On Apr 4, 2:54*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Roger Sparks wrote:
Is this the idea you were trying to communicate Cecil?

What I am trying to communicate is that the distributed
network model is closer to Maxwell's equations that is
the lumped circuit model. If the lumped circuit model
disagrees with the distributed network model, then it
is wrong.

The joys of motherhood statements.

Steady-state conditions are identical whether the
ideal transmission line is zero wavelength or one
wavelength. If adding one wavelength of ideal
transmission between the source voltage and the
source resistance changes steady-state conditions
in Keith's mind, then there is something wrong in
Keith's mind.

There was an 'if' there, wasn't there? Do you think
the 'if' is satisfied? Or not? The rest is useless
without knowing.

To me, this is destructive interference at work, so all the
power in the reflected wave does not simply disappear into the
resistor Rs on the instant basis.

90 degrees later, an exactly equal magnitude of
constructive interference exists so it is obvious
that the constructive interference energy has been
delayed by 90 degrees from the destructive interference
energy.

You still have to explain where this destructive energy is stored
for those 90 degrees. Please identify the element and its energy
flow as a function of time.

One advantage of moving the source voltage one wavelength
away from the source resistor is that it is impossible for
the source to respond instantaneously

You have previously claimed that the steady-state conditions
are the same (which I agree), but now you have moved to discussing
transients, for which the behaviour is quite different.

If you want to claim similarity, then you need to allow the
circuit to settle to steady state after any change. Instantaneous
response is not required if the analysis is only steady-state.

If you wish to study transient responses, then the circuits do
not behave similarly.

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
There was an 'if' there, wasn't there? Do you think
the 'if' is satisfied? Or not? The rest is useless
without knowing.

Under the laws of physics governing transmission lines
inserting an ideal 1WL line does not change the steady-
state conditions. If you think it does, you have invented
some new laws of physics.

You still have to explain where this destructive energy is stored
for those 90 degrees. Please identify the element and its energy
flow as a function of time.

Your request is beyond the scope of my Part 1 article.
If interference exists at the source resistor, the energy
associated with the interference flows to/from the source
and/or to/from the load. That condition is NOT covered in
my Part 1 article. Please stand by for Part 2 which will
explain destructive interference and Part 3 which will
explain constructive interference.

One advantage of moving the source voltage one wavelength
away from the source resistor is that it is impossible for
the source to respond instantaneously

You have previously claimed that the steady-state conditions
are the same (which I agree),

Glad you agree so there is nothing stopping you from an
analysis of the following example:

source---1WL 50 ohm---Rs---1WL 50 ohm---+j50
Pfor1-- Pfor2--
--Pref1 --Pref2

Make Rs a 4-terminal network and a standard s-parameter
analysis is possible.

but now you have moved to discussing
transients, for which the behaviour is quite different.

Nope, you are confused. I am saying absolutely nothing about
transients. Why do you think an instantaneous power analysis
during steady-state is not possible?

If you want to claim similarity, then you need to allow the
circuit to settle to steady state after any change. Instantaneous
response is not required if the analysis is only steady-state.

Are you saying that an analysis of instantaneous power
does not apply during steady-state? If that is true,
then all of your earlier analysis involving transmission
lines is bogus.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 5, 10:02*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
There was an 'if' there, wasn't there? Do you think
the 'if' is satisfied? Or not? The rest is useless
without knowing.

Under the laws of physics governing transmission lines
inserting an ideal 1WL line does not change the steady-
state conditions. If you think it does, you have invented
some new laws of physics.

You still have to explain where this destructive energy is stored
for those 90 degrees. Please identify the element and its energy
flow as a function of time.

Your request is beyond the scope of my Part 1 article.
If interference exists at the source resistor, the energy
associated with the interference flows to/from the source
and/or to/from the load. That condition is NOT covered in
my Part 1 article. Please stand by for Part 2 which will
explain destructive interference and Part 3 which will
explain constructive interference.

One advantage of moving the source voltage one wavelength
away from the source resistor is that it is impossible for
the source to respond instantaneously

You have previously claimed that the steady-state conditions
are the same (which I agree),

Glad you agree so there is nothing stopping you from an
analysis of the following example:

True, but as you say, the results will be the same.

source---1WL 50 ohm---Rs---1WL 50 ohm---+j50
* * * * * *Pfor1-- * * * * *Pfor2--
* * * * * *--Pref1 * * * * *--Pref2

Make Rs a 4-terminal network and a standard s-parameter
analysis is possible.

Yes, but that would be an average analysis and we have already
seen how averages mislead.

but now you have moved to discussing
transients, for which the behaviour is quite different.

Nope, you are confused. I am saying absolutely nothing about
transients.

You did say: "One advantage of moving the source voltage one
wavelength away from the source resistor is that it is impossible
for the source to respond instantaneously."

The words "respond instantaneously" suggested transient, rather
than waiting for the system to settle.

Why do you think an instantaneous power analysis
during steady-state is not possible?

Haven't said that. In fact, I think that is what I have been
doing.

If you want to claim similarity, then you need to allow the
circuit to settle to steady state after any change. Instantaneous
response is not required if the analysis is only steady-state.

...Keith