Jim Kelley wrote:
I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right. Cecil is very
good at getting the numbers right. I even agree with the solutions to
his irradiance equations. He and I disagree only on certain details of
the physical mechanism (though he seems to want to disagree with just
about anything I have to say).

I say, "I agree with you". You say, "No, you don't". So exactly
who is being disagreeable?

If I were to characterize most of the discussion I've had here, I would
say most of it has been spent addressing misunderstandings related to
the fundamental behavior of nature.

Nope, most misunderstandings are semantic. Most of our arguments
have been because you misunderstood what I was trying to say and
that unfortunate condition continues. You don't seem to possess
the normal human capacity to say, "Sorry, I misunderstood".
(I wonder if God is capable of misunderstanding?)
--
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:
A dispute over balanced energy equations? Nada.

On the contrary - a gigantic dispute over your invalid
attempts to superpose powers.
--
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, check this months QST (August 2005) Page 52 - figure 5. It
specifically shows that reflections can totally cancel creating black.


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
When the energy available in the first medium, at the second
interface, cannot possibly reflect enough of it to the first
interface; then no amount of superposition of ALL reflections (and
this presumes that the second interface is fully reflecting for these
succeeding multiples, an absurd notion in its own right) can exceed
that available energy.

Yes, this has all been said before, you've found it interesting but
not compelling; and yet no one here has offered any way to boost the
energy to completely cancel the reflection from the first interface.

I have multiple times, Richard. When a 111.1mW wave interferes with
an 87.78mW wave, the result is *NOT* a 23.32mW wave. It's the waves
that interfere, not the power.

111.1mW - 87.78mW = 23.32mW is superposition of powers and is invalid!

Instead of superposing powers, the equation you need to use is the
power interference equation:

Pref1 = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(180)

Pref1 = 111.1mW + 87.78mW + 2*sqrt(111.1*87.78)(-1)

Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

Thus after only one internal reflection cycle, the reflected power,
Pref1, is reduced to 1.37mW, not to 23.32mW as you have asserted.

If you will use a transmission line example and deal with voltages, you
will be able to diagnose your mistake. Voltages interfere, watts don't.
Most RF engineers simply do not understand how to deal with powers
associated with component wave interference.
--
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, 03 Aug 2005 19:00:51 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
Try the link. See if it reminds you of anything. :-)
http://www.montypythonpages.com/index1.htm

not nearly as funny as:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:33:17 -0500, Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right. Cecil is very
good at getting the numbers right. I even agree with the solutions to
his irradiance equations. He and I disagree only on certain details of
the physical mechanism (though he seems to want to disagree with just
about anything I have to say).

I say, "I agree with you". You say, "No, you don't". So exactly
who is being disagreeable?

It didn't take long for your legacy to arrive. The group can welcome
the ushering in of another 4 years of love letters in the sand.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 23:44:54 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Cecil, check this months QST (August 2005) Page 52 - figure 5. It
specifically shows that reflections can totally cancel creating black.


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

Hi Fred,

You've missed the point entirely, the equation above already consigns
1.37mW to total darkness. Or any other non-zero result is reduced to
zero for rhetoric's sake (I will skip the love fest of agreement that
did not blossom).

Odd how far this got with everyone presuming that these powers,
energies, or candelas per square foot per fortnight were visible in
the first place (perhaps to some breed of Ubermensch). They happen to
inhabit the deep infra-red.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 21:46:01 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Perhaps I was deluded by all your arguing about it. :-)
I'm saying, "I agree" and you are saying, "No, you don't"
so who's doing the arguing?

Classic Katzenjammer. More succinct than the "Who's on first base?"
math.

Good lord Richard, did you check the reference? It was a friggen joke!

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 23:44:54 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Cecil, check this months QST (August 2005) Page 52 - figure 5. It
specifically shows that reflections can totally cancel creating black.


"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

Hi Fred,

You've missed the point entirely, the equation above already consigns
1.37mW to total darkness. Or any other non-zero result is reduced to
zero for rhetoric's sake (I will skip the love fest of agreement that
did not blossom).

Odd how far this got with everyone presuming that these powers,
energies, or candelas per square foot per fortnight were visible in
the first place (perhaps to some breed of Ubermensch). They happen to
inhabit the deep infra-red.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
Pref1 = 198.88mW - 197.51mW = 1.37mW

You've missed the point entirely, the equation above already consigns
1.37mW to total darkness.

No, it doesn't. 1.37mW is the total reflection AFTER ONLY
ONE INTERNAL REFLECTION DURING THE TRANSIENT STATE. The
rest of the reflection is canceled by the subsequent
reflections. The steady-state equation is:

Pref1 = P1 + P2 + 2*sqrt(P1*P2)cos(180)

Pref1 = 111.1 + 111.1 - 2*sqrt(111.1*111.1) = ZERO

P1 = Pfor1*rho^2 = 1000mW*0.1111 = 111.1mW

P2 = Pref2*(1-rho^2) = 125*0.8889 = 111.1mW

Reflections are completely canceled during steady-state!!!
YOU missed the point entirely. I was merely pointing out
the mistake you made when you got 23.32mW after the first
reflection instead of the correct 1.37mW. The interference
during the transient state is not total. The interference
during steady-state is total.
--
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:

Cecil Moore wrote:
If you think that's what I said, you are suffering from delusions.

Perhaps I was deluded by all your arguing about it. :-)

One day God and St. Peter were having an argument. Suddenly,
God realized that St. Peter was right and He was wrong. God's
subsequent logic went something like this:

I am God. I am omniscient. I am incapable of being wrong.
Since I now know the correct answer, I must have known it
all along. Since St. Peter was previously arguing with me,
St. Peter must have been wrong all along.

Now replace "God" in the above with "Jim Kelley" and you will
get a picture of what has been happening with our postings.

To the best of my knowledge, the only argument we have left
is whether there is enough time for wave cancellation to
actually take place. We agree on virtually everything else
technical.
--
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 =----

Fred W4JLE wrote:
Good lord Richard, did you check the reference? It was a friggen joke!

I got up from my computer, walked down the hall, dug
through a pile of magazines in the living room, and
found your reference. I turned to it and got a good
chuckle from it. :-)
--
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 Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:25:56 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Good lord Richard, did you check the reference? It was a friggen joke!

Hi Fred,

Yes, so was my response. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:08:49 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

No, it doesn't.

Hi Fred,

This is the rest of the joke.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, the only argument we have left
is whether there is enough time for wave cancellation to
actually take place.

You mean that bit about how you think the waves first move in the
reflected direction a little tiny bit and THEN cancel? Yes, you do need
to rethink that. If they're equal in amplitude and opposite in phase,
there's cancellation - at any value of t. In other words, the waves are
prevented from reflecting. They don't reflect first, then disappear.

73, AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Perhaps I was deluded by all your arguing about it. :-)


I'm saying, "I agree"

A landmark in r.r.a.a history ladies and gentlemen. Cecil Moore says he
agrees with Jim Kelley. Let me wipe a tear from my eye and cherish this
moment. Of course "I agree" was in quotation marks and the agreement
lasted just long enough for him to type those four words. He then
continued arguing and badgering his hapless correspondent. :-(

ac6xg

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:50:45 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
They don't reflect first, then disappear.

Hi Jim,

Ah yes, the first dip of the toes into the water. How are you going
to walk home on stumps after the shark feeds? ;-)

Celebrating your legacy I see.

I suppose in the next four years we get to see you trimmed to the
knees as you revisit this shallow end of the pool.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:


Celebrating your legacy I see.

If you say so. I'd like to know what it is that you are doing?

ac6xg

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:30:52 -0700, Jim Kelley
wrote:
Celebrating your legacy I see.

If you say so. I'd like to know what it is that you are doing?

Hi Jim,

Getting ready to go to Canada for the afternoon; and gathering
information for London later this month.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Jim Kelley wrote:
You mean that bit about how you think the waves first move in the
reflected direction a little tiny bit and THEN cancel? Yes, you do need
to rethink that. If they're equal in amplitude and opposite in phase,
there's cancellation - at any value of t. In other words, the waves are
prevented from reflecting. They don't reflect first, then disappear.

If they don't reflect first and then disappear, they don't exist
at all. But we know that reflected waves indeed exist and through
deduction can see how they must exist or else cause-and-effect is
violated. So your assertion that they never existed in the first
place is riddled with contradictions that I am unable to resolve.

So I ask again for the umteenth time. Given the rearward-traveling
reflected wave from the mismatched load encountering the match point,
exactly what turns that energy and momentum around and causes it to
flow back toward the load in the opposite direction? If not wave
cancellation, then what?

You simply cannot have it both ways. If the canceled waves don't
exist before they are cancel, they never existed at all and
therefore wave cancellation cannot exist at all. What you propose
is clearly a violation of cause-and-effect.
--
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 =----

Hey Cecil,

The superposition of waves which are equal in amplitude and out of phase
equals zero at any time t. There is no time t in the steady state when
reflected waves to the left of the discontinuity can exist. The whole
point of the exercise is to prevent reflections. You're proposing that
the reflection is first allowed, and then it gets cancelled, but not
really cuz then it has to turn around somehow and go back the other way.
Let it drop man.

ac6xg

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

You mean that bit about how you think the waves first move in the
reflected direction a little tiny bit and THEN cancel? Yes, you do
need to rethink that. If they're equal in amplitude and opposite in
phase, there's cancellation - at any value of t. In other words, the
waves are prevented from reflecting. They don't reflect first, then
disappear.


If they don't reflect first and then disappear, they don't exist
at all. But we know that reflected waves indeed exist and through
deduction can see how they must exist or else cause-and-effect is
violated. So your assertion that they never existed in the first
place is riddled with contradictions that I am unable to resolve.

So I ask again for the umteenth time. Given the rearward-traveling
reflected wave from the mismatched load encountering the match point,
exactly what turns that energy and momentum around and causes it to
flow back toward the load in the opposite direction? If not wave
cancellation, then what?

You simply cannot have it both ways. If the canceled waves don't
exist before they are cancel, they never existed at all and
therefore wave cancellation cannot exist at all. What you propose
is clearly a violation of cause-and-effect.

Jim Kelley wrote:
The superposition of waves which are equal in amplitude and out of phase
equals zero at any time t. There is no time t in the steady state when
reflected waves to the left of the discontinuity can exist.

I agree and have never said they could. However, they do exist *at*
the impedance discontinuity, the point at which they are canceled.
To say the terms in the S-parameter equations don't ever exist in
the first place is ridiculous. That throws the entire S-parameter
analysis out the window.

The whole
point of the exercise is to prevent reflections. You're proposing that
the reflection is first allowed, and then it gets cancelled, but not
really cuz then it has to turn around somehow and go back the other way.

It is a no-brainer to know that all energy heads toward the load
because everything heads toward the load at the match point in
a matched system. Reflections are prevented by the cancellation
of two reflected waves. If those two reflected waves never exist,
as you assert, how the heck can they engage in wave cancellation?
You are obviously violating the rules of cause and effect. It
is my understanding that can only happen at the quantum level
in physics. So you are in violation of the conventional laws of
physics.

Here's the question that you have avoided like the plague and
refuse to answer. Until you answer this question, your postings
are simply gut feelings.

Given the reflected energy wave from a mismatched load barreling
toward the source at the speed of light, what phenomenon of physics
causes the energy and momentum in that wave to reverse direction?
--
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:

Given the reflected energy wave from a mismatched load barreling
toward the source at the speed of light, what phenomenon of physics
causes the energy and momentum in that wave to reverse direction?

The only way electronmagnetic energy can reverse direction is for it to
reflect.

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Given the reflected energy wave from a mismatched load barreling
toward the source at the speed of light, what phenomenon of physics
causes the energy and momentum in that wave to reverse direction?

The only way electronmagnetic energy can reverse direction is for it to
reflect.

Exactly! So what does cause the reflection of reflected energy
at the match point? We know it happens and you have given us
no clue as to why it happens. When given a choice of one
explaination provided by me Vs no explaination provided by
you, which should the lurkers choose? Is it better to be
ignorant than to be wrong? Not in my book. I learn something
when I'm wrong. I am not about to settle for ignorance.
--
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:

Given the reflected energy wave from a mismatched load barreling
toward the source at the speed of light, what phenomenon of physics
causes the energy and momentum in that wave to reverse direction?


The only way electronmagnetic energy can reverse direction is for it
to reflect.


Exactly! So what does cause the reflection of reflected energy
at the match point? We know it happens and you have given us
no clue as to why it happens.

I assumed you knew. Reflection is caused when a wave encounters a
change in media of some kind.

When given a choice of one
explaination provided by me Vs no explaination provided by
you, which should the lurkers choose? Is it better to be
ignorant than to be wrong? Not in my book. I learn something
when I'm wrong. I am not about to settle for ignorance.

Even at the cost of making an enormous ass out of yourself in the
process. How noble.

ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Exactly! So what does cause the reflection of reflected energy
at the match point? We know it happens and you have given us
no clue as to why it happens.

I assumed you knew. Reflection is caused when a wave encounters a
change in media of some kind.

What I am asserting and you haven't even come close to disproving is
that wave cancellation of RF waves can cause reflections in exactly
the same way as wave cancellation of light waves has been proven
to cause reflections. What is it about the two following two
technical reference quotes that you don't understand? Oh, now
I remember. Your argument is that words don't mean what words
mean. With that argument you can disprove anything.

www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

"Clearly, if the wavelength of the incident light and the thickness
of the film are such that a phase difference exists between reflections
of p, then reflected wavefronts interfere destructively, and overall
reflected intensity is a minimum. If the two reflections are of equal
amplitude, then this amplitude (and hence intensity) minimum will be
zero."

"In the absence of absorption or scatter, the principle of conservation
of energy indicates all 'lost' reflected intensity will appear as
enhanced intensity in the transmitted beam. The sum of the reflected and
transmitted beam intensities is always equal to the incident intensity.
This important fact has been confirmed experimentally."

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

"... 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."

That's as clear as it can possibly be, Jim. Wave cancellation redistributes
the energy. In a transmission line, if energy is redistributed, it must
necessarily change directions. Would you believe there are only two
directions available in a transmission line? If not, please prove it.
--
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 Thu, 04 Aug 2005 19:10:40 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Exactly! So what does cause the reflection of reflected energy
at the match point? We know it happens and you have given us
no clue as to why it happens.

I assumed you knew. Reflection is caused when a wave encounters a
change in media of some kind.

What I am asserting and you haven't even come close to disproving is
that wave cancellation of RF waves can cause reflections in exactly
the same way as wave cancellation of light waves has been proven
to cause reflections.

Hi Jim,

THIS above is your legacy that I forecast not more than 30 hours ago.
Message-ID:

Four years to this point resolved nothing; four years more, having
allowed decimals to slip, will offer nothing new. You've been
pencil-whipped with 1 place precision math "proving" absolutes that
these theories turn on.

Now for a reflective question:
I'd like to know what it is that you are doing?
A trip to Canada would have gotten you further. ;-)
It was a nice day for it too.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:25:56 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Good lord Richard, did you check the reference? It was a friggen joke!

Hi Fred,

You deserve a joke in return that is probably more entertaining than
mine I suspect.

From this week's Army Times is a comic strip by Mort Walker's "Beetle
Bailey." Beetle and Zero are ambling along talking:

Beetle - What if you could see into the future and saw your life was
miserable?

Zero - I'd keep on plugging away.

Beetle - Really? Why?

Zero - Hey, the future could be wrong!

This strip probably won't appear in the civilian funnys until next
week however, Mort always gives the Army Times his work first.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

Suppose you have a 50-ohm coax that has a 25-ohm resistor across its
load end. The incident wave traveling on the coax has too much voltage
and too little current to supply the 25-ohm load.

As the load forces the incident voltage lower, energy is conserved by
transfer of energy from the E-field to the H-field. Voltage generated in
this energy transfer between fields is reversed in phase from that in
the incident wave. Though current is increased in the too low load
resistance, its phase is unchanged from that in the incident wave.

The reversed-phase voltage caused by the roo-low load resistance
launches the reflected wave.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

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

Suppose you have a 50-ohm coax that has a 25-ohm resistor across its
load end. The incident wave traveling on the coax has too much voltage
and too little current to supply the 25-ohm load.

What I was talking about is a little more complicated than
that. Assume rho^2 = 0.5 at an impedance discontinuity at
a match point. The rearward-traveling reflected wave sees
the impedance discontinuity at the match point and 1/2 of
the energy is reflected back toward the load according to
the rules of reflection. What reflects the other half of
the energy?

The 50 ohm coax on the source side of the match point refuses
to accept *any* voltage or current. 100% of the reflected
energy is re-reflected at the match point.
--
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, W5DXP wrote:
"What reflects the other half of the energy?"

The previous example I gave was a 25-ohm resistor-load on a 50-ohm line.
Change the load to 100 ohms. Now the load cannot accept all the current
carried by the incident wave. Lenz`s law says the falling current
generates a rising voltage in an attempt to maintain the current. The
load-generated voltage is in the same phase as the incident voltage so
their sum is greater. Increased voltage across the load reverses phase
and direction of the line-current at the too-high load resistance. Thus,
direction of the reflection is opposite that of the incident wave.

If the load is too small or too large for Zo, some of the incident
energy is reflected by the load. The two processes are analogous. When
the load value is too small, there is a reversal in the phase of the
voltage without change in the phase of the current (1955 Terman page
92). When the load value is too large, there is a reversal in the phase
of the current without change in the phase of the voltage (1955 Terman
page 89).

Those are the necessary and sufficient conditions to reverse the
direction of some of the energy in an incident wave on a transmission
line. For a complete reversal, a short or an open is required.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Thanks Richard, as the proud father of an army aviator, Kiowa Warriors, I
already get the Army Times.

My son is a W3, soon to be W4. He will return to Iraq for a second tour next
month. He has been in Bosnia and Afganistan as well.



"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:25:56 -0400, "Fred W4JLE"
wrote:

Good lord Richard, did you check the reference? It was a friggen joke!

Hi Fred,

You deserve a joke in return that is probably more entertaining than
mine I suspect.

From this week's Army Times is a comic strip by Mort Walker's "Beetle
Bailey." Beetle and Zero are ambling along talking:

Richard Harrison wrote:
Those are the necessary and sufficient conditions to reverse the
direction of some of the energy in an incident wave on a transmission
line. For a complete reversal, a short or an open is required.

What you say happens at a load is entirely correct. At a
load, there is only one EM wave incident upon the load.
But at an impedance discontinuity in a transmission line
with reflections, there are two EM waves incident upon
the impedance discontinuity, one from each direction.
There's a forward wave coming from the source and a
reflected wave coming from the load.

It might stand to reason that twice as many incident
waves might complicate things beyond what happens at
a load. And things are more complicated as can be
observed from the s-parameter equations. For a single
load, the s-parameter reflected voltage/power equations
reduce to:

b1 = s11*a1 for normalized reflected voltage, and

b1^2 = (s11*a1)^2 for reflected power where s11^2
is the power reflection coefficient

For an impedance discontinuity in the middle of a
transmission line with reflections, the s-parameter
equation for normalized reflected voltage is:

b1 = s11*a1 + s12*a2 for normalized voltage, and

b1^2 = (s11*a1 + s12*a2)^2 for reflected power

It's pretty obvious that the reflected power equation at
the impedance discontinuity is more complicated than the
reflected power equation at the load. In fact, if you
do the squaring of the right hand side of the equation
just above, you get the interference term.

2*s11*s12*a1*a2*cos(phi) where phi is the phase angle
between phasors a1 and a2.

The interference term, in watts, represents the amount
of interference present and affects the magnitude of
the reflected power. Since the amount of interference
affects the total reflected power, it must also affect
the total forward power so as to satisfy the conservation
of energy principle. Since interference affects the
magnitudes of both the reflected power and forward power,
the conclusion is inescapable that interference can also
cause reflections and this is verified by a couple of
technical web pages pertaining to light waves.

www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

Walter Maxwell wrote about such back in the 70's. From
Sec 4.3 of "Reflections" speaking of match points:

"The destructive wave interference between these two
complementary waves ... causes a complete cancellation
of energy flow in the direction toward the generator.
Conversely, the constructive wave interference produces
an energy maximum in the direction toward the load, ..."

In a transmission line with only two directions, when the
energy flow is canceled in one direction, that energy must
necessarily flow in the only other direction available, i.e.
an energy reflection must take place.

So to your list of three things that can cause 100% reflection,
you can add wave cancellation in the form of total destructive
interference between two EM waves traveling in the same direction
in a thansmission line, having equal magnitudes and opposite
phases.
--
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:
Exactly! So what does cause the reflection of reflected energy
at the match point? We know it happens and you have given us
no clue as to why it happens.

I assumed you knew. Reflection is caused when a wave encounters a
change in media of some kind.

What I am asserting and you haven't even come close to disproving is
that wave cancellation of RF waves can cause reflections in exactly
the same way as wave cancellation of light waves has been proven
to cause reflections.

Since you're the only person in history to have ever claimed such a
phenomenon occurs, the responsibility rests squarely with you to prove
it exists. As I just got done saying, the only way for electromagnetic
energy to change direction is by reflection. It seemed you understood
that.

What is it about the two following two
technical reference quotes that you don't understand?

I understand them perfectly. You may recall that I introduced you to
the Melles-Griot site. You on the other hand, misunderstand them.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...ons/index.html

"... 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."

That's as clear as it can possibly be, Jim. Wave cancellation redistributes
the energy.

And you are clearly reading more into it than it clearly says (as
evidenced by the fact that what you wrote and what it says are clearly
not the same thing). Your interpretation is totally incorrect.
Interference is an effect not a cause. The text desribes the actual
end result, but you're interpretting it to be a allusion to some sort
of bizzarre supernatural phenomenon. You're better off doing what I
have done. Figure out how it works by relying upon natural phenomena
for the explanation. It works out beautifully if you'd at least give
it a try. True, you won't be able to claim to have invented it. But
claiming to have invented the other thing would probably only have
earned you a "Cranky" on crank.net anyway.

73, ac6xg

ps Your article did not appear on my news service, so I'm responding
via Google.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:33:44 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:
What you say happens at a load is entirely correct. At a
load, there is only one EM wave incident upon the load.
But at an impedance discontinuity in a transmission line
with reflections, there are two EM waves incident upon
the impedance discontinuity, one from each direction.
There's a forward wave coming from the source and a
reflected wave coming from the load.
snip

There's another way of viewing the manner in which energy reflected
from a mismatch load. That is 'motor generator action'. Lest you think
I'm joking, please let me quote from my own writing in QST August
1973, 32 years ago, repeated in Chapter 3 of Reflections 1 and 2:

"... Now we'll proceed to the generation of reflections. When the
electromagnetic field reaches the end of the line, if the load
terminating the line is an open circuit, the magnetic field collapses
because the current goes to zero due to the infinite impedance of the
open-circuit. The changing magnetic field at the open circuit
produces a new electric field equal in energy to the magnetic field,
which induces a new voltage into the load circuit that is equal to,
and in phase with the voltage in the forward wave. (Keep in mind that
a voltage is induced, or generated, by mutual motion between a
magnetic field and a conductor, a phenomenon generally known as
motor-generator action. Thus, it can be said that the reflected
voltage was developed and delivered by a generator, a reflection
generator. Although in this case the field is changing while the
conductor is stationary, as in a transformer, it is motor-generator
action nonetheless.) The new electric field induced by the changing
magnetic field adds in phase to the existing electric field, and the
new induced voltage (delivered by the reflection generator) adds in
phase to the voltage in the forward wave, resulting in an increase of
voltage at the open circuit to twice the voltage of the forward wave.
At this instant, a standing wave is developing, because now there is a
current minimum and a voltage maximum at the open-circuit termination,
where an instant before, current and voltage were constant all along
the line.
The new voltage at the open-circuit termination, along with its
new electric field, starts a voltage wave traveling in the rearward
direction, as if it had been launched by a separate generator at the
open-circuit point. (It has---remember the induced voltage, generated
by the changing magnetic field?) Since no energy was absorbed by the
open-circuit load, the new rearward-traveling voltage wave has the
same magnitude as the original forward wave, which is why rho = 1,
indicating total reflection. As the new electric field starts its
rearward travel, it produces a new magnetic field, which in turn
produces a new current, launched into the line as the reflected
current wave with the same magnitude as the forward current wave, but
with opposite polarity and direction. The new electric and magnetic
fields combine to form the reflected electromagnetic field and, as in
the forward electromagnetic-field wave, the energy in the reflected
electromagnetic-field wave also divides equally between its electric
and magnetic fields."

Walt, W2DU

Jim Kelley wrote:
Since you're the only person in history to have ever claimed such a
phenomenon occurs, the responsibility rests squarely with you to prove
it exists.

I have quoted many references. That you choose to ignore them is
not my problem. Of course, they are not going to use identical
words to mine. Ham radio lingo has a flavor all it's own,
"reflections" being one of them. I am expecting any moment for
you to say a reversal of energy flow in a transmission line is
not always a reflection. That's how you resolve arguments - by
redefining words until your opponent is wrong, by definition.

As I just got done saying, the only way for electromagnetic
energy to change direction is by reflection. It seemed you understood
that.

I certainly do and wave cancellation can cause a reflection,
i.e. a reversal of energy flow in a transmission line. It's
as simple as that. The "redistribution of energy in a different
direction" caused by wave cancellation can only occur in one
direction in a transmission line. If wave cancellation occurs
in one direction, the energy existing in the waves before they
were canceled must necessarily be distributed in the only other
direction possible. It's all explained on the optics web pages
that I previously posted.

I understand them perfectly. You may recall that I introduced you to
the Melles-Griot site. You on the other hand, misunderstand them.

When you introduced me to the Melles-Groit web page, you told
me what it said and I still think you were right. You were happy
for me because you had found something to support my concepts. After
a few days, you changed your mind and informed me that it didn't
say what you first thought it said. Maybe you should question what
caused your mind to change? Quite often, the first conclusion is the
correct one. So does it say what it says, or not?

And you are clearly reading more into it than it clearly says (as
evidenced by the fact that what you wrote and what it says are clearly
not the same thing).

Clearly not identical but clearly meaning the same thing as
you said it meant when you first introduced me to that web page.
Why did you change your mind about what it said?

Your interpretation is totally incorrect.

Then your initial interpretation of the Melles-Groit web page
information was totally incorrect. Why did you do a 180?

Interference is an effect not a cause.

Interference is not an end effect. Interference can cause the
perception of light and dark rings on the human retina. Lots
of effects which have a cause, cause additional effects in
a chain of cause and effect events. Haven't you ever seen
the TV series "Connections" where one effect caused another
effect which caused another effect ...? So the spacing of the
wheels on a Roman chariot eventually dictated the maximum size
of the boosters on the Space Shuttle?

Interference in transmission lines can cause reflections which
is simply a redistribution of energy in the only other direction
possible. What is it about the "redistribution of energy caused
by interference" that you don't understand? It is explained on
those web pages. In a transmission line, dispersion and refraction
are mostly absent, so reflection is the only thing that can
possibly "redistribute the energy". We know the reflected energy
stops flowing toward the source in the transmission line at a
match point. Wonder what other possible direction it can take next?
That's a really tough question. ... I like you, Jim, because you
make me laugh.
--
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 Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:24:43 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

We know the reflected energy
stops flowing toward the source in the transmission line at a
match point.

And this has been proven to the precision of 1 place! If you leave
your thumb on the scale of the energy balance, you can say anything.

Jim's legacy (and those who silently share in it) is bountiful. :-)

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
I understand them perfectly. You may recall that I introduced you to
the Melles-Griot site. You on the other hand, misunderstand them.


When you introduced me to the Melles-Groit web page, you told
me what it said and I still think you were right. You were happy
for me because you had found something to support my concepts. After
a few days, you changed your mind and informed me that it didn't
say what you first thought it said. Maybe you should question what
caused your mind to change?

I know intimately well what caused me to change my mind. It doesn't
make sense! It's insupportable by the underlying physics. I work in
the field; I've asked E&M people about it. I didn't make up an
explanation for this - YOU DID! Then you looked around to see if it was
true. And you want to think that Melles-Griot confirms it. But it
doesn't.

Quite often, the first conclusion is the
correct one. So does it say what it says, or not?

My second conclusion enjoyed the benefit of actually working through the
problem. That's certainly not true in your case.

Interference is an effect not a cause.


Interference is not an end effect.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are making a fool of
yourself. Since you don't believe me, try to get Melles-Griot or Eugene
Hecht to confirm your theory that interference causes waves to reflect.
Good luck with that OM.

ac6xg

Richard Clark wrote:
Jim's legacy (and those who silently share in it) is bountiful. :-)

Richard, I wish I could share my email with you.
There is only agreement and encouragement. The
only negative comment is that I stick with a
thread longer than I probably should.
--
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:
I know intimately well what caused me to change my mind. It doesn't
make sense! It's insupportable by the underlying physics. I work in
the field; I've asked E&M people about it. I didn't make up an
explanation for this - YOU DID! Then you looked around to see if it was
true. And you want to think that Melles-Griot confirms it. But it
doesn't.

That's just your opinion, worth exactly what it costs. You have
presented no technical argument to prove your case. All you have
presented are logical diversions, personal opinions, and gut feelings.

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? It is a simple
question that you have avoided answering for months. One wonders why.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are making a fool of
yourself.

Asserting that there is no before and after is foolish. Asserting
that a redistribution of energy in a transmission line must have
more than one choice is foolish. Implying that cause and effect
doesn't exist is foolish. Asserting that the waves involved
in wave cancellation don't exist is foolish.

If the waves involved in wave cancellation don't exist, then
wave cancellation is impossible. That's simple logic. If wave
cancellation doesn't exist, it follows that the energy flowing
toward the source is not zero even though we measure it at zero.
This is the logical hole that Dr. Best dug for himself and you
crawled right in after him. Dr. Best asserted that the two waves
keep flowing toward the load, canceling each other all the way
to somewhere (or nowhere). The concepts that you hold concerning
this subject are proven to be logically contradictory. You may
disagree, but I don't believe contradictions can exist in reality.
I believe they can only exist in human minds and yours obviously
contains a multitude. When I encounter a contradiction, I change
my mind. You obviously tolerate (and seem to enjoy) contradictions.
You even use contradictions as part of your arguments.
--
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 =----

I have only found infallibility in Terman, Kraus, Maxwell, The Pope, and
now Cecil!

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Richard Clark wrote:
Jim's legacy (and those who silently share in it) is bountiful. :-)

Richard, I wish I could share my email with you.
There is only agreement and encouragement. The
only negative comment is that I stick with a
thread longer than I probably should.
--
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
=----

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 =----