wrote:
W5DXP wrote:
Actually, not. You continue to resist pointing out which step is wrong.

You obviously have not read all of my replies.

Is it step 2)?
"2) At quarter wave points along this line, voltages and currents
which are always 0 can be observed -- the standing wave"

This seems to be generally accepted.

This is where your confusion starts. There are points where the
NET voltage and NET current are zero. Those are merely the points
where the forward Poynting vector and reflected Poynting vector
are out of phase.

Is it step 3)?
"3) Power is the rate at which energy flows"

This is the definition of power.

So please apply it to the forward Poynting vector and the reflected
Poynting vector as described in Ramo & Whinnery.

Is it step 4)?
"4) The power (rate of energy flowing) at time t can be computed
using p(t) = v(t) * i(t)"

This is the well know expression of power in terms of volts and
amps.

This is NET power. Your sin is not a sin of commission. It is a
sin of omission.

Is it step 5)?
5) Substituting a voltage or current which is always 0 into the
expression above will result in a power which is also always 0

Just normal subsitution of actual values into an equation.

Again, you are dealing only with NET power when you need to be dealing
with component energies.

Is it step 6)?
"6) From 2) and 5), the power (rate of energy flowing) at quarter
wave points will be 0"

The result obtained after substitution.

Again, your assertions apply ONLY to NET power which is not what
is being discussed.

Is it step 7)?
"7) From 6), the energy crossing quarter wave points is 0"

If steps 1) to 6) are not in error, then step 7) follows.

The NET energy is zero. The component energies are not zero.

Is it step 8)?
"8) From 7), energy can not be flowing down and up the line
crossing quarter wave points"

Simply follows from 7).

And completely false for component energies.

You have not yet pointed to any error in the derivation.

Yes, I have, numerous times. Let me give you an analogy. To prove
my point I say: "My pickup is white. Please prove otherwise." My
statement is absolutely true and absolutely irrelevant. So are
yours.

If your extensive study of optics leads you to believe that
the conclusion is incorrect, and, if the conclusion is incorrect,
there must be an error in the derivation. What is it?

Your error is one of omission. Your assertions are simply not
relevant to the discussion.

But the derivation is quite simple.

Yes, too simple and completely irrelevant.

Since you have not yet pointed to an error in the derivation
(which would be the obvious way to close the question), I
conclude that you have been unable to locate such an error.
Seems reasonable, does it not?

Since you have not proven that my pickup is not white, you lose
the argument. See, I can do the same thing you are attempting.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----