Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I did, Jim. Hint: One must assume either component energies or
*NET* energy.

It's a distinction without a difference.

The fact that transmission lines with high SWRs suffer more
losses than transmission lines with low SWRs proves your
statement to be incorrect. RF energy cannot stand still.
In a transmission line, there are only two possible directions
for energy to travel. There is simply more energy flowing back
and forth in a line with a high SWR than in a flat line. Until
you admit that fact of physics, this discussion cannot progress.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Cecil Moore" wrote
The fact that transmission lines with high SWRs suffer more
losses than transmission lines with low SWRs proves your
statement to be incorrect.
===========================

Cec, you chose the wrong argument! It proves nothing. A 600-ohm open-wire
line with high SWR can have a higher loss than even a coaxial line with
1-to-1 SWR.

And loss in the tuner makes the argument even worse.
----
Reg

Reg Edwards wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote
The fact that transmission lines with high SWRs suffer more
losses than transmission lines with low SWRs proves your
statement to be incorrect.
===========================

Cec, you chose the wrong argument! It proves nothing. A 600-ohm open-wire
line with high SWR can have a higher loss than even a coaxial line with
1-to-1 SWR.

That was his point, Reg. But it only shows that energy is transferred
from the source to the losses at high SWR - not that more energy bounces
around. What's Cecil say? I've been seduced by the steady-state, and I
don't understand what actually happens? Only people who have opened
themselves to the ideals of Reflectology and the Melles-Griot
translations, follow the true light.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I did, Jim. Hint: One must assume either component energies or
*NET* energy.

It's a distinction without a difference.

The fact that transmission lines with high SWRs suffer more
losses than transmission lines with low SWRs proves your
statement to be incorrect.

"Net energy" is still the only energy involved. There are no other
choices. The 'other one' you refer to is ficticious, hypothetical,
rhetorical, useful to illustrate a point perhaps.

RF energy cannot stand still.

Time and tide wait for no man.

In a transmission line, there are only two possible directions
for energy to travel.

One plus one is two, therefore.....

There is simply more energy flowing back
and forth in a line with a high SWR than in a flat line.

The truth is even simpler: there is more energy flowing from the source
to the losses.

Until
you admit that fact of physics, this discussion cannot progress.

If it were a fact of physics we wouldn't be having the discussion. I
guess I'll rephrase the question: When the IEEE defines power as energy
per unit time, do you think they're talking about a vector quantity?

73, Jim AC6XG

Reg Edwards wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote

The fact that transmission lines with high SWRs suffer more
losses than transmission lines with low SWRs proves your
statement to be incorrect.

Cec, you chose the wrong argument! It proves nothing. A 600-ohm open-wire
line with high SWR can have a higher loss than even a coaxial line with
1-to-1 SWR.

I'm talking about one particular transmission line, Reg.
Given any one particular transmission line, a high SWR
causes more losses than a low SWR. That proves that more
energy is moving in a high SWR environment than in a
low SWR environment. (RF energy cannot stand still.)
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
That was his point, Reg. But it only shows that energy is transferred
from the source to the losses at high SWR - not that more energy bounces
around.

Huh?????? Where do the additional losses come from if not from
additional energy? Sounds like you are on to something, Jim -
additional losses without additional energy. You have just
violated the conservation of energy principle. Maybe you can
patent it.
--
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! =-----

Jim Kelley wrote:
"Net energy" is still the only energy involved.

As long as you maintain such an irrational attitude,
rational discussion is impossible. You are still clinging
to the concept that since I live one mile from where I
was born, I have never been anywhere else in my entire life.
--
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! =-----

Cecil Moore wrote:

You are still clinging
to the concept that since I live one mile from where I
was born, I have never been anywhere else in my entire life.

So has the transmission line/energy discussion now become about me, or
is it still all about you?

73, Jim AC6XG

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:42:24 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Where do the additional losses come from if not from
additional energy?
:-)
There must be something in the water.... Does it have a head on it?

"Cecil Moore" wrote
I'm talking about one particular transmission line,
============================

Cec, you can't talk about one particular transmission line in an argument in
favour of anything in general.
---
Reg.

It's akin to looking for weapons of mass destruction when you know there
aren't any. A waste of time - and of lives.