It obviously doesn't bother you that your new "forward power" isn't the
product of forward voltage and current, or that the new "reverse power"
isn't the product of reverse voltage and current. But then I guess we
shouldn't be surprised.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Well, shucks, that makes it easy.


Just being logical. There are only two directions in a transmission
line, forward and reverse. If all the waves are coherent, all forward
waves superpose to one wave and all reverse waves superpose to one
other wave. Your net forward power is greater than your net reflected
power by the net amount of power accepted by the load. This happens
locally at the load no matter what is happening elsewhere in the
transmission line.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Seems to me, all the terms with a '+' sign would be forward power, by
definition, and all the terms with a '-' sign would be reflected power,
by definition. I don't see any violation of the conservation of energy
principle. The power equation balances.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
It obviously doesn't bother you that your new "forward power" isn't the
product of forward voltage and current, or that the new "reverse power"
isn't the product of reverse voltage and current. But then I guess we
shouldn't be surprised.

I guess I will quote Aristotle on that one, Roy. A thing is what it is -
It's not something else. Two directions are all that exist, forward and
backwards. Do I need to publish a binary truth table?
--
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! =-----