Cecil,

(No smiley faces this time. No trolls or tricks either.)

The assertion that there is some important difference between a standing
wave and its component traveling waves has been made on a number of
occasions in this thread. Indeed, that concept seems pretty central to
the entire issue.

It may be worth examining the importance of this distinction further.

Basic assumptions:

* System is linear, with no diodes, saturating cores, etc.

* System is steady-state, with no startup transients.

* System is lossless, including a lack of radiation

* Superposition applies, i.e., scaling works and we can add subcomponent
functions without error. The whole is precisely equal to the sum of the
parts, no more and no less.

If any of these assumptions are not operative, then what follows may not
be correct.

As you have stated, including references from Hecht, it is customary to
mathematically show traveling waves in the form: cos (kz +/- wt)
Through straightforward addition and simple trigonometry is is seen that
the standing wave corresponding to the sum of equal magnitude forward
and reverse traveling waves has the form: cos (kz) * cos (wt)


The key question then becomes, what information has been lost in adding
the traveling waves to form a standing wave? All of the parameters and
variables are still in the standing wave equation, namely, k, z, w, t.
The numerical values and definitions for these terms have not changed.
One can add constant phase offsets in the traveling wave equations, but
those don't really add any new information, and in any case they are not
lost in converting to the standing wave format.

Are there some hidden variables that have not been considered? If so,
what are they, and where do they show up in the original traveling wave
equations? If not, why does the analysis and measurement of the
traveling wave components give one iota more information than the
analysis and measurement of the standing wave?

There is little doubt that real world conditions will violate some of
the assumptions, but that does not seem to be the issue in the debate at
this time.

Again, what extra information would be gained if somehow the traveling
wave components could be measured?

73,
Gene
W4SZ




Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:

[snip]


Current is current.


On the contrary, one can look at the formula for standing wave
current and see that standing wave current is NOT like traveling
wave current. Traveling wave current is of the form f(z+wt) or
f(z-wt) depending upon the direction of travel. Standing wave
current is of the form f(z) + f(wt) so they are quite different
and therefore have *different* characteristics.

As you can see from the functions, magnitude and phase are
interlocked for a traveling wave. Magnitude and phase are
unlocked for a standing wave. With a phasor fixed at zero
degrees, how does a standing wave phasor manage to flow?