Roy Lewallen wrote:

I see that you are convinced that you've explained where the bouncing
waves of average power go and what they do.

Did anyone understand it? If so, would someone else please try to
explain it to me? Where does that 18 watts of "reverse power" go, and why?

Wouldn't it go to the circulator load which must always be placed at the
source in order to clearly illustrate what happens when a circulator
isn't in place at the source?

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

I see that you are convinced that you've explained where the bouncing
waves of average power go and what they do.

Did anyone understand it? If so, would someone else please try to
explain it to me? Where does that 18 watts of "reverse power" go, and
why?


Wouldn't it go to the circulator load which must always be placed at the
source in order to clearly illustrate what happens when a circulator
isn't in place at the source?

ac6xg

Sorry, I was asking about the simple example I posted (which doesn't
have a circulator), not the problem posted by Cecil.

How does placing a circulator at the source illustrate what happens when
it isn't in place? Isn't it possible to explain what happens to the
"reverse power" without a circulator? If not, why not?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Roy Lewallen wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Roy Lewallen wrote:

I see that you are convinced that you've explained where the bouncing
waves of average power go and what they do.

Did anyone understand it? If so, would someone else please try to
explain it to me? Where does that 18 watts of "reverse power" go, and
why?

Wouldn't it go to the circulator load which must always be placed at
the source in order to clearly illustrate what happens when a
circulator isn't in place at the source?

ac6xg


Sorry, I was asking about the simple example I posted (which doesn't
have a circulator), not the problem posted by Cecil.

It was a tongue-in-cheek reply, Roy. These problems always seem to end
up with a circulator in them at some point - clearly illustrating what
happens under entirely different circumstances. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
It was a tongue-in-cheek reply, Roy. These problems always seem to end
up with a circulator in them at some point - clearly illustrating what
happens under entirely different circumstances. :-)

The circulator, lossless feedlines of unreasonable length,
Time Domain Reflectometers, TV ghosting, etc. are all tools
for illustration purposes. However, a Z0-matched system is
an ordinary configuration in ham radio and is easy to analyze
since no reflected energy is allowed to reach the source. The
conservation of energy and momentum rules dictate where the
energy must go in such a case. We can debate why the reflected
energy is 100% re-reflected but there is no question that it
*is* 100% re-reflected because none reaches the source and
there are only two directions in a transmission line.
--
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 =---

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

It was a tongue-in-cheek reply, Roy. These problems always seem to
end up with a circulator in them at some point - clearly illustrating
what happens under entirely different circumstances. :-)


The circulator, lossless feedlines of unreasonable length,
Time Domain Reflectometers, TV ghosting, etc. are all tools
for illustration purposes. However, a Z0-matched system is
an ordinary configuration in ham radio and is easy to analyze
since no reflected energy is allowed to reach the source. The
conservation of energy and momentum rules dictate where the
energy must go in such a case. We can debate why the reflected
energy is 100% re-reflected but there is no question that it
*is* 100% re-reflected because none reaches the source and
there are only two directions in a transmission line.

I wish we were able to discuss this without it becoming so
confrontational. As I've said to you many times, you've got 98% of this
thing nailed to a tee. But that 2% is a major error from a physical
standpoint. Energy is not flowing in the way you describe it. Power
doesn't flow at all, but that's a different discussion. When the fields
cancel, as in the anti-reflective/impedance matching scenario, energy is
not conveyed in the reflected direction. There is no conservation of
energy problem until you claim that that energy from cancelled waves IS
moving in the reflected direction. Once you make that claim, you're
forced to imagine a way for it to reverse its course, and that's where
the problem lies. We've been over this a hundred times and you just
refuse to accept it. It violates physics. It violates Maxwells
equations. It's wrong, and I hate arguing with you about it, but as a
fellow enthusiast I advise you not to print that part of your article in
QEX. It's an absurdity in the midst of brilliance, not unlike myself. ;-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
I wish we were able to discuss this without it becoming so
confrontational.

Me too. Please treat me the way you would like to be treated
and we will get along just fine. Oh, and thanks for the doorknob
caps. I use them now instead of stubs.

As I've said to you many times, you've got 98% of this
thing nailed to a tee. But that 2% is a major error from a physical
standpoint. Energy is not flowing in the way you describe it. Power
doesn't flow at all, but that's a different discussion.

I've been very careful to consider power as the measured energy flowing
past a point even though many others, including the IEEE, present the
Power Flow Vector right along with the current phasor. But as far as
EM wave energy and power are concerned, they are virtually
interchangeable. EM wave energy always travels at the speed of light -
imagine that. :-) The energy in an EM wave can only be stored as an
EM wave traveling at the speed of light as in a delay line. It cannot
be put into an RF battery and used as needed for an old wives' tale.
Walter Johnson recognized the close relationship between EM energy and
EM power and actually presented the "conservation of power" principle in
his book. The only difference between EM energy and EM power is time.
The joules in the joules/sec must be conserved.

When the fields
cancel, as in the anti-reflective/impedance matching scenario, energy is
not conveyed in the reflected direction.

Of course, and I never said it was. That's your straw man left over from
our last argument. If the fields cancel, there is no energy available
for a rearward flow. That's why you cannot measure reflected power in
the coax on a Z0-matched system. All the reflected energy has changed
direction. But we know the internal reflected energy has traveled in
the rearward direction. What altered its momentum in that rearward
direction?

Energy must be conveyed from the far surface or the fields would not
cancel. That's called the internal reflection and its rearward flow
can be detected. Since the internal reflection wave possesses momentum
in the rearward direction, something has to reverse that momentum. We
can disagree on the mechanism that reverses the momentum of the
internal reflected wave, but the wave is there and can be detected.

The entire reason I cannot accept what you say is that you have never
given a reasonable explanation of what happens to the momentum of
the rearward-traveling internal reflection wave. Want to try again?
Please concentrate on that one topic. Resolving the momentum in the
internal reflection wave is the only way to convince me that I am wrong.
I think that is the concept that convinced the QEX editors that I was
right. If one accepts the conservation of momentum principle, then
one has to accept a cause for the reversal of that momentum.

The internal reflection wave is illustrated in section 9.4.1 of
"Optics". It has obviously traveled in the rearward direction across
the width of the thin-film. What happens to its momentum and energy
if it gets canceled?

There is no conservation of
energy problem until you claim that that energy from cancelled waves IS
moving in the reflected direction.

Something has to reverse the momentum in the wave reflected from the
far surface, i.e. the "internal reflection". If you don't know what
that is, reference section 4.3 in "Optics". You have never given a
reasonable explanation of what reverses the momentum of the internal
reflection which, I'm sure you would agree, doesn't appear in the
glare so it had to be reversed. Exactly how was it reversed?

Once you make that claim, you're
forced to imagine a way for it to reverse its course, and that's where
the problem lies.

No, since it is obvious that the momentum of that internal reflection
wave reverses, a reversing mechanism is necessary. I've presented a
mechanism and you haven't.

We've been over this a hundred times and you just
refuse to accept it.

Yes, and you refuse to accept it. Momentum doesn't change by magic.
There has to be a physical reason. I have presented my take on that
physical reason. You have presented no explanation. Between having
an explanation and having none, guess what my choice will be?

Please just explain how the momentum in the internal reflection wave
gets reversed within the boundary conditions of the classical wave
reflection model. No quantum physics, please.

So let's concentrate on that narrow topic of what happens to the
momentum in the internal reflection wave, shall we? Here's a
diagram where 'n' is the index of refraction and the internal
reflection from surface 'B' is shown:

| |
laser--------air----|----thin-film-------|----glass---------
n-1.0 | n=1.2222 | n=1.4938
A --reflection----B

The internal reflection that I have been talking about occurs when
the forward wave in the thin-film encounters surface 'B'. The
reflectance is 0.01 at that surface so one percent of the forward
irradiance will be reflected. It will have momentum in the rearward
direction. Please tell us what alters the momentum of that reflection
such that it doesn't appear as glare at surface 'A' and instead
reverses direction and joins the forward wave.
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Jim Kelley wrote:

It was a tongue-in-cheek reply, Roy. These problems always seem to end
up with a circulator in them at some point - clearly illustrating what
happens under entirely different circumstances. :-)

Thanks for the explanation. When Cecil has difficulty explaining a
circuit, he comes up with one which he can explain and tries to deflect
the discussion to it. This happens over and over and over -- it's really
a pain to try to keep steering the discussion back to the original circuit.

That leaves us with no one who claims to understand Cecil's
"explanation" of my simple circuit. Except, I guess, one guy who's on
vacation and some folks who don't read this newsgroup.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jim Kelley wrote:
Wouldn't it go to the circulator load which must always be placed at
the source in order to clearly illustrate what happens when a
circulator isn't in place at the source?

ac6xg
Sorry, I was asking about the simple example I posted (which
doesn't have a circulator), not the problem posted by Cecil.

It was a tongue-in-cheek reply, Roy. These problems always seem to end
up with a circulator in them at some point - clearly illustrating what
happens under entirely different circumstances. :-)


Cecil imagines a circulator is a device that separates forward and
reflected waves of average power, because that is what Cecil's theory
says they must do.

In other words, Cecil's circulator is a device that takes a perfectly
straight-forward argument... and makes it circular.


--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
In other words, Cecil's circulator is a device that takes a perfectly
straight-forward argument... and makes it circular.

Cecil's circulator is a device that gets hot when reflected
waves are present, proving that reflected waves possess
energy and power.

Cecil's TDR allows everything about a reflected pulse to
be known and measured.

Cecil's TV ghosting allows one to see the reflections with
one's own eyes.

Cecil's one foot long piece of 200 ohm feedline allows one
to observe the elimination of reflections thus proving a
200 ohm Z0-match where the one who offered the example
thought there was a 50 ohm Z0-match.

I'm a professional teacher who uses lots of visual aids.
They work well on open-minded people. But they do often
pi$$ off closed-minded people because they leave nothing
worth arguing about.
--
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! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Cecil Moore wrote:
Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
In other words, Cecil's circulator is a device that takes a perfectly
straight-forward argument... and makes it circular.

Cecil's circulator is a device that gets hot when reflected
waves are present, proving that reflected waves possess
energy and power.

Cecil's TDR allows everything about a reflected pulse to
be known and measured.

Cecil's TV ghosting allows one to see the reflections with
one's own eyes.


None of those observations proves the existence of "waves of energy and
power". They can all be explained more simply and easily in terms of
waves of voltage and/or current (or in circulators and waveguide, waves
of E-field and/or H-field).

The world is still waiting for an explanation of the detailed internal
workings of *any* of those devices, done entirely in terms of "waves of
energy and power". A newsgroup limited to ASCII text is not the best
medium to attempt this... so will the forthcoming QEX article oblige?



I'm a professional teacher

Then this is far more serious than I thought! :-)



--
73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek