, the rf escapes unscathed ... I guess some of the "why" this
is occurring, you are explaining in the math you present. Have
patience, I am in the process of digesting it and brushing up on points
of my education I have seldom, if ever, used ... I have grown old and
lazy and need one h*ll of a fire built under me to move. :-D

For some this is probably childs' play, to those I say, right on! For
me, it has become as difficult as when I had to "wrap" my mind around
binary trees--just when I was I ready to give up and change majors--I
had my revelation! (indeed, I think of it as a, "Revelation Onto John"
;-) )

Regards,
JS

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Set the two waves to equal magnitudes and opposite phases.
Hint: there can be no wave cancellation without waves.

More to the point, there can be no waves under the conditions you
describe.

Therefore, thin-film anti-reflective coatings are
a waste of time since there were no reflections to
begin with. Again, you have an effect reaching back
in time to change its own cause. If that works in
your mind, who am I to try to change it?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
I don't criticize everyone else's explanations, Cecil.

You criticized Walter Maxwell's explanation and my
explanation without offering any explanation of your
own. Exactly what completely reverses the momentum
of the reflected wave from the load when the power
reflection coefficient is only 0.5?

In considering the transmission line matching transformer scenario (or
the antireflection coating), when we sum up all of the partial
reflections at each interface during the transient period, the sum
ultimately reaches and establishes the steady state conditions. The sum
of the reflections at each iteration show exactly how energy makes its
way from source to load.

The reflection model works just fine for the transient
state *and* for the steady-state. The principles of
superposition tell us that it doesn't matter how the
steady-state signals are divided up. Their sum is
always the same.

You divide it up into transient reflections. It can
just as easily be divided into ten equal parts and
the result will be identical.

I can devise an example using two sources with circulators
with no reflections where steady-state is immediate. The
results are exactly the same as a single source with
reflections.

If you want to see how
energy moves, then power should be calculated after a proper voltage
analysis, not in lieu of one.

Please do a voltage analysis for an anti-reflective coating
tuned for laser light and get back to us. Optical physicists
have been doing irradiance analysis for centuries, Jim. If
you can prove them wrong, have at it. All I am doing is an
irradiance analysis inside a transmission line based on
centuries old techniques from the field of optics. Since
you reject an irradiance analysis, your argument is not
with me but with the physicists who invented the irradiance
analysis and equation.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

cancelled but not cancelled, was Standing-Wave Current vsT...
 

Dave wrote;
"Art`s magical levitating cosmic diamagnetic particles???"

Art surely realizes his leg is being pulled. We all know we`re only
conglomerations of stardust which are mightily entertained by Art`s
unrestrained theories. We love Art and when his infernal machine is
perfected, Art will find us volunteering to be beamed up!

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
If you want to see how
energy moves, then power should be calculated after a proper voltage
analysis, not in lieu of one.

Let's return to the graphic that we earlier discussed.

http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.GIF

When the first internal reflection (0.009801 watts)
arrives at t3 and first interferes with the external
reflection of 0.01 watts), what is the total reflected
power toward the load? What mechanism caused that
unexpected result?

Feel free to use voltages if you like. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I don't criticize everyone else's explanations, Cecil.


You criticized Walter Maxwell's explanation and my
explanation without offering any explanation of your
own.

That's everybody? Walter has in fact worked out the very explanation
that you don't seem able to comprehend. It's the same one I pointed
to in the physics books, which you also don't seem to be able to fully
comprehend.

Exactly what completely reverses the momentum
of the reflected wave from the load when the power
reflection coefficient is only 0.5?

Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the
direction of the reflected waves? When you work the problem as I
suggested - using real reflection coefficients - you'll note that no
energy is lost. Your explanation is the one that has trouble working
the problem using real reflection coefficients.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the direction
of the reflected waves?

If you include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
energy reflection, I agree 100%. See the interferometer
example below.

I understand that a physical power reflection coefficient
of 0.5 cannot cause 100% reflection as you say it does.

One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

"Using Dielectric Beamsplitters to find the "missing energy"
in destructive interference - Where is the energy of the light
going in an interferometer adjusted for destructive interference?
Below is a schematic diagram showing a way to detect the non-standard
output of a Michelson interferometer—the light *heading back toward*
*the laser source*. That is, when interference is destructive at
the standard output, it is constructive at the non-standard output.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Do you have trouble understanding that reflection changes the
direction of the reflected waves?


If you include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
energy reflection, I agree 100%.

:-) Of course I don't include wave cancellation as a mechanism for
reflection. Nor would J.C. Maxwell or even Eugene Hecht.

One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It
seems like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost
that long.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It seems
like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost that long.

Translation: I am so afraid of that web page that I deleted
it and hope nobody notices. I refuse to discuss the interferometer
example because I am afraid to be proven wrong.

Please share your usual mealy-mouthing response about how I
don't understand that web page at:

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENERGY REJECTED BY THE DESTRUCTIVE
INTERFERENCE PORT WAS ON ITS WAY BACK TO THE SOURCE BEFORE
IT WAS INTERCEPTED. CAN YOU SPELL R-E-F-L-E-C-T-I-O-N?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Therefore, thin-film anti-reflective coatings are
a waste of time since there were no reflections to
begin with. Again, you have an effect reaching back
in time to change its own cause.

Can you spell A*B*S*U*R*D? :-)

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Therefore, thin-film anti-reflective coatings are
a waste of time since there were no reflections to
begin with. Again, you have an effect reaching back
in time to change its own cause.

Can you spell A*B*S*U*R*D? :-)

Yep, and that describes your strange concepts to a 'T'.
Your concept that "canceled waves never existed in the
first place" requires a time machine to implement, not
to mention the paradox involved with time travel.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Your concept that "canceled waves never existed in the
first place" requires a time machine to implement, not
to mention the paradox involved with time travel.

You either completely misunderstand, or you're deliberately misstating
the case. Perhaps both.

Here's what you should do: discover how waves can both cancel and
exist simultaneously at any point in time, and you will prove the
scientific world and their mathematics to be wrong, Cecil. It's
guaranteed martyrdom on scale not seen since Galileo. :-)

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
One wonders why you have not commented on the interferometer
experiment that intercepted the energy reflected from the
standard output during destructive interference and routed
it to the non-standard output thus illustrating an equal
amount of constructive interference.

I've used laboratory interferometers for over 20 years, Cecil. It
seems like I've been trying to explain how they work to you for almost
that long.

Translation: I am so afraid of that web page that I deleted
it and hope nobody notices. I refuse to discuss the interferometer
example because I am afraid to be proven wrong.

Please share your usual mealy-mouthing response about how I
don't understand that web page at:

http://www.teachspin.com/instruments...eriments.shtml

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ENERGY REJECTED BY THE DESTRUCTIVE
INTERFERENCE PORT WAS ON ITS WAY BACK TO THE SOURCE BEFORE
IT WAS INTERCEPTED. CAN YOU SPELL R-E-F-L-E-C-T-I-O-N?

Cecil,

I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"? There
is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has ever used
or studied interferometry.

You seem to forget that the entire argument on RRAA in this theme is not
about *what* happens, it is about *how* it happens. There is not one
person who would seriously claim any violation of conservation of energy
to be valid. There is not one person who would be surprised to learn
about constructive and destructive interference and the redistribution
of energy. Anyone making competent physical measurements would find the
same, predictable results.

What *is* at issue is the mechanism involved. None of these web
references aimed at the Popular Science crowd even attempt to get into
those fine details. You love to quote a web page written by a Java-dude
and a lab technician. You love to quote a web page written by a
manufacturer of lenses and other optical components. Now you are quoting
a web page from a company who is "dedicated to the design, development,
manufacture, and marketing of apparatus appropriate for laboratory
instruction in physics and engineering." None of these are necessarily
wrong in what they are attempting to say. What *is* wrong is trying to
use these popular-level tales in support of your hair-splitting arguments.

Spend some time reading a serious reference on conservation of energy in
electromagnetic systems. You will come to understand that your concerns
about "wave cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, they cannot even be determined by rational analysis. It
comes very close to counting the angels on pinheads.

If you really want to dig in further, you will need to start to look at
the detailed interactions of the waves with the interface materials,
including the scattering formalism. Reflection does not just "happen". I
do not suggest going there unless you need some sleep inducement.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jan 15, 2:24 am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
The little program I wrote shows that, on the line being analyzed, the
energy is changing -- moving -- on both sides of a point of zero power.
Energy is flowing into that point from both directions at equal rates,
then flowing out at equal rates. This causes the energy at that point to
increase and decrease. What zero power at a given point means is that
there is no *net* energy moving in either direction past that point.

"*net* energy moving" seems to be a bit of a dangerous notion.

If "*net* energy moving" is the time averaged power, then
it is zero at *every* point on the line under consideration.
And I do not mind this definition.

That was probably a bad choice of words on my part. By net I didn't mean
an average over some period of time. I meant energy moving past a single
point.

One possibility I envisioned was some energy moving past the point from
left to right, and at the same time an equal amount moving at the same
rate past the point from right to left, resulting in zero power at the
point. However, on reflection, this couldn't happen; energy flows
"downhill". But the phenomenon observed on the open circuited line does
occur, where energy flows into the point from both directions equally,
and out of the point to both directions equally, resulting in zero power
at the point. No energy is flowing past the point, period -- the
modifier "net" isn't necessary.

But at the points where the current or voltage is always
zero, it seems to me unnecessary to use the qualifier "*net*"
since the power IS always zero [from p(t)=v(t)*i(t)]. That
is, unless you are introducing another interpretation of
"*net*".

You're right. Please consider "net" retracted.

I got to thinking about this a little more, and want to reclaim the
"net" modifier.

Hopefully we all agree that on a line with a pure standing wave (unity
magnitude load reflection coefficient), there are nodes at which the
power is zero at all times, indicating that no (and I'll reinsert "net"
here) energy is moving past that point. But there's energy going into
that node at equal rates from both sides during half the energy cycle,
and out of the node during the other half cycle. We've used those
observations to conclude that no energy is going past the node.

But let's look at another equally plausible explanation. We know we have
a bundle of energy from the left and another equal bundle from the right
which flow into the node at the same time, resulting in zero power at
the node. But suppose that the bundle of energy from the left flows out
to the right, and the bundle from the right flows out to the left during
the next half cycle (rather than the one from the left flowing back to
the left, and the one from the right to the right, as we've been tacitly
assuming). Now we've moved energy across the node while retaining zero
power at the node (zero power because the amount of energy moving from
left to right always equals the energy moving from right to left at the
node). A nice thing about this interpretation is that it meshes neatly
with the concept of two traveling waves of equal amplitude moving in
opposite directions. Does that solve some of the conceptual problems
you've been having with the nodes?

Of course, I don't know of any way to put a tag on any particular bundle
of energy, so one explanation is really as good as the other from a
mathematical standpoint. But I think that the idea of moving the energy
past the node relieves us of the necessity, or temptation, of devising
various wave interactions to explain how the energy can just stop at the
nodes.

And, maybe it'll allow me to resurrect my *net* modifier. If you go
along with the new interpretation, energy is moving from left to right
through the node and from right to left through the node -- there is
energy moving past the node, but no *net* energy movement through the node.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Here's what you should do: discover how waves can both cancel and exist
simultaneously at any point in time, ...

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0

It happens all the time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"? There
is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has ever used
or studied interferometry.

That's what I have been telling you guys for years. Everything
we need to know about RF waves has already been discovered
centuries ago by optical physicists. I used those centuries
old laws of physics in my energy analysis article which produces
voltage and current results identical to any conventional analysis.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

You will come to understand that your concerns
about "wave cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, ...

This is so typical of gurus on this newsgroup. When they lose
the argument, they invariably say it was not important to
begin with.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"?
There is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has
ever used or studied interferometry.

That's what I have been telling you guys for years. Everything
we need to know about RF waves has already been discovered
centuries ago by optical physicists. I used those centuries
old laws of physics in my energy analysis article which produces
voltage and current results identical to any conventional analysis.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

You will come to understand that your concerns about "wave
cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, ...

This is so typical of gurus on this newsgroup. When they lose
the argument, they invariably say it was not important to
begin with.

Although I have not completely thought it out, I would be surprised if
the same did not hold true for sound waves in a sonic/audio
resonator--and, this obviously is ONLY a wave which transverses a media
and doesn't harm/displace any photons in the process.

You know those d*mn "photon advocates", worse than the animal rights
advocates, actually. :-D

Regards,
JS

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
But I think that the idea of moving the energy
past the node relieves us of the necessity, or temptation, of devising
various wave interactions to explain how the energy can just stop at the
nodes.

It also satisfies the wave reflection model which tells
us that no reflections can occur in a homogeneous medium.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I looked at that web page, and my reaction was merely, "so what"?
There is nothing in there that is not well known to everyone who has
ever used or studied interferometry.

That's what I have been telling you guys for years. Everything
we need to know about RF waves has already been discovered
centuries ago by optical physicists. I used those centuries
old laws of physics in my energy analysis article which produces
voltage and current results identical to any conventional analysis.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

You will come to understand that your concerns about "wave
cancellation" and related stuff at interfaces are not only
unimportant, ...

This is so typical of gurus on this newsgroup. When they lose
the argument, they invariably say it was not important to
begin with.

1. Nice job of selective quoting to completely change the meaning of a
message. Is that sort of like a line item veto?

2. As for the wave cancellation part, you have many times noted that
stuff happens at interfaces or discontinuities. So why is it that you
never ever consider what is happening inside those interfaces and
discontinuities? Do you suppose the waves simply cancel, reflect, or
whatever without assistance from the materials in the interface or
discontinuity? Do you suppose that any energy or momentum considerations
may need to include the materials?

This is akin to the concept of Thevenin equivalents. The view from the
outside is correct and useful. There is no information about what is
actually happening on the inside of the Thevenin box. In the same way
the wave reflection model as seen from outside the interface or
discontinuity works just fine. There is virtually no disagreement about
what one would observe if correct measurements were done. On the other
hand there is no possibility of figuring out how the waves actually
"cancel" or what happens to the energy and momentum without considering
the actual physical configuration. That sort of analysis has been done,
of course. It gets into all sorts of details on electrons and Fermi
surfaces, but strangely enough, it does not require Java applets on web
pages.

Unless you want to look at the interactions of waves with materials in
some detail, the concern about exactly what happens during a
"reflection" is unimportant. The external equations work just fine.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Here's what you should do: discover how waves can both cancel and
exist simultaneously at any point in time, ...


b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0

It happens all the time.

Next time it does be sure to capture a scope trace of them and post it
to your web site.

Thanks,

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s what I have been telling you guys for years."

OK. I subscribe to World Radio and Cecil`s story isn`t in the February
issue but there is an antenna cover story.

When will Cecil`s story be published?

I disagree that W2DU recently was first to coin the expressions, virtual
open and virtual short. We were using them in 1950 when I was still in
college.

It is rumored that the 3rd edition of "Reflections" will emerge soon.
When and where can I order it?

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

5123 Lymbar Dr. Houston, TX 77096-5317

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
"I got to thinking about this a little more, and want to reclaim the
"net" modifier."

Researching my trusty 1955 Terman opus, I find on page 91, Fig. 4-3,
"Vector diagrams showing manner in which the incident and reflected
waves combined to produce a voltage distribution on the transmission
line."

Exactly 1/4-wave back from the open-circuit load, the incident and
reflected voltage vectors are out-of-phase resulting in a minimum
voltage point on the line. On page 92, Fig. 4-4 shows that the minimum
voltage point is also the maximum current point.

The energy does not go away at minima on the line but merely shifts from
the electric field to the magnetic field or vice versa.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
2. As for the wave cancellation part, you have many times noted that
stuff happens at interfaces or discontinuities. So why is it that you
never ever consider what is happening inside those interfaces and
discontinuities? Do you suppose the waves simply cancel, reflect, or
whatever without assistance from the materials in the interface or
discontinuity? Do you suppose that any energy or momentum considerations
may need to include the materials?

That's one of the points I have been trying to make. The impedance
discontinuities perform the same function as half-silvered mirrors,
for instance, in interferometers. The impedance discontinuity is a
primitive interferometer.

On the other
hand there is no possibility of figuring out how the waves actually
"cancel" or what happens to the energy and momentum without considering
the actual physical configuration.

The point is that optical physicists already had it figured
out before any of us were born. The problem is that RF gurus
tend to reject any technical facts from the field of optics.

You, for instance, called me every name in the book while
arguing loud and long against any of those concepts from
the field of optical physics. Now you admit that some of
them are valid but completely unimportant. That is, at least,
an improvement.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0
It happens all the time.

Next time it does be sure to capture a scope trace of them and post it
to your web site.

It happens too fast to capture on a scope but if it doesn't
happen, the s-parameter analysis is just BS. Is that really
the argument for which you want to be remembered?

By the process of elimination, we know the above interaction
actually happens in reality. If, as you say, it doesn't happen,
the conservation of energy principle is violated.

I see you have, so far, refused to perform the simple calculation
that would prove what I have been saying to be correct. I don't
blame you for refusing.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s what I have been telling you guys for years."

OK. I subscribe to World Radio and Cecil`s story isn`t in the February
issue but there is an antenna cover story.

Were you a subscriber to Worldradio in Oct 2005?

When will Cecil`s story be published?

First published in WorldRadio, Oct 2005 - Jan 2006, and reproduced
here with permission.

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

It is rumored that the 3rd edition of "Reflections" will emerge soon.
When and where can I order it?

Last I heard, Worldradio was publishing Reflections III.
Don't know when.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

It happens too fast to capture on a scope but if it doesn't
happen, the s-parameter analysis is just BS.

I guess by now it won't come as a surprise to anyone that you believe
something like that. What's surprising is that you expect someone
else to. The truth is, the s-parameter analysis just says that the
waves cancel. You made up the rest.

By the process of elimination, we know the above interaction
actually happens in reality. If, as you say, it doesn't happen,
the conservation of energy principle is violated.

So in other words if you're wrong, then what you're saying violates
conservation of energy.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
The truth is, the s-parameter analysis just says that the waves
cancel.

And you say the waves didn't cancel - that they don't
even exist during steady-state. Take your pick about
who is correct. If two waves cancel, as the s-parameter
analysis says they do, it implies that they must first
exist even if for only a dt of time.

HP never considered anyone dense enough to require an
assertion about the very existence of the s-parameter
equation components.

So in other words if you're wrong, then what you're saying violates
conservation of energy.

Exactly, and since the conservation of energy principle
cannot be violated, I must be right. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

The truth is, the s-parameter analysis just says that the waves cancel.


And you say the waves didn't cancel

I certainly didn't intend to.

So in other words if you're wrong, then what you're saying violates
conservation of energy.


Exactly, and since the conservation of energy principle
cannot be violated, I must be right. :-)

You and Hillary. :-)

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
2. As for the wave cancellation part, you have many times noted that
stuff happens at interfaces or discontinuities. So why is it that you
never ever consider what is happening inside those interfaces and
discontinuities? Do you suppose the waves simply cancel, reflect, or
whatever without assistance from the materials in the interface or
discontinuity? Do you suppose that any energy or momentum
considerations may need to include the materials?

That's one of the points I have been trying to make. The impedance
discontinuities perform the same function as half-silvered mirrors,
for instance, in interferometers. The impedance discontinuity is a
primitive interferometer.

You are supporting my point exactly. There is little mystery about what
happens *outside* the discontinuity. At the same time, saying something
functions in the manner as half-silvered mirrors adds nothing to the
technical discussion. You continue to argue mechanisms, in the style of
"It [reflection] is canceled immediately *after* it is generated." Yet
there is no discussion or even recognition of the physical processes
that are going on. This leads to endless arguments that are little more
than counting angels dancing on pinheads.


On the other hand there is no possibility of figuring out how the
waves actually "cancel" or what happens to the energy and momentum
without considering the actual physical configuration.

The point is that optical physicists already had it figured
out before any of us were born. The problem is that RF gurus
tend to reject any technical facts from the field of optics.

You, for instance, called me every name in the book while
arguing loud and long against any of those concepts from
the field of optical physics. Now you admit that some of
them are valid but completely unimportant. That is, at least,
an improvement.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I just went back to
look at the messages I sent over the past three months. I could not find
a single case where I called you any name at all, much less every name
in the book. Do you consider it name calling if I disagree with you?
That would explain a lot, including all of the names you have called me.

I have been a physicist working in the optics field for several decades.
I have no particular difficultly with any of the concepts. What I do
have difficultly understanding is someone who extrapolates valid
concepts beyond their realm of applicability. The irradiance equations
work fine for detailing the external effects, but they don't give any
hint of what happens inside the interface. Think Thevenin.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
And you say the waves didn't cancel

I certainly didn't intend to.

You said the waves don't exist during steady-state.
Waves that don't exist are incapable of canceling.
Therefore, you said the waves don't cancel. This
is just one example of your confusing cause and
effect and tying your argument into a Gordian knot.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
You are supporting my point exactly.

Gene, you have been arguing for two years that I am
wrong and now you claim my argument was your idea all
along. How very typical.

There is little mystery about what
happens *outside* the discontinuity.

There is no "inside" to an impedance discontinuity.
The plane is two dimensional. Everything that happens
at an impedance discontinuity is "outside" of that
plane. There is no place to hide the technical facts.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else. I just went back to
look at the messages I sent over the past three months. I could not find
a single case where I called you any name at all, much less every name
in the book.

Here are some of your strictly technical terms for
me from just the past couple of weeks:

"Fractured Fairytale Physics"
"complete nonsense"
"truly sad"
"hoodwinked by the nonsense"
"trying to pull a fast one"
"such magic"
"no technical value"
"truly bizarre"
"utter nonsense"
"utter lie"
"baloney"
"sadly amusing"
"your tricks"

The irradiance equations
work fine for detailing the external effects, but they don't give any
hint of what happens inside the interface.

There is no "inside" to a plane. There is no black box
into which you can sweep the technical facts.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com