Re: Argument of wavefunction

[Brian Whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 11:21 AM 2/27/02, you wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2002, at 7:03, Brian Whatcott wrote:
>
> > At 11:52 PM 2/26/02, Sarma wrote:
> > >... This I think is preferable because it allows the student
> > >to understand the phase change of the reflected wave from the
> > >boundary of medium of greater impedance. If we take sin(kx-wt)
> > >this does not come directly.
> > >
> > >What are the experiences of the list members regarding this.
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >
> > >Sarma.
> >
> >
> > We deny it because it is wrong?
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian Whatcott
> >    Altus OK                      Eureka!
> >
>
> I beg your indulgence. Will it be too much to ask
> you to be a bit more elaborate?
>
> regards,
> Sarma.


In the last week or two, I sketched the mechanism to describe how a battery
'knows' how much current  to supply to an incandescent lamp down a pair of
wires (or a transmission line).
I mentioned that at switch on, a voltage wave passes down the line, drawing
a current of magnitude controlled by the characteristic impedence of the line.
Then when the wave reaches the lamp, for reasonable assumptions, the lamp
resistance is lower than the line impedance, so that the voltage dips, and
a wave of lower voltage travels back to the battery which is then signalled
to provide more current to this lower voltage. A reverse wave of lower
voltage is represented as a phase reversed voltage wave.
If the line had been open at the end, the reflected wave would be higher -
represented as a reverse wave of same polarity.
In this model, a reflected wave is in phase with the incident at a higher
impedence boundary of reflection. This contradicts your assertion.






Brian Whatcott
  Altus OK                      Eureka!