Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Hm, I wasn't having any trouble analyzing the system without the 200
ohm line.


Yes, you were, Roy. That's why your results didn't agree with
mine AND the wave reflection model analysis AND the S-parameter
analysis AND the conservation of energy principle AND the
conservation of momentum principle.

Please tell me which of the numbers I posted disagree with yours, and
which numbers you got. Once again, mine a

Power from the source = 40 watts
Power dissipated in the source resistor = 8 watts
Power dissipated in the load resistor = 32 watts
Line SWR = 4:1
Line "Forward power" = 50 watts
Line "Reverse power" = 18 watts

Those are the only results I posted. What results did you get which are
different?

Cecil's results:

Power from the source =
Power dissipated in the source resistor =
Power dissipated in the load resistor =
Line SWR =
Line "Forward power" =
Line "Reverse power" =

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Please tell me which of the numbers I posted disagree with yours, and
which numbers you got. Once again, mine a

It's not your numbers, Roy, it's your premises that violate
the conservation of momentum principle among other principles
of physics. RF waves possesss momentum and that momentum MUST
be preserved. Your premises simply violate the conservation
of momentum principle. When you assert that the reflected
waves possess no energy and it is stored in some magic place
at sub-light speeds, you are in violation of the principles
of physics.

You can resolve all of this by telling us where the energy
is stored, besides in reflected waves, when we are dealing with
light in free space and no transmission line because exactly
the same thing happens with EM light waves as happens with
EM RF waves.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

I've explained how I calculated how much energy is stored in the
transmission line. The movement of energy within the line is complex; in
the abbreviated analysis I've had time to do so far, it sloshes back and
forth in regions within the line. It does not travel in waves of average
power, bouncing back and forth, and believing so isn't necessary in
order comply with energy conservation. Your view of power and energy is
oversimplified, and it fails when you're pressed to explain what happens
at the interface between the line and the outside world.

Momentum is conserved in mechanical elastic collisions, but not in
inelastic ones, e.g., when energy is being extracted. I wouldn't begin
to try to apply this to a transmission line, but I see it doesn't bother
you. I understand and believe the fundamental principles of physics and
thermodynamics -- I'm just careful not to misapply them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Please tell me which of the numbers I posted disagree with yours, and
which numbers you got. Once again, mine a


It's not your numbers, Roy, it's your premises that violate
the conservation of momentum principle among other principles
of physics. RF waves possesss momentum and that momentum MUST
be preserved. Your premises simply violate the conservation
of momentum principle. When you assert that the reflected
waves possess no energy and it is stored in some magic place
at sub-light speeds, you are in violation of the principles
of physics.

You can resolve all of this by telling us where the energy
is stored, besides in reflected waves, when we are dealing with
light in free space and no transmission line because exactly
the same thing happens with EM light waves as happens with
EM RF waves.

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I've explained how I calculated how much energy is stored in the
transmission line. The movement of energy within the line is complex; in
the abbreviated analysis I've had time to do so far, it sloshes back and
forth in regions within the line.

From where to where at what speed? Sloshing sounds like a
violation of the conservation of momentum. What force changes
the direction of the slosh? How much efficiency is lost in
the energy required to change sloshing directions?

It does not travel in waves of average
power, bouncing back and forth, and believing so isn't necessary in
order comply with energy conservation.

Nothing RF travels in waves of average power. Average power is
just our simplified shorthand way of dealing with it. The AC
voltage is equal to the RMS value at only two points in
the cycle. Sticking with instantaneous values for everything
AC would complicate things beyond belief.

The values of voltage in your chart were RMS (average) values.
You don't seem to have a problem dealing with RMS values of
voltages and currents. Why do you have a problem with average
power associated with those average RMS values of voltage and
current.

Your view of power and energy is
oversimplified, and it fails when you're pressed to explain what happens
at the interface between the line and the outside world.

What is located at that interface? Anybody is pressed to explain
things when the source impedance is unknown and cannot be measured.

Momentum is conserved in mechanical elastic collisions, but not in
inelastic ones, e.g., when energy is being extracted. I wouldn't begin
to try to apply this to a transmission line, but I see it doesn't bother
you.

Hecht, in "Optics" certainly applies it to EM waves. RF EM waves
differ from light waves only in frequency. Conservation of
momentum is a cornerstone of EM light physics and is included
in the rules of relativity.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---