Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
So unless somebody can point to the energy that is "in" waves which
don't exist, then I will have to stick with the idea that there is no
energy to be associated with waves that don't exist.

Jim, here is the s-parameter equation for the waves that
you assert don't exist.

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0

s11*a1 is not zero. s12*a2 is not zero. How you can assert
that they don't exist is really strange. Not only do they
exist but the HP apnote 95-1 even tells us that the power
associated with them is |s11*a1|^2 and |s12*a2|^2. You will
find that the powers obey the power density (irradiance)
equation from the field of optical physics.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
s11*a1 is not zero. s12*a2 is not zero. How you can assert
that they don't exist is really strange.

Perhaps I just understand the meaning of zero better than you do?

OTOH, perhaps not. If my bank balance is zero, does that
mean there have been zero debits and zero credits over
the entire previous month?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

s11*a1 is not zero. s12*a2 is not zero. How you can assert
that they don't exist is really strange.


Perhaps I just understand the meaning of zero better than you do?


OTOH, perhaps not. If my bank balance is zero, does that
mean there have been zero debits and zero credits over
the entire previous month?

Nope. Keep trying though. You'll get it if you really put your mind
to it.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps I just understand the meaning of zero better than you do?

OTOH, perhaps not. If my bank balance is zero, does that
mean there have been zero debits and zero credits over
the entire previous month?

Nope. Keep trying though. You'll get it if you really put your mind to
it.

It is a gross confusion of cause and effect to say:
"If two waves superpose to zero, those two waves
don't exist." If the component waves being emitted
by a Yagi antenna don't exist, then it is a waste
of time and money to put up a Yagi antenna.

Maybe you should notify HP that they are wasting their
time publishing the following equation since s11*a1
and s12*a2 don't exist.

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0

That equation does *not* imply that s11*a1 and s12*a2
must equal zero. In fact those non-zero values are easy
to calculate. Square each and you have the power associated
with each of those components.

The irradiance equation from optical physics can be
derived by squaring the s-parameter normalized voltage
equation. Since (a1*a2) is a phasor term in that equation,
the phase angle between a1 and a2 must be included in the
result.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Jan 19, 5:04*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
It is a gross confusion of cause and effect to say:
"If two waves superpose to zero, those two waves
don't exist."

Then it should be a simple matter for you to actually measure the
canceled waves and their energy in order to prove everyone wrong once
and for all.

If the component waves being emitted
by a Yagi antenna don't exist, then it is a waste
of time and money to put up a Yagi antenna.

Maybe you should notify HP that they are wasting their
time publishing the following equation since s11*a1
and s12*a2 don't exist.

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0

That equation does *not* imply that s11*a1 and s12*a2
must equal zero. In fact those non-zero values are easy
to calculate. Square each and you have the power associated
with each of those components.

And yet when b1=0, they refuse to deliver any. It doesn't seem to
lend much support for your claim.

The irradiance equation from optical physics can be
derived by squaring the s-parameter normalized voltage
equation. Since (a1*a2) is a phasor term in that equation,
the phase angle between a1 and a2 must be included in the
result.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

None of the well proven methods shows a need for there to be any
energy in canceled, non-existant waves. HP would certainly never
affiliate themselves with a claim that there's energy associated with
waves that don't exist. The irradiance equation with all its "phasor
terms" is no help either. Where there is no irradiance, there is no
EM energy. Even Yagi antennas fail to radiate energy from their null
points. The only person I've ever seen claiming that there is energy
in non-existant waves is you, Cecil. On it's face, the idea is
ludicrous. And apparently you don't even find beauty in the fact that,
with no energy traveling in the direction of cancelled waves, there is
no need to invent a "4th mechanism of reflection" in order to conserve
that energy and get it moving in its correct direction of travel. As
a bonus, there is no need for religious beliefs that interference and
wave interaction cause waves to change direction. Accepting this
would of course mean yet another delay in the quest for martyrdom.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

wrote:
Then it should be a simple matter for you to actually measure the
canceled waves and their energy in order to prove everyone wrong once
and for all.

The energy in the canceled waves is why the forward
power is often greater than the source power. As the
Melles-Groit web page says:

http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

"Clearly, if the wavelength of the incident light and the
thickness of the film are such that a phase difference exists
between reflections of p, then reflected wavefronts interfere
destructively, and overall reflected intensity is a minimum.
If the two reflections are of equal amplitude, then this
amplitude (and hence intensity) minimum will be zero."

When it is zero, total destructive interference and wave
cancellation has occurred.

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of
conservation of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected intensity
will appear as enhanced intensity in the transmitted beam. The
sum of the reflected and transmitted beam intensities is always
equal to the incident intensity. THIS IMPORTANT FACT HAS BEEN
CONFIRMED EXPERIMENTALLY." (emphasis mine)

Melles-Groit says it has been confirmed experimentally.
That's good enough for me. What it is about the Melles-Groit
web page that you don't understand?

And yet when b1=0, they refuse to deliver any.

No, the the energy is delivered (redistributed) in the
opposite direction. What is it about the FSU web page
that you don't understand?

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

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are
180-degrees ... out of phase with each other meet, they are not
actually annihilated, ... All of the photon energy present in
these waves must somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new
direction, according to the law of energy conservation ... Instead,
upon meeting, the photons are redistributed to regions that permit
constructive interference, so the effect should be considered as
a redistribution of light waves and photon energy rather than
the spontaneous construction or destruction of light."

None of the well proven methods shows a need for there to be any
energy in canceled, non-existant waves.

The Melles-Groit web page says the energy in the canceled waves
"appears as enhanced intensity in the transmitted beam" (forward wave).

The FSU web page says the energy in the canceled waves is
"redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference"
(forward wave).

That's good enough for me.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Then it should be a simple matter for you to actually measure the
canceled waves and their energy in order to prove everyone wrong once
and for all.


The energy in the canceled waves is why the forward
power is often greater than the source power.

But that's in the wrong direction, Cecil. You claim there's power in
the canceled waves. You need to be able to measure that for the proof
of your belief. Obviously there's energy in the forward waves.
They're not canceled.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
You claim there's power in the canceled waves.

That is a false statement and you are either totally
confused or bearing your usual false witness.
I have never claimed that there is power in the
canceled waves *after* they cancel, only that there
was energy in them *before* cancellation took place.
The HP ApNote 95-1 on s-parameters agrees with me.

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 now square both sides

|b1|^2 is the reflected power
|s11|^2 is the power reflection coefficient
|a1|^2 is the forward power
|s12|^2 is the power transmission coefficient
|a2|^2 is the reflected power

It's obvious that you don't understand the HP
ApNote.

There's zero energy in the total superposed wave
after cancellation. There was energy in the two
waves before they were superposed. That energy
cannot be destroyed no matter how loudly you complain.
It is more than apparent that you detest the conservation
of energy principle because it works against your
argument. But as they say in Russia, tough ****sky.

When two waves are canceled, their energy components
are redistributed to another area. In a transmission
line, with only two directions possible, their energy
components are redistributed in the other direction
from their original direction of flow. What is it about
the Melles Groit and FSU web pages that you don't
understand and what is it about the following that you
don't understand?

"The waves' energies simply add together. In places where
the interference is destructive, one wave cancels out the
other. (up + down = nothing.) Where it is constructive,
however, they reinforce each other
(up + up = 2 * up, down + down = 2 * down.)
That is all there is to it."

Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Director
PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois

P3 + P4 - 2*SQRT(P3*P4) = 0 = nothing
P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2) = 2P1 + 2P2
That is all there is to it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Then it should be a simple matter for you to actually measure the
canceled waves and their energy in order to prove everyone wrong once
and for all.



The energy in the canceled waves is why the forward
power is often greater than the source power.

But that's in the wrong direction, Cecil. You claim there's energy in
the canceled waves. You need to be able to measure that for the proof
of your belief. Obviously there's energy in the forward waves. They're
not canceled.

ac6xg

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
The energy in the canceled waves is why the forward
power is often greater than the source power.

But that's in the wrong direction, Cecil. You claim there's energy in
the canceled waves. You need to be able to measure that for the proof
of your belief. Obviously there's energy in the forward waves. They're
not canceled.

I certainly do *NOT* claim there's energy in the
canceled waves after they are canceled. If you could
win the argument without bearing false witness, you
would already have done so.

You seem to be acting obtuse just for the hell of it.
There is energy in the canceled waves before they are
canceled. It's equal to 2*ExB. After they are canceled,
that 2*ExB energy heads in the opposite direction toward
the load. Consider that the following s-parameter
equation is a steady-state process.

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0

This is a continuous steady-state process. There is
energy in s11*a1. The power is equal to |s11*a1|^2
because s11 and a1 are not zero. There is energy in
s12*a2. The power is equal to |s12*a2|^2 because s12
and a2 are not zero. The power in b1 is equal to |b1|^2.

|s11*a1|^2 + |s12*a2|^2 - destructive interference = 0

For instance,

|s11*a1|^2 = 100 watts, |s12*a2| = 100 watts

Is that calculation beyond your math capabilities?

100w + 100w + 2*SQRT(100w*100w) = 0

There is a total of 200 watts in the two waves just
before they cancel during steady-state. Those 200 watts
head back toward the load after they cancel. That is
*NOT* a one time occurrence. It is a continuous steady-
state occurrence. The two waves are being continuously
canceled during a steady-state wave cancellation process.

Please read the HP ApNote 95-1 until you understand it.
Please study the irradiance equation until you understand
that it is a steady-state process.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com