On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:33:05 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
It seems you have forgotten the purpose of the laser example.
I have been reminding you of "Glare" and asking for its wavelength for
months. No, I have not forgotten, I just haven't gotten an answer is
all. Let's face it, when your xerox crutch didn't include that
detail, your dearth of experience drew a blank.

If you want, I can answer it for you - just like all the other power
questions that attended your "laser design." You see, the difference
is that I've worked with and engineered them instead of building
flip-flops (do I note a similarity in your writing style here too?).

It takes more than simply being the holy cowboy of the sacred herd.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:42:22 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The purpose of the laser example is to make it as much like a
transmission line example as possible. A Bird wattmeter indicates
that all reflections are eliminated

Never met the class of Bird wattmeter that measures laser - and
neither have you. Get your thumb off the scale and put it where it
belongs.

Richard Clark wrote:
If
you don't care to answer for why the reflections of your model are
TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN, ...

Already answered. A Bird wattmeter indicates zero reflections
in the T-line example so *ZERO* reflections are assumed as a
boundary condition in the laser example. The net reflections
are NOT ten times brighter than the sun - they are flat black,
by definition.
--
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 =----

Richard Clark wrote:
I have been reminding you of "Glare" and asking for its wavelength for
months.

I assume you know how to calculate the wavelength of a
single-frequency coherent source like the one assumed
in the laser example. WL=c/f

The purpose of the laser example is to make it as much like a
transmission line example as possible. A Bird wattmeter indicates
that all reflections are eliminated in the T-line example so
the laser example assumes that as a boundary condition.

Never met the class of Bird wattmeter that measures laser ...

Didn't say it did. Read it again.
--
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 =----

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:49:35 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
If you don't care to answer for why the reflections of your model are
TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN, ...

they are flat black, by definition.
I GET IT ! A new definition of black. You are indeed the Holy Cowboy
of the blind Sacred Longhorn. ;-)

Richard Clark wrote:
You are indeed the Holy Cowboy of the blind Sacred Longhorn. ;-)

No Sacred Longhorns around here. Texas Aggies barbeque
longhorns at every (few and far between) opportunity.
--
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:

Richard Harrison wrote:

Regardless of reflections and re-reflections, all the energy sourced
into a transmission line ends up in the load if it isn`t lost in
transmission by radiation or conversion into heat. There`s no place else
for it to go.


Hi Richard, does that statement assume that all energy
dissipated as heat in the source was never sourced?

It seems to. Since he wrote "all the energy sourced
into a transmission line", it's doubtful that he was implying that any
heat energy was sourced into the transmission line. That would be silly
(RF transmission line is opaque in the infrared). He probably also
assumed that the energy dissipated by the front panel lights wasn't
sourced into the transmission line either. You forgot to ask about
that. ;-)

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Hi Richard, does that statement assume that all energy
dissipated as heat in the source was never sourced?

It seems to. Since he wrote "all the energy sourced
into a transmission line", it's doubtful that he was implying that any
heat energy was sourced into the transmission line.

You missed the implication which was: Does any RF energy
exit the source only to re-enter the source again later
and wind up being dissipated as heat? For instance, we
know that a capacitive load is capable of returning
energy to the source during part of the cycle.
--
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:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Hi Richard, does that statement assume that all energy
dissipated as heat in the source was never sourced?


It seems to. Since he wrote "all the energy sourced
into a transmission line", it's doubtful that he was implying that any
heat energy was sourced into the transmission line.


You missed the implication which was: Does any RF energy
exit the source only to re-enter the source again later
and wind up being dissipated as heat?

That implication did escape notice. Clearly Richard was talking about
something else.

But it's an interesting question. It would be nice to see some
objective data.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
"You take too great a liberty with the name Eugene Hecht. Among the
things which won`t be found in any of Dr. Hecht`s texts is a minus sign
in front of a number expressing an impedance."

Don`t know why not. It happens at radio frequencies all the time. Look
through Kraus` chapter on "Mutual Impedance of Other Configurations".

B. Whitfield Griffith, Jr. gives a practical example starting on page
427 of "Radio-Electronic Transmission Fundamentals". On page 429 he
writes:
"We immediately notice one disturbing fact: the resistance component of
tower 1 has come out to be a negative number. This does not mean the
computations are wrong; it simply means that this tower because of the
particular phasing and current relationships of this array, will be
absorbing more power than it will be radiating itself."

This is an old story with broadcast antenna arrays.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
"In other words a system in which all of the power from the source
reaches the load and none is reflected back to the source without first
reflecting then re-reflecting would violate conservation of energy."

Conservation of energy means that energy is neither created nor
destroyed, but that heat and other forms of energy are quantitifiable
and convertable in their equivalence. The total amount of mechanical,
thermal, chemical, electrical, and other forms of energy in any isolated
system remains constant. A century ago, Einstein broadened the law to
include equivalence of mass and energy.

Regardless of reflections and re-reflections, all the energy sourced
into a transmission line ends up in the load if it isn`t lost in
transmission by radiation or conversion into heat. There`s no place else
for it to go.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Yes, thanks Richard. It is quite a simple concept. But my contention
really isn't about conservation of energy. It's about the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. Nature does not require a rolling ball to run through a
Rube Goldberg contraption in order to conserve energy. In fact it
generally abhors such things. "One should not increase, beyond what is
necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

73, ac6xg

Cecil Moore, W5DXP is alleged to have written:
"Nor will we find a negative scalar quantity accompanied by the claim
that the negative sign indicates a change in direction as you have
done."

Have not read Hscht, but I`ve read Terman and realize that a
transmission line can guide a wave only forward and backward. Sometimes
backward is considered the negative direction.

Terman gives an example on page 90 of his 1955 edition:
"When the load end of the line is shorted, that is Eload =0 , reference
to Eq. (4-14) shows the reflection coefficient has the value -1.0 on an
angle of 0-deg.= 1.0 on an angle of 180-deg. As in the open-circuited
case, the reflected wave has an amplitude equal to the amplitude of the
incident wave. However, the refleection now takes place with a reversal
in phase of the voltage and without change in phase of the current."

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Jim Kelley wrote:
"It`s about the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

Which a
1. You can`t win.
2. You can`t break even.
3. You can`t get out of the game.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Harrison wrote:

Cecil Moore, W5DXP is alleged to have written:

Jim Kelley actually claims to have written it.

"Nor will we find a negative scalar quantity accompanied by the claim
that the negative sign indicates a change in direction as you have
done."

Have not read Hscht, but I`ve read Terman and realize that a
transmission line can guide a wave only forward and backward. Sometimes
backward is considered the negative direction.

Yes, for vector quantities expressed as a function of position or time.

Terman gives an example on page 90 of his 1955 edition:
"When the load end of the line is shorted, that is Eload =0 , reference
to Eq. (4-14) shows the reflection coefficient has the value -1.0 on an
angle of 0-deg.= 1.0 on an angle of 180-deg. As in the open-circuited
case, the reflected wave has an amplitude equal to the amplitude of the
incident wave. However, the refleection now takes place with a reversal
in phase of the voltage and without change in phase of the current."

From Webster's Collegiate:
Scalar - a quantity such as mass or time that has a magnitude
describable by a real number and no direction

Power as a scalar quantity does not have direction, and so one could not
for example subtract power 'moving' in one direction from power 'moving'
in the other direction by arbitrarily multiplying one of the magnitudes
by negative one.

73, ac6xg

Richard Harrison wrote:
Cecil Moore, W5DXP is alleged to have written:

Actually, it was Jim Kelley who wrote the following.

"Nor will we find a negative scalar quantity accompanied by the claim
that the negative sign indicates a change in direction as you have
done."

Have not read Hecht, but I`ve read Terman and realize that a
transmission line can guide a wave only forward and backward. Sometimes
backward is considered the negative direction.

Yep, that's what I told him. In fact, Ramo & Whinnery illustrate
the Poynting vector for forward power as Pz+ and the Poynting
vector for reflected power as Pz-. The net power is (Pz+)-(Pz-).
--
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 =---

Jim Kelley wrote:
Power as a scalar quantity does not have direction, and so one could not
for example subtract power 'moving' in one direction from power 'moving'
in the other direction by arbitrarily multiplying one of the magnitudes
by negative one.

For engineers, the direction of the arrow for the Power
Flow Vector in joules/sec is generally accepted to be the
same as the direction of the joules.

From the IEEE Dictionary: "power-flow vector - Vector-
characterizing energy propagation caused by a wave and
giving magnitude and direction of power per unit-area
propagating in the wave."

Please note the "*DIRECTION OF POWER* ... *PROPAGATING*
in the wave", a direct contradiction to your above assertion.
The power measured at the source somehow finds its way to the
load in spite of not having any direction (according to you. :-)

Most of your rantings and ravings over what I have said
are simply semantics and definitions. RF energy and RF
power are so closely related that Walter C. Johnson talks
about the "principle of conservation of power".
--
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 =---

Jim Kelley wrote:
"Power as a scalar quantity does not have direction, and so one could
not for example subtract power "moving" in the other direction by
arbitrarily multiplying by negative one."

Terman did so rather deftly. We make simplifying assumptions and replace
the general case with the special case all the time. Bird defines true
power delivered by the source to the load as the difference between its
forward and reverse power indications. It`s satisfactory in most cases.

Inductive and capacitive reactances are routinely added together to give
the net reactance and it works fine so long as the reactances are pure.
They lie on the same axis but in opposite directions so can be treated
as scalars. Another special case.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:05:57 -0500, (Richard
Harrison) wrote:

Bird defines true
power delivered by the source to the load as the difference between its
forward and reverse power indications. It`s satisfactory in most cases.

Hi Richard,

That's because the vector arrow is printed on the knob. You won't
find a vector notation in the math that has been bandied about because
it deals with Scalars and Phase independently (and absolutely no
direction expressed whatever).

Any introduction of direction is purely an invention unsupported by
references so far expressed. However having pointed this out, like
the multitude of mistakes that have gone before it, is not going to
change the pantomime.

Marcel can go through the motions of wiping the window clean, but
there's no glass there. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Any introduction of direction is purely an invention unsupported by
references so far expressed.

You must have missed the IEEE Definition of "power flow vector".
It speaks of "power ... propagating in the wave". Here's another
definition from the IEEE Dictionary:

"power vector - ... a vector whose magnitude is equal to the
apparent power ..." A power vector diagram in three dimensions
appears with this definition along with its direction. There
is a vector for distortion power, reactive power, and active
power, all orthogonal to each other, vectorally adding up to
the total power vector. I'll bet you are rolling Hecht's or
Einstein's eyes again at the concept of "reactive power".

These definitions are conventions from various fields of
engineering. One is not wrong and the other right. They are
simply context based definitions. English is NOT a context
free language. You have your own little sacred cow definitions
from pure physics but please don't try to force them on the rest
of the world. (You would probably say the definition of power in
Chinese is wrong because you can't read it.)

A power company engineer would be confused about your concept of
how the power generated by the generation plant cannot get to the
consumer hundreds of miles away. Ask him what is in his
transmission lines and he will say power, some of it reactive.

Some RF engineers are confused about your concept of how the
power generated by the transmitter cannot get to the antenna.
In fact, if the transmission line is one microsecond long,
the same power measured at the transmitter makes it to the
antenna one microsecond later minus losses. Some incident power
may be rejected by a mismatched load as reflected power, which
is incident upon the source one microsecond later minus losses.
--
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 =----

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 08:13:42 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
A power company engineer would be confused
You know some pretty stupid engineers - from the binary field?
P= I²R
Which one is the vector?
P=E²/R
Which one is the vector?

Does your power company deliver your 60Hz via laser? Or do they use a
Log Periodic Array? A transmission line like the zip cord to your
lamp? What is the characteristic Z of that transmission line? Is it
matched to the load? To the source?

Sorry to ask all these basic questions so far beyond your ability to
render into TTL. No doubt we will get many explanations but no
answers.

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
A power company engineer would be confused

You know some pretty stupid engineers ...

Typical of you to call someone stupid when they simply
come from a different field and have different conventions
from your personal sacred cow definitions.

Which one is the vector?

P^ = E^ x H^ (where '^' denotes vectors) The vector
product (cross product) of two vectors is also a vector.
If E^ and H^ are vectors and their vector product is
power, then that power is a vector with magnitude and
direction. (I appologize if that fact bothers physicists.)

Does your power company deliver your 60Hz via laser?

The wavelength of 60Hz power is about 3000 miles but
it obeys Maxwell's equations just like all other
electromagnetic energy from DC to gamma rays.
--
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 =---

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:05:24 -0500, Marcel scrubbing vigorously in the
air:

Typical of you to call someone stupid when they simply
come from a different field

It stands to reason when that engineer changes the questions to suit
the only answers he knows.

Only a stupid engineer would use the cross product to figure out 60Hz
transmission line delivery. Really, I too have a library, thick
volumes including very detailed specifics of 60Hz power, and they
seemed to have built an entire industry without worrying about
direction vectors. Luckily they didn't employ flip-flop designers to
build linear systems.

Ask him what is in his
transmission lines and he will say power, some of it reactive.

The topic of reactive LOADS (not lines) is discussed at great length
and nowhere is it stated that transmission lines have power IN THEM.
However, your impoverished representation of the power industry
knowledge serves only your lame theories.

Which one is the vector?

P^ = E^ x H^

The very first formula from the Standard Handbook for Electrical
Engineers, Section 11, Power Transmission, Electrical Calculations:
I = P / E (1)
no vector notation used or needed.

(I appologize if that fact bothers physicists.)
Your guilt has been duly noted.

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Section 11, Power
Transmission, Electrical Calculations, Para 13, Transmission Line
calculations:
"Analytical solutions of problems involving vector quantities may
be made by resolving each vector into two components - R and jX"
no vector notation used or needed, and certainly direction and power
are wholly missing. This is entirely congruent with my statement.

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Section 11, Power
Transmission, Para. 33, Charts and Diagrams:
Figures 19 & 20, Perrine-Baum diagrams.
no direction vectors whatever.

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Section 11, Power
Transmission, Para. 36, Charts and Diagrams:
Figures 22, Mershon diagrams.
no direction vectors whatever.

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Section 11, Power
Transmission, Para. 44, General Features of Design:
no direction vectors whatever.

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Section 11, Power
Transmission, Para. 69, System Disturbances:
no direction vectors whatever.

The wavelength of 60Hz power is about 3000 miles

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Section 11, Power
Transmission, Para. 73, A Line whose length is a quarter wave:
L = 183000 / 4f
no direction vectors whatever.

FINALLY! The only explicit direction vector (but still no math vector
actually used):

Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, Section 11, Power
Transmission, Para. 102, Calculation of Horizontal Stress; Para. 106,
Example of stress-sag calculation; Para. 111 The Thomas chart for sag;
Para. 129, Flexible Towers ...

Well, that's just about the end of it (this tome is only 2000 pages
long and undoubtedly missed your cross product somewhere among all
this useless information).

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:07:29 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:
yet another tantalizing, unanswerable question: What wavelength is Glare?

Dear Readers,

In this vein, and from contemporary reports from the NY Times comes:
"It's the old story of the C.E.O. who asks the chief marketing
officer, 'What happens if I take 10 percent out of the marketing
budget?' and the C.M.O. replies, 'I don't know,' so the C.E.O.
says: 'O.K., I'll take 20 percent.' "
...
"Marketers are tracking all kinds of data and they still can't
answer basic questions" about advertising accountability..."

This, of course, returns us to the sage advice offered by me
previously:
"Visually compare glare reductions before you buy anything."
especially when the salesman in boots tells you that you cannot see
reflections TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN.

Salesman: "Any totally cancelled Glare that you will see is Black."

Turning lemons into lemonade:
"Glare that is TEN TIMES BLACKER THAN THE SUN!"
Let's just hope it doesn't turn up in toothpaste. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:

For engineers, the direction of the arrow for the Power
Flow Vector in joules/sec is generally accepted to be the
same as the direction of the joules.

I am an engineer, Cecil. I just happen to work in the field of physics.
I could be wrong, but I don't think a Bird wattmeter measures or
displays Power Flow Vector.

From the IEEE Dictionary: "power-flow vector - Vector-
characterizing energy propagation caused by a wave and
giving magnitude and direction of power per unit-area
propagating in the wave."


Please note the "*DIRECTION OF POWER* ... *PROPAGATING*
in the wave", a direct contradiction to your above assertion.

The power measured at the source somehow finds its way to the
load in spite of not having any direction (according to you. :-)

Well, it's true for me and probably for most other people who have a
grasp of the subject. It's actually energy which does the moving.
Power is just the rate at which energy finds its way there.

It's like this. Let's say you're riding your Harley through town at 50
MPH and somebody pulls out of a side street right in front of you. Does
the speed of your motorcycle collide with the car, or does your
motorcycle collide with it?

73, ac6xg

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:22:52 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:

Does
the speed of your motorcycle collide with the car, or does your
motorcycle collide with it?

Hi Jim,

Classic Insurance claim form entry:
"I was just driving down the road when, suddenly,
this tree appeared in front of me and hit me."

I think we have the same class of claimant in the process here.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Only a stupid engineer would use the cross product to figure out 60Hz
transmission line delivery.

Uhhhhh Richard, engineers who understand Poynting Vectors
are not stupid. Do you understand Poynting Vectors? 60 Hz
transmission lines have an E-field and an H-field. Those
fields are vectors. The cross product of those fields is
the power-flow vector. (I hope your upper lip survives that
fact of engineering physics.) Every power engineer that I have
ever known is capable of discussing "power flow" without batting
an eye. However, being a member of MENSA allows me to understand
both sides of the argument. :-) Are you a member of MENSA?

However, your impoverished representation of the power industry
knowledge serves only your lame theories.

It appears that what is impoverished is your understanding of
the power industry (and many other industries).

P^ = E^ x H^

The very first formula from the Standard Handbook for Electrical

The very first formula in my "Electronics Equations Handbook"
is R = pl/a. The importance of being first escapes me. Are we
to accept the first and reject the rest?

Engineers, Section 11, Power Transmission, Electrical Calculations:
I = P / E (1)
no vector notation used or needed.

Mr. Poynting is rolling his eyes at you. :-) I have heard that
same argument before. "I understand Ohm's Law! Everything else
is gobbledegook!" (Never mind that the poster cannot even spell
"gobbledygook" correctly.)

This is entirely congruent with my statement.

Which is more important? - congruence or relevance?
(a rhetorical question - no answer required)

no direction vectors whatever.

You left out: there's no direction vectors in "Alice In
Wonderland". (No doubt your favorite technical reference.)
--
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 =---

Richard Clark wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
yet another tantalizing, unanswerable question: What wavelength is Glare?

Dear Readers,

Richard, I am really worried about you arguing with your own
postings. The wavelength of glare from a single-frequency
coherent laser is obviously the same as the wavelength of the
laser's primary output beam. What else could it possibly be?
--
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 =---

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:00:51 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Uhhhhh Richard ... Are you a member of MENSA?

Classic bookends.

The very first formula in my "Electronics Equations Handbook"
is R = pl/a. The importance of being first escapes me.

:-)

You left out: there's no direction vectors in "Alice In Wonderland"

From my references for Power Distribution Engineers abstracted to your
need of vectors in a fantasy.

Even when you can't answer your own topic, it is still amusing,
nonetheless.

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
For engineers, the direction of the arrow for the Power
Flow Vector in joules/sec is generally accepted to be the
same as the direction of the joules.

I am an engineer, Cecil. I just happen to work in the field of physics.
I could be wrong, but I don't think a Bird wattmeter measures or
displays Power Flow Vector.

On the contrary, Jim, it measures and displays the Power Flow
Vector as explained in Ramo & Whinnery. The arrow on the slug
indicates the direction of the Power Flow Vector. The reading
of the meter indicates the magnitude of the Power Flow Vector.
The Bird is indirectly measuring [(E^for) x (H^for)] as forward
power and [(E^ref) x (H^ref)] as reflected power.

Well, it's true for me and probably for most other people who have a
grasp of the subject. It's actually energy which does the moving. Power
is just the rate at which energy finds its way there.

But everyone except you and a handful of others recognize the
fact that RF joules/sec and RF joules are virtually interchangeable
since EM energy cannot be stored in any condition other than as
EM energy traveling at the speed of light and real time cannot be
stopped or slowed down or speeded up (under normal circumstances).
Your statement that "there is no before and after" is a clue
to your misconceptions. If there truly was no before and after,
the modulation of our RF signals would never make it to the antenna.

It's like this. Let's say you're riding your Harley through town at 50
MPH ...

"I couldn't possibly be going 50 MPH - I only left home ten
minutes ago." :-) Believe it or not, that's exactly your argument.

Are you going to deny that the cross product of E^ x H^ is a
vector? You will have 1000 buried mathematicians rolling their
eyes in their graves (according to Richard C).
--
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:

Cecil Moore wrote:

For engineers, the direction of the arrow for the Power
Flow Vector in joules/sec is generally accepted to be the
same as the direction of the joules.


I am an engineer, Cecil. I just happen to work in the field of
physics. I could be wrong, but I don't think a Bird wattmeter measures
or displays Power Flow Vector.


On the contrary, Jim, it measures and displays the Power Flow
Vector as explained in Ramo & Whinnery. The arrow on the slug
indicates the direction of the Power Flow Vector. The reading
of the meter indicates the magnitude of the Power Flow Vector.
The Bird is indirectly measuring [(E^for) x (H^for)] as forward
power and [(E^ref) x (H^ref)] as reflected power.

Even though it doesn't actually measure any of those things, or the density.

Well, it's true for me and probably for most other people who have a
grasp of the subject. It's actually energy which does the moving.
Power is just the rate at which energy finds its way there.


But everyone except you and a handful of others recognize the
fact that RF joules/sec and RF joules are virtually interchangeable
since EM energy cannot be stored in any condition other than as
EM energy traveling at the speed of light and real time cannot be
stopped or slowed down or speeded up (under normal circumstances).
Your statement that "there is no before and after" is a clue
to your misconceptions. If there truly was no before and after,
the modulation of our RF signals would never make it to the antenna.

Yes. Everybody except me knows that Joules = Joules/sec. Must be
because there's no such thing as time. Right Cecil? ;-)

It's like this. Let's say you're riding your Harley through town at
50 MPH ...


"I couldn't possibly be going 50 MPH - I only left home ten
minutes ago." :-) Believe it or not, that's exactly your argument.

'Not' would be correct.

Are you going to deny that the cross product of E^ x H^ is a
vector? You will have 1000 buried mathematicians rolling their
eyes in their graves (according to Richard C).

I think I'll stick with just saying that power, as a scaler quantity
does not have direction and cannot be negative. I have no argument with
you about vector quantities - as much as you'd like folks to believe
that I do. Thanks but no thanks, bubba.

73, ac6xg

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:05:18 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
yet another tantalizing, unanswerable question: What wavelength is Glare?

Dear Readers,

Richard, I am really worried about you arguing with your own
postings. The wavelength of glare from a single-frequency
coherent laser is obviously the same as the wavelength of the
laser's primary output beam. What else could it possibly be?

Golly gee, fellas, you two, Cecil and Richard C, you sure don't talk
nice to each other. But it sure is fun to sit back and listen to you
scream at each other. Just think, what would happen if Leno and
Letterman should be reading the mail? They'd kill each other to get
their hands on you for their nightly shows, and they could fire all
their present writers.

Walt

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:56:04 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

They'd kill each other to get
their hands on you for their nightly shows, and they could fire all
their present writers.

Thanx Walt,

I'd be hard pressed for material without the stooge.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
The Bird is indirectly measuring [(E^for) x (H^for)] as forward
power and [(E^ref) x (H^ref)] as reflected power.

That statement bears no physical relationship to how the instrument
actually works (and "indirectly" won't get you off the hook either).


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

It takes at least two stooges interacting to be funny.


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:56:04 -0400, Walter Maxwell
wrote:

They'd kill each other to get
their hands on you for their nightly shows, and they could fire all
their present writers.

Thanx Walt,

I'd be hard pressed for material without the stooge.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:28:03 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

It takes at least two stooges interacting to be funny.

Now taking applications.

Hi Fred,

It takes a condition called irony-deficit disorder to wade into these
things and say that. ;-)

Let's just give an example of the straight-man's lead into the joke:

"I flipped the switch to a 100W light Bulb.
What direction vector is the optical power?"

The Scientist would ask for this in standard notation, but we all know
that he isn't going to get that - hence, the subject from the
beginning is a joke. Now, only to wait for the punchline:
(drumroll) Ta-ta-dum....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"Any introduction of direction is purely an invention unsupported by
references so far presented."

I referred to Terman`s 1955 edition, page 90, where Terman wrote:
"Where the load end of the line is short-circuited, that is Eload=0,
reference to Sq. (4-14) shows the reflecction coefficient has the value
-1.0 on an angle of 0-deg. = +1.0 on an angle of 180-deg. As in the
open-circuited case, the reflected wave has an amplitude equal to the
amplitude of the incident wave. However, the reflection now takes place
with reversal in phase of the voltage and without change in phase of the
current."

Of course, in the case of the open=circuited load, the reflection takes
place with reversal in phase of the current and without change in phase
of the voltage.

Terman`s writing has stood siuccessfully unchallenged for at least 50
years.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Jim Kelley wrote:
I think I'll stick with just saying that power, as a scaler quantity
does not have direction and cannot be negative.

So what is E^ x H^?
--
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 =----

Ian White G/GM3SEK wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
The Bird is indirectly measuring [(E^for) x (H^for)] as forward
power and [(E^ref) x (H^ref)] as reflected power.

That statement bears no physical relationship to how the instrument
actually works (and "indirectly" won't get you off the hook either).

I was hoping someone would assert such. E^for is proportional to
Vfor which is what the Bird samples. H^for is proportional to
Ifor which is what the Bird samples. Within a 50 ohm environment
that yields forward power. Same for reflected power.
--
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 =----

Richard Clark wrote:
"The very first formula from the Standard Handbook for Electrical
Engineers, Section 11. Power Transmission, Electrical Calculsations:
I = P/E (1) "

Unless a d-c transmission is specified, that`s wrong.

P=EI cos theta, where theta is the angle between E & I. For 0-deg. coa
theta=1.

Cos theta is synonymous with the "power factor" of a single phase
circuit.

I`m relying on memory which is good for old things.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard Clark jested:
"I flipped the switch to a light bulb. What direction is the optical
power?"

Seriously, away from and toward are directions. We expect a light bulb
to be an energy source. If it becomes a sink it has a negative effect.

From John E. (Here`s Johnny!) Cinningham`s "The Complete Broadcast
Antenna Handbook", page 243:
"Again, if the base impedance is a negative number, this merely means
that energy is flowing out of a tower (toward the transmitter) instead
of into it (from the transmitter)."

Sign is certainly used to indicate the direction of energy movement or
the same thing, power flow.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI