On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:16:11 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

"a plus power differential from the sum of
the source powers at any given segment"
is so overly elaborate to be a fundamental concept supporting an
erroneous speculation Cecil is offering.

In a closed system, this is so un-elaborate that I can even take this down
to grade school artithmetic, Richard. When I add all of the power
differentials from source power with a plus sign in front of them, to the
power differentials from source power with a negative sign in front of them,
the sum must be zero. We're talking about power so I don't even have to go
to high school to learn about summing vectors.

What am I missing here?

Well, for one powers do not add, just energies.

The point of the matter is that the method of Superposition does not
reveal the nature of reality by parts, only by its whole.
Superposition is an artifice, a method, where reality is suspended
pending completing the analysis. To stop in the middle and proclaim a
new reality is a fraud. But then I've already explained this
elsewhere (did you follow that lead?).

If you in fact think that the issue of accepting a broken argument is
on par with High School homecoming elections, that is not the race I
am competing in.
If you want to stick with a technical issue in a
technical forum, then strict language and solid logic is still a
requirement.

Then I am sure you will agree that using terms like "taking Cecil's sucker
bait" is not the type of "strict language" and "solid logic" appropriate in
a technical forum.

In fact, it is in the strictest language par excellence! Strict
allows for no wiggle room, nothing nebulous. You completely
understood what it meant and technical forums are assaulted with a lot
of bankrupt theories- sometimes innocently offered, but not in this
case. You might complain of style, but not substance.

If you want it in another style, I could easily comply, but evoke
groans from many following this (and more complaints of style). On
the other hand, the substance of the issue is that the origin of this
thread is a patchwork of unremittingly failed logic that many here
have accepted as a point from which to argue. Tom has already
identified it in the class of argument "Have you stopped beating your
mother?" The crew here picks the theme up and starts asking for
definitions of mother, beating, "when does stop actually occur?", and
the rest. It does have its amusement, however. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Talking about taking Cecil's sucker bait. The string of conditionals
above should convince any rational mind that something in the
underlying premise is broken.

Anything for which you cannot provide a technical answer
appears to you to be "sucker bait". No underlying premise
is broken. EM waves interacting at a Z0-match simply obey
the laws of physics including the conservation of energy
principle. For every packet of additional energy needed
for constructive interference to occur, a packet of energy
becomes available from destructive interference.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Tom Donaly wrote:
Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right.

Sorry, I don't, Tom. Hecht, Born and Wolf have already
proven those fundamentals of physics to be true. You
have to prove me, Hecht, and Born and Wolf wrong.

And of course, you will mount every diversion known to
man to avoid facing the technical facts as explained by
Hecht, Born & Wolf, Melles-Groit, and the FSU web page.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

no way. Prove there is no change in the power delivered by the sources.

Making reference to the case under discussion (Wave#1 produces 50 joules/s at
the receiver when alone, and so does Wave#2 when alone), imagine that the two
waves are generated by two remote transmitters (+antennas) and that you measure
the power of the two superimposed waves on a receiver (+antenna) that you can
move in the space as you like.

If you put your receiver/antenna in a point where the two waves have equal
amplitude and opposite phase, your receiver will measure zero joules/s.

If you instead put your receiver/antenna in a point where the two waves have
equal amplitude and same phase, your receiver will measure 200 joules/s (i.e.
four times the power produced by each wave alone, not just two times).

Finally, if you put your receiver in a point where the two waves have equal
amplitude and a 45 deg. shift (as in the proposed case), your receiver will
measure 171 joules/s (still more than twice the power produced by each wave
alone).

Moving your receiver here and there will obviously cause no change in the power
delivered by the two remote transmitters.

The trick is due to the fact that the two waves interfere each other in
constructive or destructive manner depending on the particular receive point.
So, in the "lucky" points you get some extra power, which is however compensated
for by the power loss occurring at the "unlucky" points.

The original question is deceiving, because it attracts the reader's attention
on just one particular point of the space, where energy can unexplicably appear
to be created or destroyed. But instead considering the power distribution over
the whole space, the mistery disappears.

73

Tony I0JX

Richard Clark wrote:
"Antonio Vernucci" wrote:
In the case being discussed instead the power dissipated in the load varies with
NO CHANGE in total power delivered by the sources.

Buying into a blighted argument (what Cecil presented) leads to some
very strange contortions such as you describe above.

Sorry Richard, but if you listen to Antonio, you might learn
something about conservation of energy. He is one of the few
posters who seems to have a grasp of the technical facts that
have, so far, eluded you and other gurus.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Dave wrote:
In the case being discussed instead the power dissipated in the load
varies with NO CHANGE in total power delivered by the sources.

no way. Prove there is no change in the power delivered by the sources.

Piece of cake. The sources are beams of light from Alpha Centauri.
Now tell us exactly how Alpha Centauri adjusts its power output
from 11 light-years away.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Forgot to also mention that, obviously, shutting off one of the two remote
transmitters causes no change in the power delivered by the other transmitter.

73

Tony I0JX

Roy Lewallen wrote:
I see Cecil is still superposing his waves of average power.

That's at least unfair and at most unethical, Roy. I am not
superposing power. I am using the accepted irradiance equations
from optical physics to predict the energy result of superposing
EM waves, something that was being done by physicists before you
were born.

I have an example that's more fun yet.
Take a 10 volt source ...

It may be more fun but irrelevant. Please explain how the sun
can adjust its energy output depending upon what might or might
not be happening on earth. If you can do that, I will retract
everything I have said about this subject.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Roy Lewallen wrote:
*No matter how* you combine two waves in space or a transmission line in
such a way that they add, the process will result in other regions in
which they cancel, and vice-versa.

That is my argument, Roy, not yours. You are on record as
not caring what happens to reflected power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
... reality is suspended ...

That's obvious but why are you proud of it?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com