Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Fuller wrote:
Q: Where are the missing joules? A: They are associated with the large standing wave supported by the mismatched terminations of your transmission line. The "large standing wave" is associated with a an EM forward wave traveling at the speed of light superposed with an EM reflected wave traveling at the speed of light. Please give us an example of an EM standing wave that is not composed of superposed EM waves traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light. What you seem to be saying is that two similar vehicles traveling in opposite directions at the same speed don't possess any net energy. Try standing between them when they crash and get back to us. As I have pointed out previously, standing waves are not inert. The shape of the wave does not travel down the line, but the fields are changing, and the charges are moving. Within each loop of the standing wave the stored energy simply oscillates between magnetic energy when the current is high and electrostatic energy when the voltage is high. Very basic stuff. Very magic stuff. EM waves simply cannot slosh around side-to-side in a transmission line. EM waves must move at the speed of light or else the theory of relativity is wrong. You are mentally lumping things together in your mind when they are not lumpable together in reality, i.e. your thoughts don't match reality. The only time two EM waves traveling in opposite directions interact is at an impedance discontinuity. All other interaction exists only in your mind, not in reality. In a constant Z0 environment, EM waves traveling in different directions pass like ships in the night. The problem in your analysis is the initial axiom that RF waves always move. This is simply incorrect, and it leads to the dilemma you face. Please give me an example of just one photon that doesn't move at the speed of light. You will have proven the theory of relativity to be incorrect. And as many people have pointed out, always add the voltages and currents first and only consider power at the very end of the analysis. Please don't pass yourself off as an expert on a subject where your only recommendation is not to think about the subject. It reminds me of the priests who put Galileo under house arrest. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cecil,
Fine. My method solves the problem. Your method leads to endless threads on RRAA. Have it your way. 73, Gene W4SZ Cecil Moore wrote: Gene Fuller wrote: Q: Where are the missing joules? A: They are associated with the large standing wave supported by the mismatched terminations of your transmission line. The "large standing wave" is associated with a an EM forward wave traveling at the speed of light superposed with an EM reflected wave traveling at the speed of light. Please give us an example of an EM standing wave that is not composed of superposed EM waves traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light. What you seem to be saying is that two similar vehicles traveling in opposite directions at the same speed don't possess any net energy. Try standing between them when they crash and get back to us. As I have pointed out previously, standing waves are not inert. The shape of the wave does not travel down the line, but the fields are changing, and the charges are moving. Within each loop of the standing wave the stored energy simply oscillates between magnetic energy when the current is high and electrostatic energy when the voltage is high. Very basic stuff. Very magic stuff. EM waves simply cannot slosh around side-to-side in a transmission line. EM waves must move at the speed of light or else the theory of relativity is wrong. You are mentally lumping things together in your mind when they are not lumpable together in reality, i.e. your thoughts don't match reality. The only time two EM waves traveling in opposite directions interact is at an impedance discontinuity. All other interaction exists only in your mind, not in reality. In a constant Z0 environment, EM waves traveling in different directions pass like ships in the night. The problem in your analysis is the initial axiom that RF waves always move. This is simply incorrect, and it leads to the dilemma you face. Please give me an example of just one photon that doesn't move at the speed of light. You will have proven the theory of relativity to be incorrect. And as many people have pointed out, always add the voltages and currents first and only consider power at the very end of the analysis. Please don't pass yourself off as an expert on a subject where your only recommendation is not to think about the subject. It reminds me of the priests who put Galileo under house arrest. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Gene Fuller wrote:
My method solves the problem. Your method leads to endless threads on RRAA. Your method doesn't begin to solve the problem of tracking the energy through the system. In fact, it specifically avoids tracking the energy. My method has made a certain amount of progress in the direction of understanding energy flow. The key seems to be that for every case of constructive interference, there must exist an equal magnitude of destructive interference, as asserted by Hecht, in _Optics_. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Current in antenna loading coils controversy - new measurement | Antenna | |||
Complex line Z0: A numerical example | Antenna | |||
A Subtle Detail of Reflection Coefficients (but important to know) | Antenna | |||
Re-Normalizing the Smith Chart (Changing the SWR into the same load) | Antenna |