Dear Mr. Roy Lewallen,

Yes!
I do most agree.

"Superposition"

is the definitely right word for this concept
resulting by the summation of all the [2 + (1 + 1)] terms,
and I think that
we can attempt a further distinction to two parts

"Interference"

which is expressed by the summation of the first 2 terms

and

"Interaction"

by the (1 + 1) "third term".

I have to acknowledge your contribution
-once again...-
to build a very meaningful,
at least to me,
categorization
which I intend to use it extensively.

After all
it is at least
a support to comprehension.

Sincerely yours,

pez
SV7BAX


"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ...
| Johnson uses the same term of "interaction" to describe the origin of
| the extra power term. However, you can hopefully see from the analysis I
| posted that only ordinary superposition of the forward and reverse
| voltage and current waves is necessary for the term to appear. So I
| don't feel that "interaction" is entirely appropriate. The extra term
| actually is a result of the calculation of average power. I've said many
| times that it's risky to abandon the time information in the power
| waveform and deal only with averages. If the voltage and current in each
| wave aren't in phase with each other, there are components of the total
| VI product that add together but don't show up in the averages of the
| individual forward and reverse average powers. There's no mystery or
| true "interaction" involved. The "problem" lies simply in calculating
| average "forward power" and "reverse power" separately, throwing away
| all time related information, then expecting them to add or subtract to
| get the total.
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
| pez wrote:
| -
| "The Third Term"
| -
| Roy Lewallen wrote:
| -
| | No, the average Poynting vector points toward the load.
| | Power leaves the line and enters the load, as it should.
| | ...
| | I imagine your problem
| | with the solution is your notion that
| | the total average power
| | is the difference between the
| | "forward power" and "reverse power".
| |
| | But it's not.
| |
| | I gave the equation showing what the total power
| | is, and as you can see,
| | there's a third term involved.
| | When this is
| | taken into consideration, you see that there's a net power flow out of
| | the line into the load, as there should be.
| | ...
| -
| As usually,
| Mr. Roy Lewallen,
| points the right direction.
| And this time,
| it is of:
| -
| "The Third Term".
| -
| In the whole of the book by R.A.Chipman,
| a phrase, less than a printed line,
| is proved enough to cause a major upset:
| -
| "The third term
| on the right
| represents interaction
| between the two waves."
| -
| But when there is such a steadfast loyalty
| to the existence of some kind of
| "interference"
| between two,
| rather clearly distinct waves,
| the incident and the reflected one,
| it is difficult for anybody
| to compromise himself and accept
| that the same two waves,
| so clearly distinct until now,
| when are coming along a line with complex Z0,
| have to bear in addition
| some kind of
| "interaction".
| -
| Very difficult, indeed.
| -
| Sincerely,
| -
| pez
| SV7BAX
| -
|
|
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ...
| Johnson uses the same term of "interaction" to describe the origin of
| the extra power term. However, you can hopefully see from the analysis I
| posted that only ordinary superposition of the forward and reverse
| voltage and current waves is necessary for the term to appear. So I
| don't feel that "interaction" is entirely appropriate. The extra term
| actually is a result of the calculation of average power. I've said many
| times that it's risky to abandon the time information in the power
| waveform and deal only with averages. If the voltage and current in each
| wave aren't in phase with each other, there are components of the total
| VI product that add together but don't show up in the averages of the
| individual forward and reverse average powers. There's no mystery or
| true "interaction" involved. The "problem" lies simply in calculating
| average "forward power" and "reverse power" separately, throwing away
| all time related information, then expecting them to add or subtract to
| get the total.
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
| pez wrote:
| -
| "The Third Term"
| -
| Roy Lewallen wrote:
| -
| | No, the average Poynting vector points toward the load.
| | Power leaves the line and enters the load, as it should.
| | ...
| | I imagine your problem
| | with the solution is your notion that
| | the total average power
| | is the difference between the
| | "forward power" and "reverse power".
| |
| | But it's not.
| |
| | I gave the equation showing what the total power
| | is, and as you can see,
| | there's a third term involved.
| | When this is
| | taken into consideration, you see that there's a net power flow out of
| | the line into the load, as there should be.
| | ...
| -
| As usually,
| Mr. Roy Lewallen,
| points the right direction.
| And this time,
| it is of:
| -
| "The Third Term".
| -
| In the whole of the book by R.A.Chipman,
| a phrase, less than a printed line,
| is proved enough to cause a major upset:
| -
| "The third term
| on the right
| represents interaction
| between the two waves."
| -
| But when there is such a steadfast loyalty
| to the existence of some kind of
| "interference"
| between two,
| rather clearly distinct waves,
| the incident and the reflected one,
| it is difficult for anybody
| to compromise himself and accept
| that the same two waves,
| so clearly distinct until now,
| when are coming along a line with complex Z0,
| have to bear in addition
| some kind of
| "interaction".
| -
| Very difficult, indeed.
| -
| Sincerely,
| -
| pez
| SV7BAX
| -
|
|

Agreed. Three terms are the inevitable result of the product of two
sums.

73, AC6XG

pez wrote:

Dear Mr. Roy Lewallen,

Yes!
I do most agree.

"Superposition"

is the definitely right word for this concept
resulting by the summation of all the [2 + (1 + 1)] terms,
and I think that
we can attempt a further distinction to two parts

"Interference"

which is expressed by the summation of the first 2 terms

and

"Interaction"

by the (1 + 1) "third term".

I have to acknowledge your contribution
-once again...-
to build a very meaningful,
at least to me,
categorization
which I intend to use it extensively.

After all
it is at least
a support to comprehension.

Sincerely yours,

pez
SV7BAX

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ...
| Johnson uses the same term of "interaction" to describe the origin of
| the extra power term. However, you can hopefully see from the analysis I
| posted that only ordinary superposition of the forward and reverse
| voltage and current waves is necessary for the term to appear. So I
| don't feel that "interaction" is entirely appropriate. The extra term
| actually is a result of the calculation of average power. I've said many
| times that it's risky to abandon the time information in the power
| waveform and deal only with averages. If the voltage and current in each
| wave aren't in phase with each other, there are components of the total
| VI product that add together but don't show up in the averages of the
| individual forward and reverse average powers. There's no mystery or
| true "interaction" involved. The "problem" lies simply in calculating
| average "forward power" and "reverse power" separately, throwing away
| all time related information, then expecting them to add or subtract to
| get the total.
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
| pez wrote:
| -
| "The Third Term"
| -
| Roy Lewallen wrote:
| -
| | No, the average Poynting vector points toward the load.
| | Power leaves the line and enters the load, as it should.
| | ...
| | I imagine your problem
| | with the solution is your notion that
| | the total average power
| | is the difference between the
| | "forward power" and "reverse power".
| |
| | But it's not.
| |
| | I gave the equation showing what the total power
| | is, and as you can see,
| | there's a third term involved.
| | When this is
| | taken into consideration, you see that there's a net power flow out of
| | the line into the load, as there should be.
| | ...
| -
| As usually,
| Mr. Roy Lewallen,
| points the right direction.
| And this time,
| it is of:
| -
| "The Third Term".
| -
| In the whole of the book by R.A.Chipman,
| a phrase, less than a printed line,
| is proved enough to cause a major upset:
| -
| "The third term
| on the right
| represents interaction
| between the two waves."
| -
| But when there is such a steadfast loyalty
| to the existence of some kind of
| "interference"
| between two,
| rather clearly distinct waves,
| the incident and the reflected one,
| it is difficult for anybody
| to compromise himself and accept
| that the same two waves,
| so clearly distinct until now,
| when are coming along a line with complex Z0,
| have to bear in addition
| some kind of
| "interaction".
| -
| Very difficult, indeed.
| -
| Sincerely,
| -
| pez
| SV7BAX
| -
|
|
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ...
| Johnson uses the same term of "interaction" to describe the origin of
| the extra power term. However, you can hopefully see from the analysis I
| posted that only ordinary superposition of the forward and reverse
| voltage and current waves is necessary for the term to appear. So I
| don't feel that "interaction" is entirely appropriate. The extra term
| actually is a result of the calculation of average power. I've said many
| times that it's risky to abandon the time information in the power
| waveform and deal only with averages. If the voltage and current in each
| wave aren't in phase with each other, there are components of the total
| VI product that add together but don't show up in the averages of the
| individual forward and reverse average powers. There's no mystery or
| true "interaction" involved. The "problem" lies simply in calculating
| average "forward power" and "reverse power" separately, throwing away
| all time related information, then expecting them to add or subtract to
| get the total.
|
| Roy Lewallen, W7EL
|
| pez wrote:
| -
| "The Third Term"
| -
| Roy Lewallen wrote:
| -
| | No, the average Poynting vector points toward the load.
| | Power leaves the line and enters the load, as it should.
| | ...
| | I imagine your problem
| | with the solution is your notion that
| | the total average power
| | is the difference between the
| | "forward power" and "reverse power".
| |
| | But it's not.
| |
| | I gave the equation showing what the total power
| | is, and as you can see,
| | there's a third term involved.
| | When this is
| | taken into consideration, you see that there's a net power flow out of
| | the line into the load, as there should be.
| | ...
| -
| As usually,
| Mr. Roy Lewallen,
| points the right direction.
| And this time,
| it is of:
| -
| "The Third Term".
| -
| In the whole of the book by R.A.Chipman,
| a phrase, less than a printed line,
| is proved enough to cause a major upset:
| -
| "The third term
| on the right
| represents interaction
| between the two waves."
| -
| But when there is such a steadfast loyalty
| to the existence of some kind of
| "interference"
| between two,
| rather clearly distinct waves,
| the incident and the reflected one,
| it is difficult for anybody
| to compromise himself and accept
| that the same two waves,
| so clearly distinct until now,
| when are coming along a line with complex Z0,
| have to bear in addition
| some kind of
| "interaction".
| -
| Very difficult, indeed.
| -
| Sincerely,
| -
| pez
| SV7BAX
| -
|
|