On 2 Mar, 13:04, chuck wrote:
Dave wrote:
chuck wrote:
Dave wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

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.

A Poynting vector is watts/square angle [watts/degree^2]. It is not
being dissipated in free space. It is Diverging [vector
relationship]. How do the physics type adjust their definition to
include the Poynting Vector?

I'll sit back and read the follow up posts for the next few weeks :-)

And now one for the engineers!

How do you interpret a non-zero Poynting vector determined by static
E- and H- fields?

73,

Chuck

Static fields, by definition, do not have a time varying divergence. No
time variation, no Poynting Vector. Nes Pas?

I think the Poynting vector can be calculated even when the E and H
fields are static. Of course, doing so would violate Poynting's
assumptions and thus be meaningless. But if one didn't know in advance
that an arbitrary closed surface contained static sources, and he found
the Poynting vector, S, for some small area, he could well get a
non-zero answer. Of course, the integral of S over the entire surface
would always be zero in the case of static sources.

To be applicable, the Poynting theorem requires that the E and H fields
arise from a single source, satisfying Maxwell's first two equations.
But that information may not be known in advance.

73,

Chuck

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chuck,
I believe you would be much better off choosing Gausses law for
statics and adding a time element to the written law itself thus
providing all three cartesian coodinates reguired for the law.
I suppose one could say it is not Gaussian law anymore but
mathematically it fits quite well. This is the basis for Gaussian
antenna arrays for which I have submitted for consideration from the
patent office. As yet I have not heard any comment that invalidates
this concept other than it can't be done from psuedo experts and
frankly I feel that the addition speaks for itself.
Regards
Art