Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

But some people just can't deal with any idea they didn't come up with
on their own ...


You mean like Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(a) ? :-)
The first time I saw that equation was in Dr. Best's QEX article.

Yes, and you didn't believe it when you saw it.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
You mean like Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(a) ? :-)
The first time I saw that equation was in Dr. Best's QEX article.

Yes, and you didn't believe it when you saw it.

Your memory is slightly faulty. What I objected to was Dr. Best's
assertion that 75w + 8.33w = 133.33w. It still doesn't, never did,
never will, and violates the conservation of energy principle.
What Dr. Best apparently failed to realize is that the extra 50
watts of energy required to balance that energy equation does
NOT come from waves P1 and P2 but instead comes from wave
cancellation of waves P3 and P4 on the source side of the match
point. Wave P1 contains 75 watts and Wave P2 contains 8.33 watts.
Without a source of constructive interference energy, they cannot
add up to 133.33 watts. That source is destructive interference
energy, -2*SQRT(P3*P4), from the source side of the match point
which supplies the +2*SQRT(P1*P2) constructive interference energy
to the load side of the match point where (P1*P2)=(P3*P4). At an
impedance discontinuity in a transmission line, far away from any
source, all constructive interference energy must necessarily be
balanced by an equal magnitude of destructive interference energy
in order to satisfy the conservation of energy principle.

This is all explained in my "WorldRadio", Oct./Dec. 2005 articles.
Unfortunately, most of the Greek letter Thetas didn't make it
through the conversion process and wound up as underline marks.
Part I is already on my web page under "The Rest of the Story"
along with a couple of remarks about forward power, reflected power,
superposition, and interference. Part II will appear on my web page
after Christmas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

You mean like Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(a) ? :-)
The first time I saw that equation was in Dr. Best's QEX article.


Yes, and you didn't believe it when you saw it.

Wave P1 contains 75 watts and Wave P2 contains 8.33 watts.
Without a source of constructive interference energy, they cannot
add up to 133.33 watts.

And obviously he still doesn't believe it, Gene.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Wave P1 contains 75 watts and Wave P2 contains 8.33 watts.
Without a source of constructive interference energy, they cannot
add up to 133.33 watts.

And obviously he still doesn't believe it, Gene.

Without the 2*SQRT(P1*P2)=50w constructive interference energy,
75w + 8.33w will *NEVER* add up to 133.33 watts. Dr. Best's
equation, 75w + 8.33w = 133.33w, is superposition of powers
which is not allowed AND a violation of the conservation of
energy principle. You don't really support superposition of
powers and violations of conservation of energy, do you?.

If you furnish exactly 75 watts and your neighbor furnishes
exactly 8.33 watts, can you power a 133.33 watt device?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Wave P1 contains 75 watts and Wave P2 contains 8.33 watts.
Without a source of constructive interference energy, they cannot
add up to 133.33 watts.


And obviously he still doesn't believe it, Gene.

I should have said Tom. If I were Cecil I'd have blamed the error on my
glasses or my advanced age. ;-)

You don't really support superposition of
powers and violations of conservation of energy, do you?.

Depending on how high you keep your squelch set, you should already
pretty well know what I think about those things.

You're at least partially right though. Power does not superpose
(because, for among other reasons, it doesn't move or propagate). The
point you continue to miss is that power does not interfere either. Nor
is it valid to take the square root of the product of two power numbers
and claim that it turns around miraculously and goes the other
direction. But that's what you've miguidedly presented to the readers
of World Radio as fact. The irradiance equations are nevertheless
correct because power goes as the square of the fields - which do of
course superpose and interfere. The equations accurately describe the
effect - the end result, the outcome, not necessarily the cause or the
mechanism by which the result is achieved.

Before we go any further (and it is my sincerest hope that we do not), I
agree with Melles-Griot, Born and Wolf, Hecht, Jackson, and the other
E&M and optics books. What I disagree with (and I'm sure given the
opportunity so would the above mentioned authors) is some of your
interpretation of the physical phenomenon they describe.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
I should have said Tom. If I were Cecil I'd have blamed the error on my
glasses or my advanced age. ;-)

Alzheimer's can certainly strike at your age, Jim. :-) My Dad was
legally blind when he was my age so I'm ahead of the curve.

You're at least partially right though. Power does not superpose
(because, for among other reasons, it doesn't move or propagate). The
point you continue to miss is that power does not interfere either.

Here's a quote from my magazine article, Jim. If you would just cease
and desist from your MF'ing ways (that's "mind", not "muther"), you
might understand. Quote:
************************************************** ********************
"The words 'power flow' have been avoided even though
that is a term of common usage. For the purposes of this paper, energy
flows and power is a measure of that energy flowing at a fixed point or
plane. Likewise, the EM fields in the waves do the interfering. Powers,
treaded as scalars, are incapable of interference."
************************************************** ********************
But you already knew that's what I believe since I have been telling
you exactly that in CAPITAL LETTERS for years now and even sent you
an advance copy of my magazine article. I have never asserted the things
you claim that I have. Hopefully, the readers will recognize you for
what you are.

The irradiance equations are nevertheless
correct because power goes as the square of the fields - which do of
course superpose and interfere. The equations accurately describe the
effect - the end result, the outcome, not necessarily the cause or the
mechanism by which the result is achieved.

Where does the constructive interference energy come from, Jim? Hecht
says that in the absence of energy from other sources, the constructive
interference energy must be exactly matched by an equal amount of
destructive interference. Please present your credentials that allows
you to disagree with Eugene Hecht?

Before we go any further (and it is my sincerest hope that we do not), I
agree with Melles-Griot, ...

No you don't, and your disagreement is more than obvious to any informed
casual observer. You remind me of a fellow employee from the 70's. I asked
him what he would do if his wife caught him in bed with his neighbor's wife
(as I did) and he answered, "I'd just deny it."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Hi Jim,

I was going to try to stay out of this recurring silliness, but since
you accidentally pulled me in I will add my spin.

The only mistake made by Steve Best was allowing himself to get dragged
by Cecil into the intellectual landfill. Yes, most people with
rudimentary arithmetic skills would agree that 75 plus 8.33 does not
equal 133.33.

However, anyone even remotely familiar with waves would readily
understand that the component waves Cecil loves to talk about are merely
mathematical conveniences. It is entire possible to set up other model
configurations, such as a combination of a one traveling wave and one
standing wave.

In order to make his model work, Cecil needs to invoke the mythical P3
and P4 on the source side of the reflection discontinuity. He never gets
around to explaining how these two waves, which exactly cancel at all
points in space and at all times, can contain any energy at all.

The reason that most practitioners of wave models solve for the fields
first and then worry about power or energy is:

a - This procedure works correctly all the time.

b - It avoids the problems created by analyzing fictitious extra
components added for mathematical convenience but containing no physical
reality.

I do not expect to change Cecil's mind. Other than his own potential
embarrassment from the silly publications in World Radio, his folly is
harmless.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:

Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

You mean like Ptotal = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(a) ? :-)
The first time I saw that equation was in Dr. Best's QEX article.



Yes, and you didn't believe it when you saw it.


Wave P1 contains 75 watts and Wave P2 contains 8.33 watts.
Without a source of constructive interference energy, they cannot
add up to 133.33 watts.


And obviously he still doesn't believe it, Gene.

73, ac6xg

Gene Fuller wrote:
Yes, most people with
rudimentary arithmetic skills would agree that 75 plus 8.33 does not
equal 133.33.

Too bad Dr. Best posted the equation: "Ptotal = 75w + 8.33w = 133.33w"
on this newsgroup (and, thank goodness, left it out of his article) so
he obviously disagreed with you at the time. He also said that interference
had nothing to do with it.

However, anyone even remotely familiar with waves would readily
understand that the component waves Cecil loves to talk about are merely
mathematical conveniences. It is entire possible to set up other model
configurations, such as a combination of a one traveling wave and one
standing wave.

What happens at an impedance discontinuity given those circumstances? To
find out, read my WorldRadio article, Part I of which is posted on my web
page. Part II will be posted after Christmas. At the risk of raising your
politically incorrect ire as I have done with this technical posting,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!.

In order to make his model work, Cecil needs to invoke the mythical P3
and P4 on the source side of the reflection discontinuity. He never gets
around to explaining how these two waves, which exactly cancel at all
points in space and at all times, can contain any energy at all.

The answer is simple. Do waves contain any energy at all? Do waves that
cancel contain any energy? If waves contain no energy, they cannot exist,
and therefore are incapable of canceling. If they exist and cancel, they
contained energy just before their cancellation. Any way you cut it,
my approach is consistent with the laws of physics as enumerated in "Optics",
by Hecht, and yours leads to a contradiction of those laws of physics.

The reason that most practitioners of wave models solve for the fields
first and then worry about power or energy is:

a - This procedure works correctly all the time.

Yes, it does. But optics engineers didn't have the luxury of dealing
with voltages and currents. They had to solve the problem using powers.
And they did exactly that decades ago. That RF engineers refuse to
consider the laws of physics concerning EM waves developed by optics
engineers is absolutely astounding to me. W7EL put it best, something
to the effect that if it wasn't invented here, we don't want to hear it
(even if it is right). But I daresay that Eugene Hecht knows much more
about EM waves that you will ever know, given your closed mind.

I do not expect to change Cecil's mind. Other than his own potential
embarrassment from the silly publications in World Radio, his folly is
harmless.

You are just displaying your extreme ignorance, Gene. My "WorldRadio" article
corrects some of the *conceptual* errors in Dr. Best's QEX article but otherwise
contains the same equations as his article. If you disagree with me, you are
also disagreeing with Dr. Best's equations, i.e. you are between a rock and a
hard place.

It is interesting that the very people who tell us not to worry about energy
are the people who get so emotionally rabid when someone chooses to worry about
energy like real-world physicists do. What do they possibly have to lose besides
face, self-esteem, sleep, and their pseudo-religious guru status? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

If this is name-dropping poker, I'll see your Hecht and raise with J.D.
Jackson and Born & Wolf.

But thanks for the education. After 40 years of obtaining multiple
degrees in physics followed by working R&D in the optics field I guess I
still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to figure out that
energy is indeed something to "worry about". I never would have imagined
such a thing!


73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

Yes, most people with rudimentary arithmetic skills would agree that
75 plus 8.33 does not equal 133.33.


Too bad Dr. Best posted the equation: "Ptotal = 75w + 8.33w = 133.33w"
on this newsgroup (and, thank goodness, left it out of his article) so
he obviously disagreed with you at the time. He also said that interference
had nothing to do with it.

However, anyone even remotely familiar with waves would readily
understand that the component waves Cecil loves to talk about are
merely mathematical conveniences. It is entire possible to set up
other model configurations, such as a combination of a one traveling
wave and one standing wave.


What happens at an impedance discontinuity given those circumstances? To
find out, read my WorldRadio article, Part I of which is posted on my web
page. Part II will be posted after Christmas. At the risk of raising your
politically incorrect ire as I have done with this technical posting,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!.

In order to make his model work, Cecil needs to invoke the mythical P3
and P4 on the source side of the reflection discontinuity. He never
gets around to explaining how these two waves, which exactly cancel at
all points in space and at all times, can contain any energy at all.


The answer is simple. Do waves contain any energy at all? Do waves that
cancel contain any energy? If waves contain no energy, they cannot exist,
and therefore are incapable of canceling. If they exist and cancel, they
contained energy just before their cancellation. Any way you cut it,
my approach is consistent with the laws of physics as enumerated in
"Optics",
by Hecht, and yours leads to a contradiction of those laws of physics.

The reason that most practitioners of wave models solve for the fields
first and then worry about power or energy is:

a - This procedure works correctly all the time.


Yes, it does. But optics engineers didn't have the luxury of dealing
with voltages and currents. They had to solve the problem using powers.
And they did exactly that decades ago. That RF engineers refuse to
consider the laws of physics concerning EM waves developed by optics
engineers is absolutely astounding to me. W7EL put it best, something
to the effect that if it wasn't invented here, we don't want to hear it
(even if it is right). But I daresay that Eugene Hecht knows much more
about EM waves that you will ever know, given your closed mind.

I do not expect to change Cecil's mind. Other than his own potential
embarrassment from the silly publications in World Radio, his folly is
harmless.


You are just displaying your extreme ignorance, Gene. My "WorldRadio"
article
corrects some of the *conceptual* errors in Dr. Best's QEX article but
otherwise
contains the same equations as his article. If you disagree with me, you
are
also disagreeing with Dr. Best's equations, i.e. you are between a rock
and a
hard place.

It is interesting that the very people who tell us not to worry about
energy
are the people who get so emotionally rabid when someone chooses to
worry about
energy like real-world physicists do. What do they possibly have to lose
besides
face, self-esteem, sleep, and their pseudo-religious guru status? :-)

Gene Fuller wrote:
If this is name-dropping poker, I'll see your Hecht and raise with J.D.
Jackson and Born & Wolf.

Please post any contradiction of Hecht by your sources. That argument
could get very interesting. To summarize: Constructive interference
energy must come from somewhere in the real world. You seem to disagree.
So where do you think constructive interference energy comes from?

But thanks for the education. After 40 years of obtaining multiple
degrees in physics followed by working R&D in the optics field ...

If you are omniscient, please prove it. If you are not omniscient and
still capable of learning, please admit it. The trouble with gurus is
that they sincerely believe that they know everything already and
therefore cannot possibly learn anything new. I'm still open to learning.
How about you?

... I guess I
still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to figure out that
energy is indeed something to "worry about". I never would have imagined
such a thing!

That's a really strange thing to admit, Gene, since a very large percentage
of the physics community is dedicated to understanding where the energy
was, is, and will be - down to an almost infinitessimally small amount.
You definitely seem to be cast in the mold of the priests who put Galileo
under house arrest. Are you comfortable with that position?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp