Henry Kolesnik wrote:
You say my question has been answered but I haven't seen the answer, too
old, too stupid, whatever but I still would like to understand. So, would
you be kind enough to give me a better understanding of the "mechanism" in
the transmitter final that can dissipate and transform yet it can't
dissipate a reflection because there's some kind of one way device that acts
like a checkvalve or diode that reflects.

By definition, reflected energy dissipated in the source was never
generated in the first place.
--
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 in message
...
Henry Kolesnik wrote:
You say my question has been answered but I haven't seen the answer, too
old, too stupid, whatever but I still would like to understand. So,
would
you be kind enough to give me a better understanding of the "mechanism"
in
the transmitter final that can dissipate and transform yet it can't
dissipate a reflection because there's some kind of one way device that
acts
like a checkvalve or diode that reflects.

By definition, reflected energy dissipated in the source was never
generated in the first place.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


That's not a very good definition.
Would you say that a rock, thrown vertically, never was thrown just because
it returned to hit you on the head?

Ed
wb6wsn

Ed Price wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote:
By definition, reflected energy dissipated in the source was never
generated in the first place.

That's not a very good definition.
Would you say that a rock, thrown vertically, never was thrown just because
it returned to hit you on the head?

Nope, I wouldn't. But that seems to be what some people
are saying. I objected to that definition about 15 years
ago. I was asked to prove otherwise and was unable to
do so. The generated power is *defined* as the *net*
steady-state output power of the source.

That's why many of my examples involve signal generators
equipped with a circulator and load, outputting a constant
forward voltage in phase with a constant forward current.
--
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! =-----

Ed Price wrote:
By definition, reflected energy dissipated in the source was never
generated in the first place.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

That's not a very good definition.
Would you say that a rock, thrown vertically, never was thrown just because
it returned to hit you on the head?

Ed
wb6wsn

Electromagnetic waves can cancel, but rocks can't. Could that maybe
make a difference?

73, Jim AC6XG

On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:43:37 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Would you say that a rock, thrown vertically, never was thrown just because
it returned to hit you on the head?

Ed
wb6wsn

Electromagnetic waves can cancel, but rocks can't. Could that maybe
make a difference?

Hi Jim,

This is like mistaking electrons and charge displacement. Sound like
Ed described two rocks hitting with an inelastic collision which
results in power dissipation.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
Electromagnetic waves can cancel, but rocks can't.

However, two EM waves have to exist before they can cancel.
If they exist, they posses both energy and momentum.
--
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:
Electromagnetic waves can cancel, but rocks can't.

However, two EM waves have to exist before they can cancel.

And that makes rocks like waves?

If they exist, they posses both energy and momentum.

Bet ya can't prove it without first transfering it to something.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
However, two EM waves have to exist before they can cancel.

And that makes rocks like waves?

That makes real waves tangible like real rocks. The wave particles
are just smaller. OTOH, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't
throw stones." is an intangible.

If they exist, they posses both energy and momentum.

Bet ya can't prove it without first transfering it to something.

_Optics_, by Hecht is good enough for me. "It is possible
to compute the resulting (momentum) force via Electromagnetic
Theory, whereupon Newton's Second Law suggests that the *wave
itself carries momentum*. (all emphasis his, not mine) ... As
Maxwell showed, the *radiation pressure* equals the energy density
of the EM wave. ... When the surface under illumination is perfectly
reflecting, the beam that entered with a velocity of +c will emerge
with a velocity of -c. This corresponds to twice the change in
momentum that occurs on absorption, ..."

It's obvious that the energy in the TV ghosting wave makes a round-
trip to the match-point and back to the RCVR. That's obviously a
change in the direction of momentum of the reflected wave. It is
twice the change in momentum than if it encountered a circulator/
load and was dissipated.
--
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:
However, two EM waves have to exist before they can cancel.

And that makes rocks like waves?

That makes real waves tangible like real rocks. The wave particles
are just smaller. OTOH, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't
throw stones." is an intangible.

If they exist, they posses both energy and momentum.

Bet ya can't prove it without first transfering it to something.

_Optics_, by Hecht is good enough for me. "It is possible
to compute the resulting (momentum) force via Electromagnetic
Theory, whereupon Newton's Second Law suggests that the *wave
itself carries momentum*. (all emphasis his, not mine) ... As

Excellent, now try and understand what is intended by _ALL_ of the words
in the sentence.

Maxwell showed, the *radiation pressure* equals the energy density
of the EM wave. ... When the surface under illumination is perfectly
reflecting, the beam that entered with a velocity of +c will emerge
with a velocity of -c. This corresponds to twice the change in
momentum that occurs on absorption, ..."

Yes, I'm familiar with the subject. I've been familiar with it for a
long time.
However it is incorrect to infer that interactions between waves would
be the same as interactions between waves and matter!

It's obvious that the energy in the TV ghosting wave makes a round-
trip to the match-point and back to the RCVR.

It's obvious that the signal has taken multiple paths, at least.

That's obviously a
change in the direction of momentum of the reflected wave.

Perhaps. You're describing back scattering, which should exhibit a
Compton effect wavelength shift if true. But again, you're describing
an interaction with matter. Photons don't interact with each other in
the same way they interact with matter.

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Electromagnetic waves can cancel, but rocks can't.

However, two EM waves have to exist before they can cancel.

Yes, but what about the rock? :-)

If they exist, they posses both energy and momentum.

So if I "possess" an American Express card, do I "possess" money? No.
I simply "possess" the potential to purchase something with it at a
point of sale.

73, Jim AC6XG