Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:45:04 -0800, Roger wrote:

Hi Richard,

The math seems to work, but if you have no use for it, disregard it. On
the other hand, if another perspective of electro magnetics that
conforms to traditional mathematics can provide additional insight, use it.

Hi Roger,

This does not answer why TWO mathematics (both traditional) are
needed, especially since one is clearly an approximation of the other,
and yet offers no obvious advantage. I've already spoken to the
hazards of approximations being elevated to proof by well-meaning, but
slightly talented amateurs.

The derivation did several things for me. It clearly explains why we do
not have a runaway current when we first connect a voltage to a
transmission line, what transmission line impedance is, that moving
particles can not be the entire explanation for the electromagnetic wave
(because the energy field moves much faster than the electrons), and
puts into place a richer understanding of inductance.

I am surprised at your criticism in using DC. To me, a square wave is
DC for a short time period.

This single statement, alone, is enough to be self-negating. You
could as easily call a car with a standard stick shift an automatic
between the times you use the clutch - but that won't sell cars, will
it?

We could use the concept of a stepped wave, but that would imply the
need for several steps to develop the formula. Only the square wave
front and continued charge maintenance is required, observations that
can be easily verified by experiment.

Is the observation that a square wave can
be described as a series of sine waves troubling to you? Perhaps the
observation that a square wave might include waves of a frequency so
high that they would not be confined in a normal transmission line is
surprising or troubling to you?

DC as sine waves is not a contradiction on the face of it? DC that
consists of waves of a frequency so high that it would not be confined
in a normal transmission line is very surprising, isn't it?


What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves. This leads Cecil to comment that the leading edge of a square
wave could be composed of photons, which is a valid observation. It
also explains your observation that true square waves are not possible
(I am paraphrasing your comments) because of dispersion.

It is interesting to run an FFT on a square wave to see how the
frequencies can be resolved.

Would it surprise you to find your batteries in their packaging direct
from the store are radiating on the shelf? They are DC, are they not?
If the arguments of your sources works for an infinite line, they must
be equally true for an infinitesimal open line. When your headlights
are on, do they set off radar detectors in cars nearby because of the
high frequencies now associated with DC?

They only set off the radar detectors when I turn them on and off. I
have high power lights!! A lightning strike is a much better example of
DC containing high frequencies.


My goal is to better understand electromagnetic phenomena. You have
given some very astute insight many times in the past and thanks for
that. Negative comment is equally valuable, but sometimes a little
harder to swallow.

The pollution of terms such as DC to serve a metaphor that replaces
conventional line mechanics is too shallow glass to attempt to quench
any thirst.

The puzzle here is the insistence on hugging DC, when every element of
all of your links could as easily substitute Stepped Wave and remove
objections. The snake in the wood pile is once having fudged what DC
means, it is only a sideways argument away from rendering the term DC
useless. Is the term Stepped Wave (the convention) anathema for a
leveraging the novel origination (the invention) of DC Wave?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term. It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC? It should only add to the
tools we have to explain electromagnetic waves.

73, Roger, W7WKB