Richard Clark wrote:
It comes as no great surprise that this simple example of optical
power is so powerfully baffling to a neophyte.

Who said it is baffling? The problem is that if you cannot understand
the simplest of examples involving lossless, refractionless, laser
systems, you cannot possibly understand anything more complicated.
I haven't even read past your inability to understand that simple
example.
--
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 Harrison wrote:
When the source end of a transmission line is effectively a short or
open circuit, ir re-reflects the reflected wave.

Yep, which is exactly what happens with W7EL's "Food For Thought #1".
The fact that Roy didn't choose to mention the 2.828 amps of current
flowing in the middle that 1/2WL of transmission line is interesting.
--
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:

Richard Harrison wrote:
When the source end of a transmission line is effectively a short or
open circuit, ir re-reflects the reflected wave.

Are we then supposed to infer that it [the source] doesn't re-reflect
the wave if anything other than a short or open circuit appears there?

To that list of two, we can add two more. If the source end of a
transmission line is terminated in a pure reactance, it re-reflects
the reflected wave.

When 100% wave cancellation of reflected waves occurs at the source
due to total destructive interference, it re-reflects the reflected
wave energy components as constructive interference energy in the
opposite direction. Anything else would violate the conservation
of energy principle.
--
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:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Measuring the current at the mid-point of that
1/2WL of feedline will prove the feedline is filled with
EM wave energy which must travel at the speed of light.

So it follows that measuring voltage at the wall outlet proves there's
energy filling the wall. As always, it's important to remember that any
such energy would of course be traveling at the speed of light - and no
faster. :-)

There are thousands of unterminated wall outlets and hundreds of
terminated wall outlets spaced only a fraction of a wavelength from
each other. By all means, if you cannot understand the simplest of
examples, create an example that is so complicated that nobody can
understand. This is an example of someone trying to obfuscate things
in order to reduce everyone down to his/her low level of understanding.

Noting of course that EM energy can't normally put itself back into the
source after it's done bouncing around. So, since there's no load and
the system is lossless, no energy is produced or transferred, which
means zero power.

Zero *NET* power has nothing to do with the component powers. All it means
is that the forward power and reflected power are equal. The losses in
a real world transmission line depend upon the magnitude of the forward
and reflected powers which pretty much shoots your illogical argument in
the foot.

The higher the voltage applied to a real-world 1/2WL transmission line,
the greater the losses absorbed by the feedline. How the heck do you
explain that one by neglecting forward and reflected energy?
--
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:

Richard Harrison wrote:

When the source end of a transmission line is effectively a short or
open circuit, ir re-reflects the reflected wave.


Are we then supposed to infer that it [the source] doesn't re-reflect
the wave if anything other than a short or open circuit appears there?


To that list of two, we can add two more. If the source end of a
transmission line is terminated in a pure reactance, it re-reflects
the reflected wave.

When 100% wave cancellation of reflected waves occurs at the source
due to total destructive interference, it re-reflects the reflected
wave energy components as constructive interference energy in the
opposite direction. Anything else would violate the conservation
of energy principle.

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.

It's like saying a ball violates conservation of energy if it rolls down
hill without first passing through a Rube Goldberg contraption.

jeez, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Interesting to note that the interference phenomenon is often described
as a redistribution, but is never described in any reference as a
reflection, or re-reflection as you have done.

That's easy to understand in the context of light which can take a
vector in any direction in 3D space. However, a transmission line
is essentially an one-dimensional world. If something happens and
it doesn't happen in one direction, there is only one other direction
available. In other words, a redistribution of energy in a transmission
line is, by definition, a reflection (or re-reflection). If things
continue on in the original direction, it is not a redistribution. If it
is a redistribution, it must change direction by 180 degrees. That's so
simple a concept even you should be able to understand :-) but you
obviously haven't admitted such so far.

It doesn't, contrary to your assertion, first go in
the reflected direction, say oooops, then turn around in mid-air and go
in the other direction.

I never said it did, Jim. That is at worst a straw man on your
part or at least an extreme lack of understanding of what I said.
Because of your semantic objection, I changed interference events
from happening on either side of the match point to happening *AT*
the dimisionless match point in my article. In my article, everything
happens *AT* the match point, NOT on either side of the match point.

The reflection is prevented. Comprende senor?

Yes, I agree 100% and always have. The reflection is prevented by
wave cancellation of two reflected waves. We have been over this
item a hundred times and you still think your straw men will work?
Instead of introducing every diversion known to man, why don't you
just discuss the technical details? We agree 100% except for the most
minute of details and you have been aware of that for months now. You
have even said that in private emails to me.

The Bird wattmeter can be misleading in this regard. It measures the
effect of a field (sometimes like the one in Born and Wolf that doesn't
have transfer of energy associated with it), and in every case assumes
energy and power. But it's simple minded so it has an excuse.

It certainly depends on your definition of power. Yours is not the same
as the IEEE Dictionary so you have an excuse. That excuse is obviously:
"Physicists are superior to engineers in every way and are allowed special
sacred cow privileges when defining words!" :-) Engineering power does NOT
require that it be dissipated, it only requires that energy be flowing.
Joules/Sec flowing past a point satisfies the definition of power as
defined by the IEEE. The Bird Wattmeter measures IEEE 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 =---

Richard Clark wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Most of your past objections are personal opinions

Curious how you flail at these imaginary demons and blow off his
actual quote from your source negating your premise.

Curious how you delete "his actual quote ... negating my premises".
--
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:
And isn't it true that if there were actually a real hard short or a
complete open circuit at the source, there wouldn't even be a signal on
the transmission line?

Yep, that's why one cannot use circuit analysis on distributed
network problems.
--
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 Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:35:16 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

The problem is that if you cannot understand
the simplest of examples involving lossless, refractionless, laser
systems, you cannot possibly understand anything more complicated.

Um, yes. Can tell us why your example exhibits a reflection product
TEN TIMES BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN; when in your words it has canceled
completely? :-)

This question, like others, is likely to suffer the fate of you
whining on about "understanding." Go ahead anyway, it establishes you
as an academy of one - just don't chew the scenery.

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.

Everything I said is 100% consistant with the laws of physics.
Your "in other words" statements violate the laws of physics.
Every "in other words" statement that you have ever made, Jim,
has been 100% incorrect. Maybe you should try to understand
the concept before offering an "in other words" statement?
--
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 =---