Cecil Moore wrote:
the
rearward-traveling momentum energy in those two waves is conserved by
changing direction to become part of a forward-traveling wave.

Yeeesh. You had it on, dog, up until that. And don't try to tell me
(again) that I'm lying that you said it.

(Remember when you wrote this? "If reflected energy makes its way back
into the final amp, it was never generated in the first place, by
definition." Hint: apply the same idea to your "rearward-traveling
momentum" and you'll have it.)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
rearward-traveling momentum energy in those two waves is conserved by
changing direction to become part of a forward-traveling wave.

Yeeesh. You had it on, dog, up until that. And don't try to tell me
(again) that I'm lying that you said it.

(Remember when you wrote this? "If reflected energy makes its way back
into the final amp, it was never generated in the first place, by
definition." Hint: apply the same idea to your "rearward-traveling
momentum" and you'll have it.)

Egads Jim, exactly how much of reality do you think I am capable of
ignoring? Obviously, not as much as you. Why not just say, "God is
the cause of everything I (Jim) cannot explain or understand."?
The meaning would be virtually identical to your present positions.

I *don't* agree with that definition above and your implication that
momentum and energy don't need to be conserved is simply metaphysics
in action. You can argue against energy conservation all you want.
*Conservation of Momentum* has got you over a barrel in this argument
whether you realize it or not. Somehow, the momentum in the wave
reflected from a mismatched load is reversed. Please explain how
that happens without changing directions. Somehow, the energy in
the wave reflected from a mismatched load changes directions. Please
enlighten us on exactly the mechanism involved. Hint: J.C.Slater
explained it all in _Microwave_Transmissions_ before you were born.
--
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:

Cecil Moore wrote:
rearward-traveling momentum energy in those two waves is conserved by
changing direction to become part of a forward-traveling wave.

Yeeesh. You had it on, dog, up until that. And don't try to tell me
(again) that I'm lying that you said it.

(Remember when you wrote this? "If reflected energy makes its way back
into the final amp, it was never generated in the first place, by
definition." Hint: apply the same idea to your "rearward-traveling
momentum" and you'll have it.)

Egads Jim, exactly how much of reality do you think I am capable of
ignoring?

You're evidently capable of ignoring at least some, Cecil.

I *don't* agree with that definition above and your implication that
momentum and energy don't need to be conserved is simply metaphysics
in action.

We both know that momentum and energy must be conserved. We just
disagree agree on how nature chooses to do that. And, because of that
disagreement, I'm forced to endure your beligerant rhetoric.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
We both know that momentum and energy must be conserved. We just
disagree agree on how nature chooses to do that.

Well then, please enlighten us, Jim. How does nature choose to
reverse the momentum in the wave reflected from a mismatched
source? It is obvious that the wave reflected from a mismatched
source has momentum in the rearward direction. Exactly what
reverses that momentum? Please be specific. Remember that standing
waves prove that the rearward-traveling wave exists in reality and
thus possesses energy and momentum in the rearward direction, both
of which must be conserved.

Maybe you should read _Microwave_Transmission_ by J. C. Slater
before you continue?
--
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:
Well then, please enlighten us, Jim. How does nature choose to
reverse the momentum in the wave reflected from a mismatched
source? It is obvious that the wave reflected from a mismatched
source has momentum in the rearward direction.

Typo: please change "source" to "load" in the above. Sorry.



-----= 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:
We both know that momentum and energy must be conserved. We just
disagree agree on how nature chooses to do that.

How does nature choose to
reverse the momentum in the wave reflected from a mismatched
source?

The definition is accurate as well as descriptive. As I've explained at
least a dozen times, energy only moves in the direction of transfer.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
The definition is accurate as well as descriptive. As I've explained at
least a dozen times, energy only moves in the direction of transfer.

Energy moves in whatever direction energy moves. According to
you, if we reflect light energy from Alpha Centauri back to
Alpha Centauri, no energy movement has occurred. Never mind
that it takes 20 years to accomplish that energy movement.
Your "no work equals no energy" concept is as bogus as it
possibly can be. Joules of energy passing a point in delta-
time is power, by IEEE definition.
--
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:
According to
you, if we reflect light energy from Alpha Centauri back to
Alpha Centauri, no energy movement has occurred.

Cecil, unless you can simply express your views, and let me be the one
to express my views, the exchange becomes degraded to ascii mud
wrestling. I have no interest in that. Please make your point without
speaking on 'my behalf'.

73, Jim AC6XG