Reg Edwards wrote:

Regardless of impedances, with a sensibly zero-loss line it's quite obvious
ALL the power leaving the generator is dissipated in the load. There's
nowhere else for the stuff to go.

Over any delta-length of time during steady-state:
Forward waves + reflected waves = standing waves + power to the load.
The net energy in the standing waves isn't delivered to the load
until the source is switched off.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

What happens when instead of switching off the generator the load is
disconnected?

Gene Fuller wrote:
What I find interesting is that there is not one mention of bouncing
energy waves or waves that have disappeared but their energy lives on.

There's not one mention of "bouncing energy waves" in my postings
prior to your introduction of the term so in that area, I appear to agree
with Born and Wolf. I also agree with Born and Wolf that a one thin-film
layer can be analyzed using the older method of wave analysis and that's
exactly what I am doing. I am hoping that once people see how the thin-
film works, how an RF match point works will be obvious.

As far as energy living on, please complete the following.

_____________ is one example of energy being destroyed along with the
destruction of the source of the energy.

It is my understanding that "energy lives on" no matter what.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
Maxwell's equations yield answers but give no clue as to the
detailed physical process involved.

Clueless, hmm?

Clueless with respect to the underlying processes. Extremely
accurate with respect to the net answers. Tomorrow I plan to
be in Austin. That statement says nothing about how I plan to
get there.

Here's a quote from Steve's article

Ah, the great satan having been invoked. How'd I peg that so square
on the head?

Does Steve know that you equate him to "the great satan"?

I agree with that statement. But when I ask what happens to the energy
in those two cancelled waves, all I get is silence.

That's all it merits,

Why? It's an honest question. I am absolutely amazed that physicists
and engineers don't know what happens to the energy in canceled waves.
It cannot be destroyed, it cannot stand still, and it's not incident
upon the source. Wonder what happens to it? That's a very simple honest
question.

So Richard, what
happens to the energy in those two cancelled waves? Destroyed? Bleeds
off to a parallel universe? Routed through a black hole for constructive
interference in the opposite direction? The answer is more than obvious.

From those three alternatives drawn from a hat? Three card monte is a
more honest game.

Those are only three ridiculous possibilities. Another possibility is
what the Melles-Griot web page says: The energy apparently "lost" in
the destructive interference of two rearward-traveling reflected waves
is not lost at all. It appears in (coherently joins) the forward-traveling
wave. That's a simple answer to a simple question. Do you have a better one?

And here you told us that maxwell's equations were clueless, answers
that described nothing and no help at all

Maxwell's equations work to obtain the answer as does quantum
electrodynamics. But those answers do not contain clues about the
process. The process components are what is being discussed here.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Reg Edwards wrote:
What happens when instead of switching off the generator the load is
disconnected?

A modern ham radio transmitter will fold back its output power
until it can dissipate all of it without damage. The protection
circuitry probably dissipates most of the power that had been
stored in the transmission line during steady-state full power
output.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Hi Cecil,

In a futile attempt to maintain my rapidly diminishing sanity I try to
limit my role of playing Cecil's fool on RRAA to no more than two days a
week. I will be off-line for a few days.

But first, here is a clue for the answer to your never-ending question.

Those reward traveling waves do not merely cancel at some "match point".
They cancel everywhere. In other words they do not exist. There is no
energy that needs to be explained away.

The model was set up to include these wave components, but the solution
comes back to say that those components do not really have a non-zero
amplitude. No harm done; this sort of thing happens all the time in the
solution of science and engineering problems.

Oh, one more clue. I have nothing against waves. I make my living
dealing with wave phenomena. But as the old song goes, I know when to
hold 'em, and I know when to fold 'em.

Try hauling your ox back out of the ditch. There's a whole world out there.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:

Here's a quote from Steve's article: "When the system reaches the
steady state, the two rearward-traveling waves at the match point
are 180 degrees out of phase with respect to each other and a complete
cancellation of both waves occurs."

I agree with that statement. But when I ask what happens to the energy
in those two cancelled waves, all I get is silence.

Cecil wrote:
"But when I ask what happens to the energy in these two cancelled waves,
all I get is silence."

It`s golden!

Cecil then wrote:
"Maxwell`s equations tell us that all the energy in a Zo-matched system
winds up incident upon a load."

Would Maxwell lie to you?

The question must be hidden between the lines. It may be: What mechanism
reverses the wave?

Terman may satisfy the questionn, whatever it is. Terman says of the
incident wave:
"---everywhere on the line Eprime/Iprime=Zo.
Terman says of the reflected wave:
"---everywhere on the line Edouble prime/ Idouble prime= -Zo.

The difference is only the minus sign which indicates the reversed
travel direction of the reflected wave.

Terman says on a line with an open-circuited load, that at the load,
voltages of the incident and reflected waves have the same phase but the
current of the reflected wave has the opposite phase from the reflected
voltage.

For a transmission line with a short-circuited load, behavior is the
opposite. Incident and reflected voltages are out of phase but the
currents are in phase. But, there is a 180-degree phase difference
between volts and amps in the reflected wave as in the open-circuit line
case.

The point is that at a discontinuity, upon reflection the phase between
voltage and current in a wave is reversed. That is, that either the
phase of the volts or amps flips upon reflection, not both.

My assumption is that were the phase of both volts and amps reversed at
the same time and place, you would see the same wave traveling in the
same direction but delayed or advanced by 180-degrees. Its travel
direction is unchanged.

Which is cause and which is effect? Often what is cause and what is
effect can be interchanged. Volts across a resistor produce a current.
Current in a resistor produces a voltage drop. Take your pick of cause
or effect.

A reflection may be caused by a phase reversal between voltage and
current. What causes a phase reversal? It`s the discontinuity. Stick a
mirror that obstructs the path of a light beam in the path and you have
a discontinuity. In electrical circuits we should remember Lenz and his
immutable law among obstructions.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Gene Fuller wrote:
Those reward traveling waves do not merely cancel at some "match point".
They cancel everywhere. In other words they do not exist.

That's impossible, Gene, since those two cancelled waves originate
at opposite ends of the matched antenna system, one at the mismatched
load, and one at the physical mismatch at the Z0-match point. Your
explanation requires instantaneous action at a distance. Those two
waves are coherent but they do not suffer from quantum entanglement.

Please feel free to try again. The question is: What reverses the
direction and momentum of the energy reflected from a mismatched load?
Saying that reflections from a mismatched load don't exist is simply
denying reality. We know they must exist in order to cause standing
waves which obviously exist. Your argument contains logical contradictions.
To the best of my knowledge, mine doesn't.

The model was set up to include these wave components, but the solution
comes back to say that those components do not really have a non-zero
amplitude. No harm done; this sort of thing happens all the time in the
solution of science and engineering problems.

Again, you are talking about a net solution which is useless in
determining what is happening in real time at the component wave level.
If net solutions are all you have to offer, you have nothing to offer
for this component discussion.

Try hauling your ox back out of the ditch. There's a whole world out there.

Dripping water wears away a stone, even brains made of stone. I
intend to keep this up until someone proves me wrong with a
method besides handwaving, lip flapping, and allusions to magic
like your quantum entangled waves above.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:41:43 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Tomorrow I plan to
be in Austin. That statement says nothing about how I plan to
get there.

This is the sort of consistently gratuitous discussion that renders
the entire topic without merit.

Here's a quote from Steve's article

Ah, the great satan having been invoked. How'd I peg that so square
on the head?

Does Steve know that you equate him to "the great satan"?

This time a gratuitous question.

I agree with that statement. But when I ask what happens to the energy
in those two cancelled waves, all I get is silence.

That's all it merits,

Why? It's an honest question.

You would have an entertaining time proving it everyone, but that
wouldn't mean they were convinced (or entertained, except in the sense
of morbid fascination). Again, it has no merit.

So Richard, what
happens to the energy in those two cancelled waves? Destroyed? Bleeds
off to a parallel universe? Routed through a black hole for constructive
interference in the opposite direction? The answer is more than obvious.

From those three alternatives drawn from a hat? Three card monte is a
more honest game.

Those are only three ridiculous possibilities.

And hence gratuitous, I pegged another one square on the head.

And here you told us that maxwell's equations were clueless, answers
that described nothing and no help at all

Maxwell's equations work to obtain the answer as does quantum
electrodynamics.

And yet you have never shown a lick of work in that regard, so we must
take it on faith? Like I said, all that is missing is your sagging
claims of truth, justice and the american way to bolster this supposed
knowledge. How many joules in a square cm of sunlight? Such a
question will only find specious qualifications and metaphysical
implications from you in response - but then, it is only
entertainment, cheaper than video on demand and not injurious to the
mental couch potato.

However, that entertainment value has been drained, we will pause for
your public service announcement:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:46:03 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Your argument contains logical contradictions.

Because his sources acknowledge and perform to the teachings of
Einstein and the workers in the fields of Quantum physics which allow
such contradictions.

To the best of my knowledge, mine doesn't.

Still stuck in the antediluvian, Newtonian universe.