Look like Steve's been busy.

http://store.noblepub.com/shopexd.asp?id=76

k4wge wrote:
Look like Steve's been busy.

He told me he needed to rewrite his QEX article based on what
he had learned on this newsgroup. Maybe that is 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! =-----

Hi Cecil,

I went to the url k4wge indicated for Steve's work and found that he has a book
on antennas published by Noble Publications going for $207 after a 25% discount.
I would need to know the quality of editorial review it survived before spending
that much on a new book. I'm wondering if the book had ANY technical review
before printing.

I'm also wondering how much of the stuff from his three-part QEX article will
appear in his book. That article is chuck full of erroneous material. I know you
and others on this thread tried to correct some of his incorrect notions to no
avail. And you know that he and I went at it pretty strong, but he wouldn't
listen. He told me early on that my concepts of matching appearing in
Reflections are wrong, and said that using the statements I made there he could
prove me technically incompetent.

In two Communications Quarterly issues he said as much, referring to my writings
in Reflections and in QEX.. During our last email communication he reiterated
his comment concerning incompetence, and said he was going to write a definitive
article concerning matching that would prove it, but that this time he wasn't
going to mention me by name. That 'definitive' article is the three-parter in
QEX.. Well, he didn't mention me by name, but he presented one of my examples,
number for number, and then erroneously tore it to pieces. Anyone having read my
work would recognize that he was targeting me even though not by name.

Enough of that. I've been reading a little mail on the rraa, and I see you're
still hangin' in there. Hope you're well, but I guess you must be, cuz you still
have that characteristic sarcastic (no that's not quite the word for it)
response at the right moment.

Take care,

Walt

Walter Maxwell wrote:
In two Communications Quarterly issues he said as much, referring to my writings
in Reflections and in QEX.. During our last email communication he reiterated
his comment concerning incompetence, and said he was going to write a definitive
article concerning matching that would prove it, but that this time he wasn't
going to mention me by name.

Walt, as you know, I tangled with Steve over the subject of interference which
he claimed didn't exist at a match point. He later changed his mind and told
me in an email that he needed to rewrite part 3 of his article. Maybe he got
it right on his CDs. _Optics_, by Hecht proves Steve's equations in part 3 to
be the actual interference equations from optics with RF Power substituted for
light Irradiance.

IMO, you and Steve were much closer in principles than either one of you
realized.

He said in Part 3: "... the two rearward traveling waves at the match point
(rearward waves 1 and 2) are 180 degrees out of phase with respect to each
other and a complete cancellation of both waves occurs."

You said in Reflections II: "With equal magnitudes and opposite phase at the
same point (Point A, the matching point), the sum of the two (rearward-
traveling) waves is zero."

This agrees with J. C. Slater, from _Microwave_Transmissions_, "The
fundamental principle behind the elimination of reflections is then to have
each reflected wave canceled by another wave of equal amplitude and opposite
phase."

All three above appear to me to be in agreement so the disagreements are really
about the down-in-the-noise details. Some gurus on this newsgroup disagree with
you, Dr. Best, and J. C. Slater.

Others on this newsgroup have been asking about your opinion of conjugately-
matched transmitters. I have no interest in that particular discussion but you
might point out some references.
--
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 Sun, 30 May 2004 16:45:03 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Walter Maxwell wrote:
In two Communications Quarterly issues he said as much, referring to my writings
in Reflections and in QEX.. During our last email communication he reiterated
his comment concerning incompetence, and said he was going to write a definitive
article concerning matching that would prove it, but that this time he wasn't
going to mention me by name.

Walt, as you know, I tangled with Steve over the subject of interference which
he claimed didn't exist at a match point. He later changed his mind and told
me in an email that he needed to rewrite part 3 of his article. Maybe he got
it right on his CDs. _Optics_, by Hecht proves Steve's equations in part 3 to
be the actual interference equations from optics with RF Power substituted for
light Irradiance.

IMO, you and Steve were much closer in principles than either one of you
realized.

Sorry Cecil, I don't think so. Steve has missed the most vital aspect of the
phenomenon--what happens to the energy, or power in the reflected waves on
return to the match point.

He said in Part 3: "... the two rearward traveling waves at the match point
(rearward waves 1 and 2) are 180 degrees out of phase with respect to each
other and a complete cancellation of both waves occurs."

Yes, but Cecil, the cancellation of the waves is only in the rearward direction,
because at the match point the waves and the energy they carry (volts x amps)
are totally reversed. Now to continue what Steve said is: "The result of this
wave cancellation is that the total steady-state rearward-traveling wave has a
net voltage of 0 V nd 0 A, respectively, and an impedance match occurs." No No
No.

As we've discussed earlier, voltage and current cannot both go to zero
simultaneously, except in the rearward direction. When voltage goes to zero at
the match point because the two returning voltages are equal magnitude and of
opposite phase, the current is doubled and the V x I energy in the rearward
traveling waves is totally re-reflected in the forward direction. Steve totally
ignores the energy in the reflected waves, except to say, "A total
re-reflection of the reflected voltage, current and power does not occur at the
match point and it (re-reflection) is not necessary for the impedance match to
occur." This statement is totally untrue, because as I said above, all of the
power in the reflected waves of voltage AND current is totally re-reflected in
the forward direction, the same as if the E and H fields had encountered a
physical short. We all know what happens in this case. The only difference is
that the virtual short established by the wave interference is one way only--to
the rearward traveling waves.

I know you don't agree with me that a one-way virtual short is what causes the
re-reflection, but in a short time I'll be able to prove it to you in a manner
you'll not be able to rebut. Stay tuned.

You said in Reflections II: "With equal magnitudes and opposite phase at the
same point (Point A, the matching point), the sum of the two (rearward-
traveling) waves is zero."

Which means zero impedance, the boundary condition causing the total
re-reflection. This exactly what Slater is implying.

This agrees with J. C. Slater, from _Microwave_Transmissions_, "The
fundamental principle behind the elimination of reflections is then to have
each reflected wave canceled by another wave of equal amplitude and opposite
phase."

Cecil, the Slater reference is where I originally obtained this concept for my
QST article that appeared in Oct 1973, nearly 30 years ago. Check the ref number
in Reflections--No. 35.

All three above appear to me to be in agreement so the disagreements are really
about the down-in-the-noise details. Some gurus on this newsgroup disagree with
you, Dr. Best, and J. C. Slater.

Those who disagree with Slater need to refresh their memories with a review of
transmission lines 101. They ain't gonna win.

Others on this newsgroup have been asking about your opinion of conjugately-
matched transmitters. I have no interest in that particular discussion but you
might point out some references.

Cecil, I don't have a particular reference handy, but I can quote some of my own
measurements the others you mention might find of interest.. IMO they'll have a
hard time disgreeing with the data if they don't already believe a transmitter
is conjugately matched to its load when it's delivering all of its available
power at an arbitrarily selected drive level within the normal operating range.
Those who don't believe will get quite a surprise when I reveal what the output
source resistance of the xmtr really is under this condition. Waddya think?

Walt

Walter Maxwell wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
IMO, you and Steve were much closer in principles than either one of you
realized.

Sorry Cecil, I don't think so. Steve has missed the most vital aspect of the
phenomenon--what happens to the energy, or power in the reflected waves on
return to the match point.

Well, once Steve admitted that the two reflected waves completely cancel
each other in a matched system, what happens to the pre-existing energy in
those two waves before they cancel is obvious. Energy cannot be destroyed
and if it doesn't flow toward the source, it must flow toward the load
as explained at the bottom of the Melles Griot Web Page:

http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

"Clearly, if the wavelength of the incident light and the thickness of the film
are such that a phase difference exists between reflections of p, then REFLECTED
WAVEFRONTS INTERFERE DESTRUCTIVELY, and overall reflected intensity is a minimum.
If the two reflections are of equal amplitude, then this amplitude (and hence
intensity) minimum will be ZERO." (emphasis mine)

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
indicates ALL (rearward-traveling) "LOST" REFLECTED INTENSITY will appear as ENHANCED
INTENSITY IN THE (forward-traveling) TRANSMITTED BEAM. The sum of the reflected and
transmitted beam intensities is always equal to the incident intensity. This important
fact has been confirmed experimentally." (emphasis mine)

Steve at first said the energy in the canceled waves continues to flow toward the
source without a voltage and current and that interference was not involved. He later
changed his mind. All that should be archived on r.r.a.a on Google for the summer
of 2001. Here's an excerpt. Steve said: "The total forward power increases as a direct
result of the vector superposition of forward voltage and current. This DOES NOT
require a corresponding destructive interference process ..." thus contradicting Hecht
in _Optics_ who says any constructive interference process must be accompanied by
an equal magnitude of destructive interference.

Now to continue what Steve said is: "The result of this
wave cancellation is that the total steady-state rearward-traveling wave has a
net voltage of 0 V nd 0 A, respectively, and an impedance match occurs." No No
No.

As we've discussed earlier, voltage and current cannot both go to zero
simultaneously, except in the rearward direction.

But that's what he said above. The rearward-traveling wave indeed does have a
net voltage of 0 V and 0 A and the reflections toward the source disappear at
the match point. I think you and Steve really agree on about 98% of this match
point stuff but you two obviously disagree on the definition of "re-reflection".

I know you don't agree with me that a one-way virtual short is what causes the
re-reflection, but in a short time I'll be able to prove it to you in a manner
you'll not be able to rebut. Stay tuned.

You might want to check your work against an s-parameter analysis. The s-parameter
equations a b1 = s11(a1) + s12(a2) and b2 = s21(a1) + s22(a2)

Given that a match point in a transmission line can be considered to be a two-
port network, |s22|^2 is the Power (re)reflected from the network output divided
by the (reflected) Power incident on the network output. s22 is the reflection
coefficient looking into port 2 and is *not equal to 1.0 or zero*. In a matched
system with nothing but resistances, it is often the negative of the reflection
coefficient at the load.

This is covered in HP's AN 95-1 available on the web.

Those who don't believe will get quite a surprise when I reveal what the output
source resistance of the xmtr really is under this condition. Waddya think?

I think I am too ignorant of the subject to venture an opinion. Which of the
following systems do you think I would prefer, the conjugately-matched one at
50% efficiency or the non-conjucately one at 98% efficiency?

1 ohm XMTR----100V out---tuner---1/2WL 450 ohm line--50 ohm load

50 ohm XMTR---100V out---tuner---1/2WL 450 ohm line--50 ohm load

Arguing that Tesla/Westinghouse would have to conjugately match their 60 Hz
AC generators is what shot down Edison's dream of an all DC power distribution
system for the USA.

I would love to have a transmitter with a zero ohm internal impedance,
completely conjugately unmatched. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net



-----= 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! =-----