Cecil Moore wrote:

Are you willing to assert that the power being
dissipated in the circulator resistor didn't
make a round trip to the load and back even though
the actual delay is easy to measure?

How does inserting a circulator load into a circuit that doesn't have
one illustrate anything about energy flow other than the behavior of a
circuit with a circulator load in it?

Do the reflected waves that you see when looking
at yourself in the mirror contain any joules/sec?

You seem to be laboring under a misconception about my point of view,
Cecil. But it can't be for a lack of attempts on my part to persuade
you of it.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
I don't agree that the terms power and energy become interchangeable by
virtue of the fact that their units can both be expressed with the word
Joule in them.

That's why I am willing to switch from the words "Reflected
Power" to "Reflected Energy" and measure that energy flow
past a point on a transmission line in joules/second.
Thus "power" and "watts" are dropped from the discussion
along with any semantic disagreements over the definitions
of those words.

So the question is: With a forward RF energy flow of 200
joules/sec and a reverse RF energy flow of 100 joules/sec,
would you agree that there is 300 joules of energy existing
in a lossless one-second long transmission line? i.e. exactly
the amount of energy required to support the forward RF
energy wave and the reflected RF energy wave.

Or if the above transmission line is one microsecond long,
that 300 microjoules of energy exists in the line, i.e.
exactly the amount of energy required to support the
forward RF energy wave and the reflected RF energy wave.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 11:00:30 -0000, "Jeff" wrote:

So a very well respected CAD package agrees with Richard at least!!

Hi Jeff,

Thanx for the flowers, and sorry for having been myopic in my
correspondence and restricting my comments to response to Owen.

HOWEVER, those flowers may wilt in my hands.

That congruent result you found with my writing and what you have
found in your CAD work, sadly, does not conform to the question put.

This has been an object lesson in the difference between mismatch loss
and line loss. Such issues are frequently polluted through the course
of discussion, and by polluted I mean that two or more concepts are
combined as though they were one.

This thread has revealed just such mixture, other threads often
violate the separation of Conjugate Matching and Impedance Matching.

On the other hand, there is an upside, to you as an innocent bystander
who has participated through your own analysis. Before they wilt, I
hand that bouquet back to you for your discovery of how much impact
source Z has upon the SYSTEM.

Ultimately, that was my point all along. Having arrived there after
deviating from the straight and narrow and having plunged into the
slough of despond, redeems me (Owen, that was copied, or rather
lifted, too, from "The Pilgrim's Progress from This World to That
Which Is to Come," Bunyon, John, 1678 However, I only include this
citation so that Art can sneer at his heritage in association to
spitting on me. Any originality that I can claim is in my sense of
irony.).

I have other wallows in that slough to be revealed, as soon as Owen
gets to them in his "power explanation."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I don't agree that the terms power and energy become interchangeable
by virtue of the fact that their units can both be expressed with the
word Joule in them.


That's why I am willing to switch from the words "Reflected
Power" to "Reflected Energy" and measure that energy flow
past a point on a transmission line in joules/second.

SNIPPED

Energy FLOW implies a unit of time. Flow indicates a flow rate. In the absence
of a flow rate you are discussing static conditions.

Conclusion: all the illogical rational in the world does not change the
understanding of energy flow energy/unit time = power = watts =
joules/second pass a point or dissipated.

Cecil, as an engineer you should stick with standard vocabulary.

Jeff wrote:
w5dxp wrote:
The Z0 of the transmission line has not changed to 100
ohms so normalizing the chart to 100 ohms is not valid.

It is just as valid as using 50 ohms, and the result is the same, a changing
vswr.

No, the center of the Smith Chart is the Z0 of the transmission
line (when used on a transmission line). One cannot willy nilly
change the reference Z0. The confusion from doing such is obvious.

I see you have not commented on the main point of my post, that being that
the smith chart shows a changing vswr when you change the source impedance.

I think I see the problem. It is an *error* to change the
Smith Chart reference point when the source impedance
changes while the T-line Z0 and load remain the same.

Hint: transmission line transformers would not work if the vswr did not
change.

Hint: A lossless series-section transmission line transformer
has a *constant SWR*. It is the *constant SWR circle* that
causes the impedance transformation.

A fixed-constant SWR on 300 ohm line looks like it changes
when measured with a 50 ohm SWR meter but that is an illusion.
The SWR meter *must* be calibrated to the Z0 of the
transmission line in order to obtain a valid SWR reading.
The impedance is indeed being transformed all around the
constant SWR circle.

With your software, you are conceptually doing the same thing
as using a 50 ohm SWR meter on a 300 ohm transmission line.
The meter reading is invalid when taken at face value. The
meter reading does NOT indicate a valid SWR on the 300 ohm
feedline and neither does your software.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Jim Kelley wrote:
How does inserting a circulator load into a circuit that doesn't have
one illustrate anything about energy flow other than the behavior of a
circuit with a circulator load in it?

It proves that the reflected energy made a round trip
to the load and back. If there is no such thing as
reflected energy, how is that possible? If it is
possible in a system with a circulator load, why
is it not possible when the circulator load is removed?

You seem to be laboring under a misconception about my point of view,
Cecil. But it can't be for a lack of attempts on my part to persuade
you of it.

This question of yours from another posting gives insight
into what you are trying to say.

how is it that you were able to ascertain that this heat energy
was caused by energy that was reflected from the load rather than
having come directly from the power supply within the source?

How is it that you are able to ascertain that your reflection
in the mirror was caused by reflections rather than having
come directly from your face?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

So the question is: With a forward RF energy flow of 200
joules/sec and a reverse RF energy flow of 100 joules/sec,
would you agree that there is 300 joules of energy existing
in a lossless one-second long transmission line? i.e. exactly
the amount of energy required to support the forward RF
energy wave and the reflected RF energy wave.

I think it depends on how long the energy has been flowing. But in the
steady state it's rather like posing this question: With a forward
speed of 200 knots, and with a headwind speed 100 knots, would you
agree that the apparent airspeed of the aircraft is 300 knots?

Or if the above transmission line is one microsecond long,
that 300 microjoules of energy exists in the line, i.e.
exactly the amount of energy required to support the
forward RF energy wave and the reflected RF energy wave.

Or even if the forward energy is 200 microjoules/sec, reverse of 100
microjoules/sec through a 1 second transmission line.

It's kind of a boring problem though. Personally, I think it's more
interesting and enlightening to consider what goes on prior to steady
state.

73, ac6xg

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 09:58:02 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

, is how is it that you were able to
ascertain that this heat energy was caused by energy that was
reflected from the load rather than having come directly from the
power supply within the source?

In the theological sense, this predicates that power never becomes
dissociated from "the source." That is ambiguous, isn't it?

Is that to include the batteries behind the collector supply? The
power supply charging the batteries? The power grid feeding the power
supply? The generator driving the grid? The Coal firing the steam
spinning the generator? The sun through photosynthesis growing plants
to provide the coal? The previous supernova that seeded the cosmos by
which coalescence formed the sun? ...and into an infinite regression
to that previous supernova?

The energy dissipated is computed from the Galactic Load Line.

I think it's
been fairly well established that the output impedance of these things
is far from 50 ohms.

Can you offer what that complex number is? :-0

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dave wrote:
Cecil, as an engineer you should stick with standard vocabulary.

Just trying to appease the physicists, Dave. They are
arguing that it is not power until work is done. They
say that since reflected energy is not doing any work,
it cannot be reflected power. Therefore, reflected
power doesn't exist. It's purely semantics. The very
essence of an EM wave is its energy content.

So the real question is: Since standing waves obviously
exist and just as obviously cannot exist without two
coherent waves traveling in opposite directions, does
reflected energy exist? (That question seems to cause their
skivvies to get all bunched up.)

I will just be happy when they admit that reflected
EM waves possess a certain amount of energy that cannot
stand still and according to the theory of relativity
must necessarily travel at the speed of light.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Dave wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

I don't agree that the terms power and energy become interchangeable
by virtue of the fact that their units can both be expressed with the
word Joule in them.



That's why I am willing to switch from the words "Reflected
Power" to "Reflected Energy" and measure that energy flow
past a point on a transmission line in joules/second.


SNIPPED

Energy FLOW implies a unit of time. Flow indicates a flow rate. In the
absence of a flow rate you are discussing static conditions.

Conclusion: all the illogical rational in the world does not change the
understanding of energy flow energy/unit time = power = watts =
joules/second pass a point or dissipated.

Cecil, as an engineer you should stick with standard vocabulary.

Dave,

I couldn't agree more. Energy flow is correct. Power flow is a bit
more controversial. In some cases the notion can lead to power being
reflected, algebraically summed, and it can ultimately interfere
constructively and destructively. It can even, by making exactly the
right misinterpretations, end up changing direction without the aid of
a reflecting surface. That's why it can sometimes be important to
make sure the hairs are properly split. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG