Jim Kelley wrote:


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.

I keep telling you that our only technical disagreements are over
extremely minor points. You keep posting stuff as if we disagree
when we don't and it is mostly just a ruse. You keep trying to
forcefully shove your strawmen into my head so you can shoot them
down, but that is just another ruse.

It appears to me that you think wave cancellation is a one time event,
like shooting a deer. The deer dies and that's that. But wave cancellation
is not a one time event. Wave cancellation is a continuous steady-state
infinite series of infinitessimal events. Wave cancellation is not possible
without steady-state standing waves. If the forward power anywhere in the
system is greater than the source power, then wave cancellation and
constructive interference are continuously occuring during steady-state.

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

"In" in this context means "associated with" (and two letters is
seven times as efficient as 14 letters). Energy is always associated
with any wave, else the wave would never exist. For you to talk
about canceled waves containing no energy is a contradiction. Dr.
Best talked about canceled waves that keep flowing toward the source,
canceling each other all the way, but containing zero energy. They
exist only in his mind.

All waves deliver energy somewhere even if it takes forever as in the
case of the detected background radiation. In a lossless transmission
line, all waves deliver energy to the load (and possibly to the source
after power to the source is removed). Rearward-traveling canceled waves
deliver their energy components in the direction of the load to later
become incident upon the load. Anything else would violate the
conservation of energy principle. The path the canceled waves take can
be deduced by observing ghosts on a TV screen.

There is no such thing in reality as a wave that delivers no energy.
Waves cannot even exist without energy. Canceled waves have associated
energy components before they were canceled. The Melles-Griot web page
calls that energy the "lost" energy and says it is not lost at all.
Those energy components must be redistributed in different directions
after the waves are canceled. Redistribution of energy in a transmission
line means changing direction, since there are only two directions.
--
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 =---