On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:05:08 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
I wish I could share my email with you.
There is only agreement and encouragement.
Oh, how touching. Wallflower testimonials. Must be a couple of
thousand by now. Try sending them to your editor, at least it would
prove you have circulation capacity.
I stick with a thread longer than I probably should.
You must find that mail pretty shallow then.

You are my hero Cecil!

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Fred W4JLE wrote:
I have only found infallibility in Terman, Kraus, Maxwell, The Pope,
and
now Cecil!

I apologize profusely, Fred, and will strive for infallibility.
--
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:

Why do you refuse to answer the question: Given reflected energy
rejected by a mismatched load, what causes the reversal of direction
of the energy flow and momentum at the match point?

The only thing which can cause energy to change direction is reflection.
I have answered that question every time you asked it. Perhaps you
were just unable to grasp the meaning of the answer. It means that for
an electromagnetic wave to reverse direction, it must encounter a change
in the nature of the conducting medium.

Interference results when two or more waves superpose. The pattern is
the amplitude resultant plotted as a function of position. It may be
generated as a result of a reflection, but is not an entity which itself
reflects waves. Impedance discontinuities or changes in the index of
refraction - those things cause reflection. An interference pattern
created by waves is still just waves arranged differently. Waves don't
cause other waves to change direction. If you think they do, then you
need to try to find some proof. Adding your misguided editorials to
desriptions of interference doesn't qualify.

ac6xg

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"What phenomenon of physics causes the energy and momentum in that wave
to reverse direction?"

It must keep moving and if it can`t go somewhere it goes elsewhere.

Shorts and opens are a way to control current which in its magnitude,
phase, and path produces fields.

In a transmission line or wave guide, waves are guided. In free-space,
waves move away from the source.

In a small single-turn loop, the current everywhere within the loop is
very nearly the same. A complete null is achieved on the axis of the
loop (see 3rd edition of Kraus` "Antennas" page 204, Fig. 7-7).

The loop`s null results from equidistance along the axis srom corrent
and fields which are in opposite directions. The fields are moving in
the same directions but because of their opposite polarities add to zero
along the axis.

So, to opens and shorts, equal and opposite radiation fields can be
added to the list of things which cancel energy traveling in a certain
direction. When a fixed rate of energy flow must be maintained,
cancelled energy must emerge in the noncancelled directions. It`s energy
conservation.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:42:36 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Why do you refuse to answer the question
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 17:25:53 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
I have answered that question every time you asked it.

Hmmm, an infinite reflection problem.

This certainly must be the single place precision proof for having
enough energy not to cancel anything.

C'mon guys, dress it up with some style or humor, otherwise it is like
watching C-SPAN with two politicians spitting at each other in an
empty chamber of congress. :-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
The only thing which can cause energy to change direction is reflection.
I have answered that question every time you asked it.

But that is a non-answer and you don't offer any idea as to the cause
of the reflection. What causes 100% re-reflection of reflected waves
in a matched system? You are still avoiding a valid answer.

It means that for
an electromagnetic wave to reverse direction, it must encounter a change
in the nature of the conducting medium.

Assume it encounters a power reflection coefficient of 0.5 in a
matched system. What causes the reflection of the other half of
the reflected energy?

Impedance discontinuities or changes in the index of
refraction - those things cause reflection.

Yes, and wave cancellation in a transmission line only happens at
an impedance discontinuity so your assertion has no point.

An interference pattern
created by waves is still just waves arranged differently.

On the contrary, wave cancellation at a match point is permanent.
The waves cease to existence in the direction of the source. They
are not arranged differently. Your assertion is obviously false
for interference patterns at match points in transmission lines.
Before you go into a tirade, what you say is usually true, just
not for match points in transmission lines which is a special case.

Waves don't cause other waves to change direction.

Normally, that's true. But when the two coherent waves disappear
from existence in the direction of the source, the conservation
of energy principle takes over. If the energy is not flowing
toward the source then it must necessarily flow toward the load.
That is such a simple concept it's hard to believe that you
cannot comprehend it. It's explained in the web page quote below.

If you think they do, then you need to try to find some proof.

Isn't the following proof enough? They are talking about wave
cancellation such as happens at a non-reflective surface or a
match point in a transmission line.

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-
degrees out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
annihilated. All of the photon energy present in these waves must
somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
the law of energy conservation ..."

"Redistributed in a new direction" in a transmission line means
changing direction. What is it about that simple concept that
you fail to comprehend?
--
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:

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"What phenomenon of physics causes the energy and momentum in that wave
to reverse direction?"

So, to opens and shorts, equal and opposite radiation fields can be
added to the list of things which cancel energy traveling in a certain
direction.

Thanks Richard, that's what I have been trying to say. And the
"equal and opposite radiation fields" can occur inside a
transmission line at an impedance discontinuity. After all, an
RF transmission line signal is just EM wave-fields contained
by a boundary.

Walter Maxwell said such in "Reflections II", page 23-9:
"With equal magnitudes and opposite phase at the same point
(Point A, the matching point), the sum of the two waves is
zero."

When two waves sum to zero, their energy components must be
redistributed. In a transmission line, if energy ceases flowing
in one direction, it must change directions. That's a reflection.

So here's a list of things that can cause 100% re-reflection of
reflected energy in a transmission line. 1. short-circuit,
2. open-circuit, 3. pure reactance, 4. permanent wave cancellation
at an impedance discontinuity.
--
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:

The only thing which can cause energy to change direction is
reflection. I have answered that question every time you asked it.


But that is a non-answer and you don't offer any idea as to the cause
of the reflection.

I have also explained the cause of reflection to you many times. (Hint:
it's the change in media thing. See below for one example.)

What causes 100% re-reflection of reflected waves
in a matched system? You are still avoiding a valid answer.

I wrote you an email with a reference that I recomended you read.
It's the best explanation I've seen. I'll bet you haven't read it. I
don't know why you keep saying I avoid these things when my efforts to
explain it to you is my entire purpose for corresponding on the subject.

It means that for an electromagnetic wave to reverse direction, it
must encounter a change in the nature of the conducting medium.


Assume it encounters a power reflection coefficient of 0.5 in a
matched system. What causes the reflection of the other half of
the reflected energy?

The thing that causes reflection is a change in media. Impedance, index
of refraction - something like that. See below.

Impedance discontinuities or changes in the index of refraction -
those things cause reflection.


Yes, and wave cancellation in a transmission line only happens at
an impedance discontinuity so your assertion has no point.

Then it must be that your question, which I answered, had no point.

An interference pattern created by waves is still just waves arranged
differently.


On the contrary, wave cancellation at a match point is permanent.

The statement is less contrary than your disposition.

Waves don't cause other waves to change direction.


Normally, that's true.

As if you would know. It's of course always true.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I wrote you an email with a reference that I recomended you read.
It's the best explanation I've seen. I'll bet you haven't read it.

You simply cannot hurl nasty, obscene, ad hominem insults and still
expect someone to read your emails. You cannot say you weren't warned.

Waves don't cause other waves to change direction.

Normally, that's true.

As if you would know. It's of course always true.

It is, of course, not always true as proven by the quote from the
following web page. What is it about WAVE INTERFERENCE causing energy
to be "redistributed in a new direction" that you don't understand?

It clearly contradicts what you are asserting. It plainly asserts that
TWO INTERFERING WAVES can cause the energy in the two waves to change
direction. And it can only happen at an impedance discontinuity
which should be enough to satisfy your requirements.

"... when two waves of equal amplitude and wavelength that are 180-
degrees out of phase with each other meet, they are not actually
annihilated. All of the photon energy present in these waves must
somehow be recovered or redistributed in a new direction, according to
the law of energy conservation ... Instead, upon meeting, the photons
are redistributed to regions that permit constructive interference, so
the effect should be considered as a redistribution of light waves and
photon energy rather than the spontaneous construction or destruction
of light."

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But I do
believe that my references outweigh yours by a long shot.
--
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:
I wrote you an email with a reference that I recomended you read.
It's the best explanation I've seen. I'll bet you haven't read it.


You simply cannot hurl nasty, obscene, ad hominem insults and still
expect someone to read your emails. You cannot say you weren't warned.

For those reading along, here are the remarks Cecil is characterizing as
nasty and obscene:

"I understand your point perfectly. You still fail to address a single
point. You're a very odd cat, Cecil. The hostility is totally weird."

ac6xg