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

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! =-----

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?