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

Please don't be ridiculous. No, the remarks I am characterizing
as nasty and obscene are commonly know as "mind f__king".
--
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:

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


Please don't be ridiculous. No, the remarks I am characterizing
as nasty and obscene are commonly know as "mind f__king".

That's obscene alright.

Maybe it was when I said that you're describing the match point as if it
were a 100% reflective one-way mirror. A one way mirror is actually not
a bad analogy. Problem is you keep insisting that it must be 100%
reflective - which obviously can't work. I tried to explain that each
reflection is only partial, but each wavefront subsequently experiences
multiple reflections - each time reduced in amplitude by a factor of
rho1*rho2 per round trip. And, that the total amplitude equals the sum
of all previous undamped reflections, which happens to equal the 100%
number. That's what is in the textbooks I referred to you. It's also
what Walt explains in his 1/4 wave transformer diagrams.

If the truth is a vulgar obscenity to you, then I guess I might rightly
be accused of "hurling" that at you.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I tried to explain that each
reflection is only partial, but each wavefront subsequently experiences
multiple reflections - each time reduced in amplitude by a factor of
rho1*rho2 per round trip. And, that the total amplitude equals the sum
of all previous undamped reflections, which happens to equal the 100%
number. That's what is in the textbooks I referred to you. It's also
what Walt explains in his 1/4 wave transformer diagrams.

That is also what I have been saying and nothing I have said disagrees
with anything above. I have not introduced anything new. I have merely
tied a couple of loose ends together by bringing some well understood
concepts over from optics to RF engineering. Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow. Wave
cancellation doesn't just happen one time and it's over. Wave
cancellation is a continuous steady-state process and continues
until the source is shut down. It appears to me that is what you may
be missing.

If the truth is a vulgar obscenity to you, then I guess I might rightly
be accused of "hurling" that at you.

There's a mild example of your mind-f__king ways, Jim. I knew it
would only be a matter of time until you pulled that crap again.
You don't seem to be able to help yourself. So have you stopped
beating your wife yet?
--
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:

Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct. What you don't seem to grasp here is that's exactly the
same as saying 'a standing wave pattern causes energy to be
redistributed'. Wave interference is simply the visible manifestation
of a redistribution of energy. It is a result. It is not the cause of
the redistribution.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct.

There you go again, playing semantic games, and trying to force
your pet definition of "cause" on the rest of the world. You
have obviously tried to redefined cause to mean "first cause",
a concept that has so many holes in it that you can use it for
a sieve.

By saying the above, you are disagreeing with the following web page:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

What you don't seem to grasp here is that's exactly the
same as saying 'a standing wave pattern causes energy to be
redistributed'.

The existence of standing wave indeed does cause energy to be
redistributed. Where the standing wave voltage is zero, the net
energy is redistributed into the H-field. Where the standing wave
current is zero, the net energy is redistributed into the E-field.
It is all because of the standing wave. If the standing wave didn't
exist, that wouldn't happen. Therefore, standing waves cause
energy to be redistributed. A causes B. B causes C. C causes D.
Of course, the standing waves are only one item in a cause and effect
chain. The standing waves are an effect caused by interference between
forward-traveling waves and rearward-traveling waves. The forward-traveling
wave is an effect caused by a source. The rearward-traveling wave is an
effect caused by a mismatched load. The source and the load are caused by
human beings. The load is caused by human choice. Humans beings are caused
by ... See where your "first cause" concept leads? i.e. nowhere!

Following your above logic, I assume you would say the Big Bang
is the cause of everything and nothing since then has been the
cause of anything.

Wave interference is simply the visible manifestation
of a redistribution of energy. It is a result. It is not the cause of
the redistribution.

Wave cancellation is permanent and is first an effect and then a
cause in a long line of cause and effect events. I see now why
your argument cannot tolerate the concept of a before and after.

The two signals coming from two different directions incident upon
an impedance discontinuity cause reflections. Wave cancellation is
caused by permanent destructive interference between two of those
reflected waves. The Wave cancellation in turn causes the energy to
be redistributed. Let's parse the following so even you can understand it:

"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 ..."

Wave cancellation causes an energy redistribution. This is obvious
to anyone except someone who believes the Big Bang was the only
cause ever. You remind me of the bully who beats up his wife and
then says, "She caused me give her that black eye."

Here's your logic once again. Lightning hits my ICOM and fries it.
Was lightning the cause? No. Was a low pressure depression the
cause? No. Was whatever caused the low pressure depression the
cause? No. There must have been something before that. Maybe the
proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in China? See how
silly your argument is?
--
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:
Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct.

Note I said "can cause", not "will cause".

Jim, you caused me to hit the books on cause and effect and
the effect was a refresher course on what I already knew.

From "Introduction to Logic", by Copi: "The word 'cause' is
sometimes used in the sense of necessary condition and
sometimes in the sense of sufficient condition."

Is permanent wave cancellation a sufficient condition
for a redistribution of energy to happen. The answer is "yes"
according to my web page references. Therefore, permanent wave
cancellation *will* indeed cause a redistribution of energy.

Please note above that I said wave interference indeed *can*
cause a redistribution of energy. I chose "can" instead of
"will" because wave interference is not sufficient to cause
the redistribution of energy. Wave cancellation is a special
case of wave interference in which the waves *cease to exist*
in their original direction of travel. The conservation of
energy principle dictates that the energy contained in those
waves before they are canceled, must necessarily be redistributed
along a different path. Note: Any different path in a transmission
line is necessarily the opposite direction, i.e. a reflection.
--
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, 09 Aug 2005 12:53:40 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Wave interference indeed
can cause a redistribution in the direction of energy flow.

Not correct.

There you go again, playing semantic games, and trying to force
your pet definition of "cause" on the rest of the world. You
have obviously tried to redefined cause to mean "first cause",
a concept that has so many holes in it that you can use it for
a sieve.

By saying the above, you are disagreeing with the following web page:
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

What you don't seem to grasp here is that's exactly the
same as saying 'a standing wave pattern causes energy to be
redistributed'.

The existence of standing wave indeed does cause energy to be
redistributed. Where the standing wave voltage is zero, the net
energy is redistributed into the H-field. Where the standing wave
current is zero, the net energy is redistributed into the E-field.
It is all because of the standing wave. If the standing wave didn't
exist, that wouldn't happen. Therefore, standing waves cause
energy to be redistributed. A causes B. B causes C. C causes D.
Of course, the standing waves are only one item in a cause and effect
chain. The standing waves are an effect caused by interference between
forward-traveling waves and rearward-traveling waves. The forward-traveling
wave is an effect caused by a source. The rearward-traveling wave is an
effect caused by a mismatched load. The source and the load are caused by
human beings. The load is caused by human choice. Humans beings are caused
by ... See where your "first cause" concept leads? i.e. nowhere!
Snip
Here's your logic once again. Lightning hits my ICOM and fries it.
Was lightning the cause? No. Was a low pressure depression the
cause? No. Was whatever caused the low pressure depression the
cause? No. There must have been something before that. Maybe the
proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in China? See how
silly your argument is?

Jim, try the following on for size:

Let us now determine why open or short circuits are developed by
wave interference. From King,37 we know that voltage and current
traveling along the line can be represented by individual generators
placed at any point along the line. Those generators are called "point
generators." For the purpose of analysis, a point generator is an
impedance-less EMF that can represent or replace the voltage and
current on the line equal to the voltage and current actually
appearing at that point on the line, without disturbing the wave
action on the line.
To simulate and analyze interference between two waves of equal
magnitude and opposite phase traveling in the same direction, such as
the two sets of reflected waves generated by the load mismatch and the
stub mismatch, we can connect two point generators together in either
of two different configurations. Each generator replaces the voltage
and current of each individual wave at the point of interference, the
match point. In the first configuration, the two generators are
connected in phase. Because their voltages are equal and in phase, the
differential voltage is zero, resulting in no current flow. This
connection is equivalent to an open circuit between the generators. In
the second configuration, the generators are connected with their
terminals reversed. Their voltages are now in opposite phase at the
interference point and the resulting voltage is the sum of the
voltages delivered by each generator; i.e., twice the voltage of each
generator. This connection results in a short circuit between the two
generators.
Identical wave-interference phenomena establishing a short
circuit also occur in free space in the same manner as in guided-wave
propagation along transmission lines. For example, when the fields
emanating from two radiators in an array of antennas are of equal
magnitude and 180° out of phase at a point in space, a virtual short
circuit is established by destructive wave interference, resulting in
a null in the radiation pattern at that point. Following Poynting's
Theorem, the energy in the combined fields propagating is reversed in
direction at that point; and with the constructive interference that
follows, that energy adds to that in the fields propagating in the
opposite direction, thus achieving gain in the that direction.

Walt, W2DU
..

Cecil Moore wrote:

Please note above that I said wave interference indeed *can*
cause a redistribution of energy. I chose "can" instead of
"will" because wave interference is not sufficient to cause
the redistribution of energy. Wave cancellation is a special
case of wave interference in which the waves *cease to exist*
in their original direction of travel. The conservation of
energy principle dictates that the energy contained in those
waves before they are canceled, must necessarily be redistributed
along a different path. Note: Any different path in a transmission
line is necessarily the opposite direction, i.e. a reflection.

All correct - neither proving your point or disputing mine.

The thing you really need to consider is: how much energy is actually
"in" a wave (whatever that means) that delivers no energy.

ac6xg

Walter Maxwell wrote:

Jim, try the following on for size:

Let us now determine why open or short circuits are developed by
wave interference. From King,37 we know that voltage and current
traveling along the line can be represented by individual generators
placed at any point along the line. Those generators are called "point
generators." For the purpose of analysis, a point generator is an
impedance-less EMF that can represent or replace the voltage and
current on the line equal to the voltage and current actually
appearing at that point on the line, without disturbing the wave
action on the line.
To simulate and analyze interference between two waves of equal
magnitude and opposite phase traveling in the same direction, such as
the two sets of reflected waves generated by the load mismatch and the
stub mismatch, we can connect two point generators together in either
of two different configurations. Each generator replaces the voltage
and current of each individual wave at the point of interference, the
match point. In the first configuration, the two generators are
connected in phase. Because their voltages are equal and in phase, the
differential voltage is zero, resulting in no current flow. This
connection is equivalent to an open circuit between the generators. In
the second configuration, the generators are connected with their
terminals reversed. Their voltages are now in opposite phase at the
interference point and the resulting voltage is the sum of the
voltages delivered by each generator; i.e., twice the voltage of each
generator. This connection results in a short circuit between the two
generators.
Identical wave-interference phenomena establishing a short
circuit also occur in free space in the same manner as in guided-wave
propagation along transmission lines. For example, when the fields
emanating from two radiators in an array of antennas are of equal
magnitude and 180° out of phase at a point in space, a virtual short
circuit is established by destructive wave interference, resulting in
a null in the radiation pattern at that point. Following Poynting's
Theorem, the energy in the combined fields propagating is reversed in
direction at that point; and with the constructive interference that
follows, that energy adds to that in the fields propagating in the
opposite direction, thus achieving gain in the that direction.

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,

I think that is all well and good, Walt - except for your statement
regarding the Poynting theorem. I can find no support in the literature
for a claim that interference changes the direction of the Poynting
vector - or for that matter, is a cause for any other phenomenon to
occur. I once asked you for a reference, but your books weren't handy
at the time. Let me know if it turns up. I am very interested to take
a look at it.

Thanks,

Jim Kelley

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:15:18 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:


Identical wave-interference phenomena establishing a short
circuit also occur in free space in the same manner as in guided-wave
propagation along transmission lines. For example, when the fields
emanating from two radiators in an array of antennas are of equal
magnitude and 180° out of phase at a point in space, a virtual short
circuit is established by destructive wave interference, resulting in
a null in the radiation pattern at that point. Following Poynting's
Theorem, the energy in the combined fields propagating is reversed in
direction at that point; and with the constructive interference that
follows, that energy adds to that in the fields propagating in the
opposite direction, thus achieving gain in the that direction.

Walt, W2DU

Hi Walt,

I think that is all well and good, Walt - except for your statement
regarding the Poynting theorem. I can find no support in the literature
for a claim that interference changes the direction of the Poynting
vector - or for that matter, is a cause for any other phenomenon to
occur. I once asked you for a reference, but your books weren't handy
at the time. Let me know if it turns up. I am very interested to take
a look at it.

Thanks,

Jim Kelley

Well, Jim, did you really grasp the paragraph above? How do you
suppose that had it not been for wave interferencethe energy would
have continued on in a particular radial direction, but due to the
interference the result was a null in that direction and an increased
amount of energy in the opposite, or forward direction, achieving gain
in that direction? The energy certainly changed direction to achieve
this condition. And you don't need references to understand this
phenomenon either. There are some concepts that are understandable
intuitively.

Please Jim, don't tell us that the energy isn't changing direction in
the rearrangement of the power distribution in the antenna pattern
that is wholly caused by wave interference and nothing else.

Walt