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! =-----