Jim Kelley wrote:
Your
problem proves that your analysis and the notion of power flow are
flawed.

You haven't answered my question so you have not earned the right to
set up a new straw man. Why does Pref1 suddenly go to zero just as
Pref2 arrives at the impedance discontinuity?

As Timo and I have both said to you, it can be shown that that 50
joules/sec does not travel rearward.

You have not presented an iota of evidence that Pref2 does not travel
rearward. Half of that 50 joules/sec comes from rearward-traveling Pref2.
Sorry, until you address that contradiction in your concepts, you don't
have any creditability on this subject.

You have repeatedly refused to answer this simple question: How does
the energy in the reflected wave from the mismatched load get turned
around? We know it possesses momentum so it does turn around. What is
your physics mechanism for explaining the change in direction of
momentum of Pref2?

You have already admitted that wave cancellation is
responsible for Pref1 being zero.

"Admitted" is a funny word for it.

After months of denying it, you finally admitted it. Admitted seems
entirely appropriate.

When waves cease to exist, they are forced to give up their intrinsic energy.

Waves don't cease to exist.

That's where you are wrong. Waves cease to exist when they encounter a
matched dummy load, for instance. Waves also cease to exist when they
are destroyed by wave cancellation. Light waves cease to exist when they
encounter a perfectly flat black surface. Your assertion is false.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
Your
problem proves that your analysis and the notion of power flow are
flawed.

You haven't answered my question so you have not earned the right to
set up a new straw man. Why does Pref1 suddenly go to zero just as
Pref2 arrives at the impedance discontinuity?

Has wave cancellation suddenly become a point of contention?

Your latest example obviously shows the weakness in your argument.

As Timo and I have both said to you, it can be shown that that 50
joules/sec does not travel rearward.

You have not presented an iota of evidence that Pref2 does not travel
rearward.

The absence of any evidence that it does presents a more formidable
problem, in my opinion.

You have repeatedly refused to answer this simple question: How does
the energy in the reflected wave from the mismatched load get turned
around?

That's a lie, and everyone here knows it. I've answered the question
every time it was posed. Timo answer it the same way I have. Energy
does not get turned around - it never flows to the left of the
discontinuity.

We know it possesses momentum so it does turn around.

Must be the Royal 'we'.

What is
your physics mechanism for explaining the change in direction of
momentum of Pref2?

What reason can you provide for continuing to beat your neice?

You have already admitted that wave cancellation is
responsible for Pref1 being zero.

"Admitted" is a funny word for it.

After months of denying it, you finally admitted it. Admitted seems
entirely appropriate.

That's an absolute fabrication. Revisionist history. I was the one who
INSISTED that no power ever flowed back from the discontinuity. In fact
you argued with me about it. You've got a major mental glich happening
there, Cecil.

Waves cease to exist when they encounter a
matched dummy load, for instance.

The wave is transformed at a load. It doesn't simply "cease to exist".
But I can see this is leading to another of your symantics arguments.
You could avoid them in the future by using convention terminology. But
I doubt you really want to avoid them. Seems they're the 'secret
weapon' of the newsgroup warrior.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
Has wave cancellation suddenly become a point of contention?

It was our point of contention for months. Finally, you relented.

Your latest example obviously shows the weakness in your argument.

It obviously shows the strength of my argument since you avoid
discussing it at all costs. :-)

You have not presented an iota of evidence that Pref2 does not travel
rearward.

The absence of any evidence that it does presents a more formidable
problem, in my opinion.

I quoted the evidence from Ramo & Whinnery. You just ignored it.

I've answered the question every time it was posed.

But your "answer" is always a bogus non-answer, an empty mantra.

Energy does not get turned around - it never
flows to the left of the discontinuity.

According to Ramo & Whinnery, reflected energy does indeed flow
rearward from a mismatched load. That reflected energy possesses
momentum in the rearward direction and changes direction at the
impedance discontinuity. You still have not offered an acceptable
explanation for that energy and momentum turn around.

What reason can you provide for continuing to beat your neice?

Your only response is a diversion. That speaks volumes.

I was the one who
INSISTED that no power ever flowed back from the discontinuity. In fact
you argued with me about it.

I NEVER argued with you about that. You are back to your lying ways.
I would NEVER argue with a Bird wattmeter? You obviously have me
confused with Dr. Best. In fact, I published part of my article
saying that everything takes place at exactly the impedance discontinuity
and nowhere else. Having to lie about what I have said is just proof of
the weakness of your argument.

I'm sorry, Jim. I refuse to engage in a discussion at your chosen ethical
and moral level. It was a mistake to try again to be civil to you.

The wave is transformed at a load. It doesn't simply "cease to exist".

The energy in the wave is transformed from RF to heat by the dummy
load. The RF wave certainly does cease to exist. You're not back to
your phantom waves that last forever without a source of energy, are
you?
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
Has wave cancellation suddenly become a point of contention?

It was our point of contention for months. Finally, you relented.

It's been my impression that wave cancellation and interference has
always been the one thing we've agreed upon.

Your latest example obviously shows the weakness in your argument.

It obviously shows the strength of my argument since you avoid
discussing it at all costs. :-)

If I wasn't discussing it, you obviously wouldn't have had anything to
post reply comments about. That your numbers are the same in two
scenarios, each involving a different input power level perfectly
illustrates your misinterpretion of the meaning of the numbers.

I've answered the question every time it was posed.

But your "answer" is always a bogus non-answer, an empty mantra.

So now you agree that I've answered the question. The fact you disagree
with the answer is irrelevant to that point.

Energy does not get turned around - it never
flows to the left of the discontinuity.

According to Ramo & Whinnery, reflected energy does indeed flow
rearward from a mismatched load. That reflected energy possesses
momentum in the rearward direction and changes direction at the
impedance discontinuity. You still have not offered an acceptable
explanation for that energy and momentum turn around.

Apparently, neither have Ramo & Whinnery. But that's understandable,
given that the idea is entirely your invention.

What reason can you provide for continuing to beat your neice?

Your only response is a diversion. That speaks volumes.

It speaks Cecilian, actually. You didn't notice the similarity in
technique? It was a response in kind to the exact form of the question
you asked.

I was the one who
INSISTED that no power ever flowed back from the discontinuity. In fact
you argued with me about it.

I NEVER argued with you about that.

I cannot recall a single instance of you ever agreeing with anything
I've written on the subject - including (V3 + V4) * (I3 + I4) = 0,
and P3+P4-(2*SQRT(P3*P4)=0. That's wave cancellation my friend, and I
posted these things at the beginning of this discussion. You've always
argued with the validity of these equations.

It was a mistake to try again to be civil to you.

When did that happen?

The wave is transformed at a load. It doesn't simply "cease to exist".

The energy in the wave is transformed from RF to heat by the dummy
load. The RF wave certainly does cease to exist.

As I said, we're now in an argument over semantics caused by your
creative use of terminology. "Cease to exist" in any case implies
something which isn't true.

But back to the point, for what amount of time do the cancelled waves
"exist" in order that they might then be able to "cease to exist"? If
you say during the transient period between T0 and steady-state, then
we're in agreement.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
I cannot recall a single instance of you ever agreeing with anything
I've written on the subject - including (V3 + V4) * (I3 + I4) = 0,
and P3+P4-(2*SQRT(P3*P4)=0.

You really need to get your head checked. I am the person who first
posted P3+P4-[2*Sqrt(P3*P4)]=0. It is proof of wave cancellation, the
event you vehemently denied for about six weeks. And I agree that
(V3*I3) + (V4*I4) + interference = (V3+V4)*(I3+I4) = 0. In fact,
since you admitted that wave cancellation exists at an impedance
discontinuity in a Z0-matched line, we have very little disagreement
left. The only thing we disagree on now is how long it takes the two
rearward-traveling wavefronts to cancel. I say it happens in a dt of
time as dt approaches zero. You say it happens in zero time. Just how
far apart are those two concepts?

You've always argued with the validity of these equations.

BS! You argue loud and long, eventually change your mind, and then
come back in a few days with The Big Lie - that is what you believed
all the while. Anyone who has been following this discussion has
witnessed you using that underhanded technique any number of times.

It was a mistake to try again to be civil to you.

When did that happen?

I tried to be nice to you, Jim, and you spit in my face all over again.
Please find someone else to abuse.

But back to the point, for what amount of time do the cancelled waves
"exist" in order that they might then be able to "cease to exist"? If
you say during the transient period between T0 and steady-state, then
we're in agreement.

Exactly what laws of physics completely change during the transient period
between TO and steady-state? Photons start moving sideways instead of carrying
energy up and down the transmission line???? More bafflegab!

Pref2(1-|rho|^2) obviously exists all the way from the mismatched load back
to the impedance discontinuity. You have avoided explaining that momentum
reversing mechanism like the plague. How do you get those photons turned
around?
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"That`s where you are wrong."

This argument has evoked plain statements, i.e., "When waves cease to
exist, they are forced to give up their intrinsic energy." And, "Waves
don`t cease to exist."

The statements need qualifications. Perhaps waves "cancel" without
ceasing to exist.

My speculation is that two radiated fields which cancel don`t eliminate
each other at all. They simply coincide out-of-phase, and their
resultant is zero along an azimuth where cancellation of their effect
continues. If we had a way to identify the vectors composing the zero
resultant, we could prove them there. Separate modulation might be
contrived to perform identification. The modulation idea comes from what
happens as a null azimuth in a MW BC radiation pattern is approached.
Carrier and sideband frequencies don`t cancel exactly together and it
sounds weird.

On wires, it`s different. Connect same-frequency energy exactly
out-of-phase, and you have a short circuit. In space, you don`t have an
electric current. You may have zero electrons. You have only fields
until you encounter a conductor.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
The statements need qualifications. Perhaps waves "cancel" without
ceasing to exist.

Some waves cancel without ceasing to exist. But if the cancellation
is permanent, the waves simply cease to exist.

My speculation is that two radiated fields which cancel don`t eliminate
each other at all.

That is true, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing
permanent wave cancellation within the confines of a transmission line.

On wires, it`s different. Connect same-frequency energy exactly
out-of-phase, and you have a short circuit.

No you don't, Richard. Maximum current occurs at a short circuit.
The net current from two canceled waves is zero. The net voltage
from two canceled waves is zero. It is neither a short circuit
nor an open circuit to the canceled waves. It is simply wave
cancellation. To the canceled waves, it looks like both a short
circuit to the two voltages and an open circuit to the two currents.

It is the same thing that happens at the air to thin-film interface
in perfect non-glare glass when the incident beam is coherent.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:38:13 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Danny, K6MHE

Roy, you've been getting blamed for everything lately.

Now we can blame you for the new thread ... you started it! grin

DD, W1MCE

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thought I'd change the thread name to more accurately reflect its
content. This seems to be the fate of nearly all threads in this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL