Jim Kelley wrote:
Two canceled waves cease to exist but the energy in the
two waves that canceled cannot cease to exist.

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding such a simple
idea.

The idea that canceled reflections never existed in the
first place is not a simple one. If they never existed
in the first place, there is no reason to ever try to cancel
them because there was never anything to cancel. In effect,
you are saying the lack of reflections causes the reflections
never to have existed. Not only is that confusing cause and
effect but it also introduces time travel. "If you went back
in time and killed your grandfather before you were born,
you would cease to exist." But if you never existed, who
killed your grandfather? That's the exact logic that you
are using.

It really does turn you surly. The waves don't 'stop existing'.

Yes, they do. They stop existing in their original direction
of travel. A reflected power meter proves it. A forward power
meter proves that the energy that existed in the canceled
waves joined the forward wave. What is it about the Melles-
Groit and FSU redistribution of energy explainations that
you don't understand?

Given the conditions, they can never exist.

If reflections never exist, there is no need for a non-
reflective coating, is there? People who buy non-reflective
picture frames are wasting their money since the reflections
never exist. What is it about the Melles-Groit and FSU
explainations about redistribution of energy from the
canceled waves that you don't understand?

In the steady state, things
don't first do one thing, and then some time later do something else.

I've explained this before. Wave cancellation is a continuous
steady-state process. Ptot = P1 + P2 - 2*SQRT(P1*P2) = 0
is a continuous process. Every dt, waves P1 and P2 are
in the process of canceling each other during steady-state.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I'm sorry you're having so much trouble understanding such a simple
idea.


The idea that canceled reflections never existed in the
first place is not a simple one.

Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must
first be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are
180 degrees out of phase at every point along their path and traveling
in the same direction can under those circumstances at any time
produce measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to measure
it. Let me know when you do.

ac6xg

PS - I'd like to suggest that you ask Dr. Barrans to explain to you
what 'Up + Down = Nothing' means.

Jim Kelley wrote:
Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must first
be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are 180
degrees out of phase at every point along their path and traveling in
the same direction can under those circumstances at any time produce
measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to measure it. Let
me know when you do.

It is an indirect measurement, Jim. Given the s-parameter
equation, b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 = 0, s11 is not zero, a1
is not zero, s12 is not zero, and a2 is not zero. Although
HP cannot measure those quantities either, they tell us
that |s11*a1|^2 is in watts, e.g. 100 watts. They tell us
that |s12*a2|^2 is in watts, e.g. 100 watts. When all energy
is accounted for, it is obvious that those 200 watts are no
longer in the direction of the source but have changed
direction toward the load. This ain't rocket science.

If reflections are eliminated toward the source by wave
cancellation, the reflected energy is redistributed back
toward the load just as explained on the Melles-Groit and
FSU web pages. If it weren't headed for the source in the
first place, they wouldn't say it was "REDISTRIBUTED". If
200 joules/sec disappear toward the source and there are
only two directions in a transmission line, do you really
want to tell us that you can't figure out in which
direction those joules go? Do you need help from my
10 year old grandson?

You clearly fail to understand the process defined by the
wave reflection distributed network model. Until you are
in a position to discredit that model, you are just blowing
smoke.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must
first be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are
180 degrees out of phase at every point along their path and traveling
in the same direction can under those circumstances at any time
produce measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to measure
it. Let me know when you do.


It is an indirect measurement, Jim.

:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
It is an indirect measurement, Jim.

:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.

Let me know when you figure out an explanation for the
reversal of momentum in those reflected waves. So far,
you have absolutely refused to provide any explanation.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

It is an indirect measurement, Jim.


:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.


Let me know when you figure out an explanation for the
reversal of momentum in those reflected waves. So far,
you have absolutely refused to provide any explanation.

The momentum in reflected waves changes direction upon reflection.
What part of that do you need to have explained?

So, back to you. Let's hear more about your measurement of canceled
waves.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
The momentum in reflected waves changes direction upon reflection. What
part of that do you need to have explained?

What causes 100% reflection when the power reflection
coefficient (reflectance) is only 0.5?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Just cut the BS, Cecil. In order to prove your assertion you must
first be able to describe how two co-linear, coherent waves that are
180 degrees out of phase at every point along their path and
traveling in the same direction can under those circumstances at any
time produce measureable energy. In addition, you must be able to
measure it. Let me know when you do.


It is an indirect measurement, Jim.

:-) Sure thing. Like I said, let me know when you measure energy in
the canceled waves.


At the risk of being both a dullard and messing up all the fun, does
not every destructive interference have to be balanced by a constructive
interference, which in turn leads to a condition of "Okey dokey?"

A canceled wave needs a reinforced wave, and then nothing is lost,
nothing is gained.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Michael Coslo wrote:
At the risk of being both a dullard and messing up all the fun, does
not every destructive interference have to be balanced by a constructive
interference, which in turn leads to a condition of "Okey dokey?"

Yep, any destructive interference toward the source is exactly
offset by constructive interference toward the antenna. If one
takes time to calculate the component phasor voltages on both
sides of a Z0-match located away from the source, the constructive
and destructive interference is obvious.

A canceled wave needs a reinforced wave, and then nothing is lost,
nothing is gained.

Exactly. The reflected energy that appears to be lost as
destructive interference in the direction of the source
when a Z0-match is achieved, is recovered in the forward
wave as constructive interference energy traveling toward
the antenna.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Michael Coslo wrote:
At the risk of being both a dullard and messing up all the fun, does
not every destructive interference have to be balanced by a constructive
interference, which in turn leads to a condition of "Okey dokey?"

A canceled wave needs a reinforced wave, and then nothing is lost,
nothing is gained.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Hi Mike -

One could suggest a number of different possible scenarios in which
nothing is lost or gained. But an impossible scenario is one which
violates thermodynamic principles. Another might describe phenomena
which is not in accord with Maxwell's equations. One should therefore
feel comfortable discarding any description which is inconsistent with
both thermodynamics and Maxwell's equations.

73, ac6xg