FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

its raining, its going to rain all weekend, i already caught up my qsl card
replies, what can i do for fun this weekend... I know, troll a fight on
r.r.a.a! How about it you guys, you up for a return bout of lumps vs
distributions? how about adding powers, that one hasn't come up recently??
maybe a quick argument over why kirchoff's current equation doesn't work
with distributed systems?? Or could we drum up a good fight about
fractal-quad-yagi efficiency, or how cfa's can't work the way they are
claimed to? Come on, there must be a good one in there somewhere to get you
guys stirred up for a weekend! Who wants to be the first one to tell me i
can't use 75 ohm hardline without some fancy matching system?? Or why my
SWR meter is no good when i do? Come on, just a little fight???

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

SWR METERS ONLY INDICATE FORWARD CW POWER AND REVERSE CB JARGON INTO
THE CROSSED-FIELD FRAKTAL YAGI IF THE IMPEDANCE OF THE SLOW-WAVE
LOADING COIL TRANSMISSION LINE IS EXACTLY 49.0003000+j3.50003000 OHMS
PLUS OR MINUS 39%!

73,
Dan
N3OX

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

ALL RIGHT! thats the kind of assertion that should stir things up. I like
the 'slow-wave' part, thats a good one... maybe we should compare it to one
of those faster than light antennas in the patent archives and see if we can
get something going?

wrote in message
oups.com...
SWR METERS ONLY INDICATE FORWARD CW POWER AND REVERSE CB JARGON INTO
THE CROSSED-FIELD FRAKTAL YAGI IF THE IMPEDANCE OF THE SLOW-WAVE
LOADING COIL TRANSMISSION LINE IS EXACTLY 49.0003000+j3.50003000 OHMS
PLUS OR MINUS 39%!

73,
Dan
N3OX

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

Dave wrote:
ALL RIGHT! thats the kind of assertion that should stir things up. I like
the 'slow-wave' part, thats a good one... maybe we should compare it to one
of those faster than light antennas in the patent archives and see if we can
get something going?


How about a loss of de-Corum...... ;^)

Sorry Cecil, I'm a sucker for a bad pun!


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
its raining, its going to rain all weekend, i already caught up my qsl
card
replies, what can i do for fun this weekend... I know, troll a fight on
r.r.a.a! How about it you guys, you up for a return bout of lumps vs
distributions? how about adding powers, that one hasn't come up
recently??
maybe a quick argument over why kirchoff's current equation doesn't work
with distributed systems?? Or could we drum up a good fight about
fractal-quad-yagi efficiency, or how cfa's can't work the way they are
claimed to? Come on, there must be a good one in there somewhere to get
you
guys stirred up for a weekend! Who wants to be the first one to tell me i
can't use 75 ohm hardline without some fancy matching system?? Or why my
SWR meter is no good when i do? Come on, just a little fight???



Weekend fight promotion follows:

If a chicken-and-a-half can lay and egg-and-a-half in a day-and-a-half, how
long
would it take one regular chicken to lay a dozen eggs?

Most-favorable consideration will be given to answers submitted with a valid
Paypal account number and password. It need not be your own.

Email answers to


(There, that should about do it.)

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
How about a loss of de-Corum...... ;^)
Sorry Cecil, I'm a sucker for a bad pun!

I'm not sure K1AON and KB1EUD would appreciate
your pun.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

There's a good fight brewing in QEX magazine land. Eric, K8LV, wrote a
pretty good article on directional wattmeters. But he spent a lot of
space asserting that the notion of forward and reflected power in a
transmission line is merely for intuitive convenience, isn't real, and
should be abandoned in favor of unidirectional power flow and lumped
analysis at a single point.

Whoo Hoo. The letters will be fun. Especially if Eric attempts to
extend his assertion to a case not-as-special, such as not-steady-state
or a point in 3D space.

Too bad it wasn't here. Bet we'd get a couple dozen posts before the
weekend's out. Anyone want to take Eric's side?


73,
Glenn AC7ZN

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

wrote:
There's a good fight brewing in QEX magazine land. Eric, K8LV, wrote a
pretty good article on directional wattmeters. But he spent a lot of
space asserting that the notion of forward and reflected power in a
transmission line is merely for intuitive convenience, isn't real, and
should be abandoned in favor of unidirectional power flow and lumped
analysis at a single point.

K8LV is like the person who is satisfied with the Sun God riding
his chariot across the sky every day as a model of reality. He seems
to believe in a Standing Wave God who wills standing waves into
existence without the necessity for a forward traveling wave and
a rearward traveling wave to exist. It reminds me of what Einstein
said about models of reality needing to be simple, but not too simple.

Over the years, I have challenged anyone on this newsgroup to create
a standing wave in a single source system without having the existence
of a forward wave and a reflected wave. Nobody has furnished any proof
that standing waves are possible in a single source system without the
existence of forward and reflected waves.

Reflected energy is readily apparent using a time domain reflectometer.
Reflected power is easily detected and dissipated using a signal
generator with a circulator and load. A bit of modulation proves that
the reflected wave has made a round trip to the mismatched load and
back to the circulator load.

With the following example, I have shown that, during steady-state,
there are 300 joules of energy in the transmission line that have
not yet reached the load.

100W---one second long 50 ohm lossless feedline---291.5 ohms
Pfor=200W-- --Pref=100W

There are no impedance discontinuities between the source and the
load and EM energy travels at the speed of light. The 300 joules
cannot exist anywhere except in the forward and reflected waves.
Without the existence of forward and reflected waves, there is
nothing to support standing waves. That the energy moving in each
direction is difficult to separate is no reason to assert that it
doesn't exist. According to the IEEE definition of power, the
*potential* for doing work is power. The 300 joules stored in the
above transmission line have the potential for doing work after
the source is powered down. That the work actually performed is
not useful work is irrelevant.

Anyone who doubts the existence of reflected energy should do a
second by second analysis of the above example starting at power
up. The technical facts become undeniable after a few seconds.

Whoo Hoo. The letters will be fun. Especially if Eric attempts to
extend his assertion to a case not-as-special, such as not-steady-state
or a point in 3D space.

Too bad it wasn't here. Bet we'd get a couple dozen posts before the
weekend's out. Anyone want to take Eric's side?

K8LV even contradicts himself in his own article. He says the Z0 of
the line "literally forces all power flow to occur in 50-ohm waves
on the line". In the above example, those 300 joules per second are
necessarily flowing in the one second long line since they cannot
stand still. Where are they if, as K8LV asserts, the Z0 of the line
is forcing a V/I ratio of 50 ohms? They can exist in only one place,
in the 200W forward wave and 100W reflected wave each of which forces
a V/I ratio of 50 ohms, just as K8LV asserts.

Exactly the same thing happens when standing EM waves of light are
formed in free space. Let's see K8LV explain that one without the
existence of forward traveling light waves and rearward traveling
light waves. How do these quotes agree with standing waves of light?

"... the forward and reverse waves do not exist separately ..."

I think I can hear a multitude of physicists laughing at the assertion
that standing waves of light do not require the separate existence of
forward and reverse waves. QEX was interested in publishing an article
of mine with light wave examples until they realized the implications
of those technical facts.

This is just one more example of the dumbing down of amateur radio
accompanying the dumbing down of the US educational system in
general. Unfortunately, it seems to be a trend that cannot be
reversed because it is the biased view being pushed by the ARRL
and its supporters.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

Cecil Moore wrote:

Over the years, I have challenged anyone on this newsgroup to create
a standing wave in a single source system without having the existence
of a forward wave and a reflected wave. Nobody has furnished any proof
that standing waves are possible in a single source system without the
existence of forward and reflected waves.

Cecil,

Why would anyone try to prove that the basic math of adding sinusoidal
functions is incorrect? To the contrary, you are the one who insists
that a standing wave and its constituent traveling wave components are
somehow different and unique. No one denies the simultaneous existence
of standing waves and traveling waves.

Isn't superposition wonderful!

73,
Gene
W4SZ

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
 

Gene Fuller wrote:
Why would anyone try to prove that the basic math of adding sinusoidal
functions is incorrect? To the contrary, you are the one who insists
that a standing wave and its constituent traveling wave components are
somehow different and unique.

Actually, it was you who made that assertion and thanks for the
opportunity to quote you once again:

Gene Fuller, W4SZ wrote:
In a standing wave antenna problem, such as the one you describe,
there is no remaining phase information. Any specific phase
characteristics of the traveling waves died out when the startup
transients died out.

So standing waves are "somehow different" from traveling waves
according to your own assertions. The traveling wave possesses
phase characteristics and the standing wave doesn't.

Phase is gone. Kaput. Vanished. Cannot be recovered. Never to be
seen again.

So it was you who asserted that standing wave current is "somehow
different" from traveling wave current and I agree with you. It's
obvious they are "somehow different" because they have different
mathematical equations. Have you changed your mind since your
above quoted posting?

No one denies the simultaneous existence
of standing waves and traveling waves.

Of course they do, Gene, that is the whole point. Here is a quote
from K8LV's article:

"I wish to emphasize the fact that the forward and reverse
waves really do not exist separately ..."

That certainly *denies* the separate existence of the underlying
traveling waves so your above assertion is false. I believe that
W7EL also denies the separate existence of forward and reverse
waves and introduced the technical term, "sloshing", to explain
what happens to the energy in a transmission line with reflections.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp