On Mar 26, 11:43*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You should consider that perhaps your inability to
identify the element and its energy function really
calls into question your concept of "interference
energy" being stored and returned later.

I have previously multiple times identified the element
as the network reactance and pointed you to a reference.

Indeed you have, but you have not answered the second clause
in the question. Until you can provide the energy flow
function of the element you claim is storing the energy
there is no reason to believe that it is the element.

Can it be that hard to provide the function?
Or perhaps the element you have identified does not have
the appropriate energy flow function? (It doesn't.)

I suppose, if you want to rename superposition as interference.
But none of my basic circuit theory books use the word
interference when discussing superposition.

I'm not renaming superposition. I'm using the
definition of "interference" provided by Hecht
in "Optics". Superposition can occur with or
without interference. The present discussion is
about superposition with interference present.
Interference is just a word which identifies
the special case of superposition that is
under discussion.

Sure. OK.

If the powers imputed to the constituent voltages of
superposition did represent actual energy flows, then
you would be able to simply add them to get the total
flow, since energy can not be created or destroyed.

There you go again, confusing power and energy.
There is *NO* conservation of power principle.

Conservation of energy arises from the inability
to create or destroy energy. Energy can only flow from
one element to another.

This requires that the sum of the flows out of the
elements providing energy equals the sum of the flows
into the elements receiving the energy. Choose
whatever name you want for it, but this is the
reason that
Ps(t) must equal Prs(t) + Pg(t)

And it is just as powerful a concept as conservation
of energy since it follows directly from that principle.

The fact that a correction needs to be applied when
adding them is proof that they can not be actual energy
flows.

There is *NO CORRECTION TO THE ENERGY COMPONENTS*. There
is only a correction to the power components to account
for the time the energy is being stored before it is
dissipated. You really need to learn the difference
between energy and power.

And we are still waiting for the energy flow function
for the element that you claim is doing the storing
of the energy.

You should take this as a reason to
call into question the whole idea that this "interference
energy" is an actual energy flow.

Your argument is not with me - it is with experts
like Eugene Hecht. Please read his *57 page* Chapter
9 on "Interference" and then get back to us. With 57
pages devoted to the subject, Hecht doesn't seem to
share your problems with it.

Actually, we are debating *your* interpretation.

If *your* "wave reflection model" includes the idea that
Pref always represents an actual energy flow, then *your*
"wave reflection model" is wrong.

When you can prove that reflected traveling waves contain
zero energy, i.e. that ExH=0, I will accept your assertion
but not before.

You see. There you go again. Refusing to set aside an
assumption, even temporarily. It does make it difficult
to explore alternate explanations if you stop before you
start.

Exactly how does a TDR detect zero energy?

Does it detect energy? Are you sure?
Or is it voltage that it detects? Or current?

In fact, the thing you need to do is forget the transmission
line and deal with light waves encountering boundaries with
different indexes of refraction. The problem is identical,
but dealing with light out in the open prohibits you from
pushing your mashed-potatoes energy religion.

No. Light, in a 3 dimensional space and at such high frequency
makes the math and measurements so complicated that it is
extremely difficult to follow the energy. Much better to learn
from a one-dimensional transmission line and then see if the
solutions also apply to light. Which they do. But the analysis
is tractable in a transmission line.

...Keith