Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Where did I go wrong in the following logic? You have said there is
no energy in those reverse-traveling waves. Waves cannot exist without
energy. Therefore, reflected waves don't exist. Since they don't exist,
they cannot cause standing waves.

You went wrong in the first sentence. That statement is false.

So you are saying that there is energy in those reverse-traveling waves?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Where did I go wrong in the following logic? You have said there is
no energy in those reverse-traveling waves. Waves cannot exist without
energy. Therefore, reflected waves don't exist. Since they don't exist,
they cannot cause standing waves.

You went wrong in the first sentence. That statement is false.

So you are saying that there is energy in those reverse-traveling waves?

What does "energy in" waves mean? Energy is required in order to
generate EM waves. Energy can be transferred from one place to another
by EM waves (if a conversion in form takes place at both places, or
there is otherwise a change in the total energy at both places). And
standing EM waves can store energy. But to infer that energy is being
transferred from one place to another from the mere presence of waves
could lead one to some wrong conclusions.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Since waves cannot
exist without energy moving past a point, we can deduce that the
person has strongly implied that reflected waves don't exist.

100 watt rf generator driving an open, lossless transmission line. How
much energy do you think moves past a given point along the line every
second? 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules?

Equip the RF generator with a perfect circulator plus load and it is
easy to measure 100 watts out of the generator and 100 watts dissipated
by the circulator load. The 100 watts dissipated by the circulator load
makes a round trip to the open end of the transmission line and back
as can be proven using TV ghosting or a TDR. A Bird directional wattmeter
will read 100 watts in either direction.

So, to answer your question: There is 100 watts forward power and 100
watts of reflected power anywhere along that line. The *NET* power
flow is, of course, zero. I believe this is all explained in Johnson's
textbook under "forward power flow vector" and "reverse power flow
vector". I'm at work and don't have my references handy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Since waves cannot
exist without energy moving past a point, we can deduce that the
person has strongly implied that reflected waves don't exist.

100 watt rf generator driving an open, lossless transmission line. How
much energy do you think moves past a given point along the line every
second? 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules?

Equip the RF generator with a perfect circulator plus load and it is
easy to measure 100 watts out of the generator and 100 watts dissipated
by the circulator load. The 100 watts dissipated by the circulator load
makes a round trip to the open end of the transmission line and back
as can be proven using TV ghosting or a TDR. A Bird directional wattmeter
will read 100 watts in either direction.

What do you think the Bird actually measuring?

Instead of posing and then solving a different problem, why not just
answer the question I asked?

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
But to infer that energy is being
transferred from one place to another from the mere presence of waves
could lead one to some wrong conclusions.

All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still. To argue otherwise is just denying reality.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Since waves cannot
exist without energy moving past a point, we can deduce that the
person has strongly implied that reflected waves don't exist.

100 watt rf generator driving an open, lossless transmission line.
How
much energy do you think moves past a given point along the line every
second? 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules?

Equip the RF generator with a perfect circulator plus load and it is
easy to measure 100 watts out of the generator and 100 watts dissipated
by the circulator load. The 100 watts dissipated by the circulator load
makes a round trip to the open end of the transmission line and back
as can be proven using TV ghosting or a TDR. A Bird directional
wattmeter
will read 100 watts in either direction.

What do you think the Bird actually measuring?

Instead of posing and then solving a different problem, why not just
answer the question I asked?

73, Jim AC6XG

because that is not cecil's way, he will restate whatever is posed so that
he can answer it with his favorite discussion topics. any discussion like
this on here ends the same way with the same 3 or 4 combatants each stating
their viewpoint, all of which kind of say the same thing in different terms,
and none of them able to acknowledge that the other ones may be right...
either that or one of them who is outright wrong will persist and keep
redirecting the thread until he wins by default. its nothing but a big game
that confuses everyone until they catch on. on a cold winter day it can be
fun, take one of the examples and solve it a different way (i prefer
sinusoidal steady state) and watch them all pull apart the obvious correct
answer with their own methods... it can keep you laughing for weeks!

Cecil Moore wrote:
All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still. To argue otherwise is just denying reality.

I understand your point. But arguing that energy changes direction
without reflection, dispersion, or diffraction is an attempt at
inventing reality.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
What do you think the Bird actually measuring?

It is phasor-adding/subtracting a voltage proportional to the
RF voltage to/from a voltage proportional to the RF current.

Instead of posing and then solving a different problem, why not just
answer the question I asked?

I did. I'm sorry you didn't like it. I'm not going to get involved in
a pi$$ing contest over the impedance of a transmitter and what happens
to reflected waves incident upon it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still. To argue otherwise is just denying reality.

I understand your point. But arguing that energy changes direction
without reflection, dispersion, or diffraction is an attempt at
inventing reality.

I'm not arguing that at all. In a transmission line, destructive
interference causes an energy reflection in which the ratio of
the E-field to H-field is transformed from one characteristic
impedance to another. It's all described on the Melles-Groit
web page. They don't call it an energy reflection but that's
what it is.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still. To argue otherwise is just denying reality.

I understand your point. But arguing that energy changes direction
without reflection, dispersion, or diffraction is an attempt at
inventing reality.

I'm not arguing that at all. In a transmission line, destructive
interference causes an energy reflection in which the ratio of
the E-field to H-field is transformed from one characteristic
impedance to another. It's all described on the Melles-Groit
web page. They don't call it an energy reflection but that's
what it is.

Really? It doesn't act like a reflection. There isn't a reflective
surface. The amplitude of the "reflection" seems unrelated to any
"reflection" coefficient. If it were a reflection, I think it would be
much easier to understand - much less controversial. Don't you agree?

73, Jim AC6XG

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:41:04 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still.
To you, they appear to be moving, but that is only the illusion of a
perception-limited neanderthalic legacy of low bandwidth
comprehension.

To argue otherwise is just denying reality.
op. cit. ;-)

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
What do you think the Bird actually measuring?

It is phasor-adding/subtracting a voltage proportional to the
RF voltage to/from a voltage proportional to the RF current.

Voltage, correct. What other physical parameter(s) of the EM wave
besides voltage and/or current could an in-line meter directly measure?
Why?

Instead of posing and then solving a different problem, why not just
answer the question I asked?

I did.

Actually, you didn't. It's a multiple choice question.

How much energy passes a point on that open transmission line in one
second? The choices again are 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules.
Please indicate the correct answer from the list of choices.

73, Jim AC6XG

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:40:41 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
destructive interference causes an energy reflection
:-)

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I'm not arguing that at all. In a transmission line, destructive
interference causes an energy reflection in which the ratio of
the E-field to H-field is transformed from one characteristic
impedance to another. It's all described on the Melles-Groit
web page. They don't call it an energy reflection but that's
what it is.

Really? It doesn't act like a reflection. There isn't a reflective
surface.

Of course, it acts like a reflection and of course there is a reflective
surface if it is non-glare glass or a point if it is in a transmission
line. It is exactly what Walt has dubbed a "virtual short" and it is
a short for voltage, but not for current. Walt and my disagreements
are really minor.

The amplitude of the "reflection" seems unrelated to any
"reflection" coefficient.

It is *exactly* related to the reflection/transmission coefficients.
You cannot possibly be ignorant of that fact so you are merely being
unethical.

If it were a reflection, I think it would be
much easier to understand - much less controversial. Don't you agree?

It *IS* a reflection. Any of your statements to the contrary is just
obfuscation (something in which you seem to have a master's degree).
--
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! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
All EM waves contain moving energy and cannot stand
still.

To you, they appear to be moving, but that is only the illusion of a
perception-limited neanderthalic legacy of low bandwidth
comprehension.

OK, Richard, here's a challenge for you: Please prove that
photons can 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:
How much energy passes a point on that open transmission line in one
second? The choices again are 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules.
Please indicate the correct answer from the list of choices.

I did, Jim. Hint: One must assume either component energies or
*NET* energy. Knowing you, I assumed *NET* energy and answered
that the *NET* energy is zero. You couldn't possibly have missed
that answer.
--
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! =-----

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
destructive interference causes an energy reflection

:-)

Seems you don't understand the Melles-Groit web page. What it it about
"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of conservation
of energy indicates all "lost" reflected intensity will appear as enhanced
intensity in the transmitted beam."

Richard, can you explain how the above occurs without the energy changing
directions, i.e. being reflected?
--
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! =-----

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:47:05 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

wrote:
destructive interference causes an energy reflection

:-)

Richard, can you explain how the above occurs without the energy changing
directions, i.e. being reflected?
:-)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:11:42 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
OK, Richard, here's a challenge for you: Please prove that
photons can stand still.
from your narrow confines of perspective this illusion of perception,
religion, is not very interesting. However, such cartoon panels from
your comic book of science continue to amuse a few. :-)

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
How much energy passes a point on that open transmission line in one
second? The choices again are 100 Joules, 200 Joules, or zero Joules.
Please indicate the correct answer from the list of choices.

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

It's a distinction without a difference. So your answer is?

73, Jim AC6XG

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.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Really? It doesn't act like a reflection. There isn't a reflective
surface.

Of course, it acts like a reflection and of course there is a reflective
surface if it is non-glare glass or a point if it is in a transmission
line. It is exactly what Walt has dubbed a "virtual short" and it is
a short for voltage, but not for current.

I remember when you were just as dubious about this as I am. How does
something that isn't a real short - and apparently doesn't even act like
a real short - cause real reflections? I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm
just saying that if you know how, please explain it. Thanks.

73, Jim AC6XG

Reg Edwards wrote:
"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, you remind me of the lady at the DMV in California. I told her
that I took my ham plates off my camper and put them on my pickup.
She said I couldn't do that. I told her, sorry, I already did that.
--
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:
How does
something that isn't a real short - and apparently doesn't even act like
a real short - cause real reflections? I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm
just saying that if you know how, please explain it. Thanks.

I can't explain how but I certainly can explain why.

There are only two directions of energy flow available in a transmission
line. Since destructive interference occurs in one direction at a match
point, constructive interference must occur in the other direction. It's
all explained on the Melles-Groit web page and in _Optics_, by Hecht.
--
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:

Jim Kelley wrote:
How does
something that isn't a real short - and apparently doesn't even act like
a real short - cause real reflections? I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm
just saying that if you know how, please explain it. Thanks.

I can't explain how but I certainly can explain why.

I know why - because it's the only way you can understand. It just
doesn't happen to be true - as evidenced by the lack of any physical
explanation for it.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I can't explain how but I certainly can explain why.

I know why - because it's the only way you can understand. It just
doesn't happen to be true - as evidenced by the lack of any physical
explanation for it.

The 'why' is conservation of energy. If there are only two directions
available and energy was traveling in one direction and now it isn't,
it's a no-brainer to realize that it must have changed directions.

I'm sorry that you don't believe in the conservation of energy theorem,
Jim. Do you boss know that?

So far you have failed every challenge to disprove the why. Wonder why?
--
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:

I'm sorry that you don't believe in the conservation of energy theorem,
Jim. Do you boss know that?

Thankfully you're the only one who deludes himself with this notion,
Cecil. Energy moves from source to load. It doesn't bounce back and
forth on it's way. That's what my "boss" believes - as I have explained
to you previously, in great detail.

73, Jim AC6XG

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
The 'why' is conservation of energy. If there are only two directions
available and energy was traveling in one direction and now it isn't,
it's a no-brainer to realize that it must have changed directions.

Cecil, I think a more convincing argument is that I can take a slotted line
and directly measure a standing wave on it. A wave traveling in one
direction can not do that. Or am I cunfusing things?

Tam/WB2TT

Jim Kelley wrote:
Energy moves from source to load. It doesn't bounce back and
forth on it's way.

Shirley, you jest. That means you have never seen your
reflection in a mirror. (If I were you, I wouldn't be
able to stand looking myself in the eye either.)
--
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! =-----

Tam/WB2TT wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
The 'why' is conservation of energy. If there are only two directions
available and energy was traveling in one direction and now it isn't,
it's a no-brainer to realize that it must have changed directions.

Cecil, I think a more convincing argument is that I can take a slotted line
and directly measure a standing wave on it. A wave traveling in one
direction can not do that. Or am I cunfusing things?

Tam/WB2TT

No. That's right. But the point is - how much energy is actually
moving past the probe? Cecil seems to believe that a standing wave is
more than a superposition of voltages. It would be easy to mistake that
as a superposition of energies. But one can only superpose vector
quantities.

73, Jim AC6XG

whoa
system is: source - line - load
If there are impedance mismatches, in the steady state (ie 3 microseconds
after key down);
There will be more energy in the transmission line and the source than there
would be if all the impedances were matched.
This is necessary to satisfy the boundary conditions imposed on Maxwell's
Equations at each end of the transmission line.

The losses are the rent you pay for storing the energy; See bazookas for a
good example.

To the radiated energy moving past the probe one must add the losses.

That's why I prefer antennas with no reflections.
Reflect on that.

If you really want a book Paul Dirac's "Quantum Mechanics" is sweet.
Or Hawking's "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time."


My cat, Hiram P Maxim (Max for short, he likes sleeping on the S-Line I've
had since '63), just walked over the keys and approves.

73
H.
NQ5H


"Jim Kelley" wrote in message
...


Tam/WB2TT wrote:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
The 'why' is conservation of energy. If there are only two directions
available and energy was traveling in one direction and now it isn't,
it's a no-brainer to realize that it must have changed directions.

Cecil, I think a more convincing argument is that I can take a slotted
line
and directly measure a standing wave on it. A wave traveling in one
direction can not do that. Or am I cunfusing things?

Tam/WB2TT

No. That's right. But the point is - how much energy is actually
moving past the probe? Cecil seems to believe that a standing wave is
more than a superposition of voltages. It would be easy to mistake that
as a superposition of energies. But one can only superpose vector
quantities.

73, Jim AC6XG