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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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