On Apr 21, 12:26*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Feel free to substitute the word of your choice for 'remove'.

That's the first time you have used the word "remove".

You need to read more carefully. Not the first time at all.

Have you changed your mind about energy being "absorbed",
by the source, i.e. turned into heat?

What I have said is that an ideal voltage source removes energy
from a circuit and that we do not know what it does with the
energy it removes. In practice, devices which are designed to
approximate ideal voltage sources do simply dissipate the energy
they remove from the circuit.

But that is not part of the definition of an ideal voltage source,
for which no statement about where the energy removed goes is
made.

Dissipate is not a good choice since it usually implies
conversion to heat.

Whoa there Keith, "absorb" is equally not a good choice
since it usually implies conversion to heat as in the IEEE
definitions. If the source only removes energy, then that
is a plus for my side of the argument. If the source has
the ability to remove the destructive interference and
supply it back 90 degrees later as constructive interference,
the entire mystery of where the reflected power goes is
solved. When I previously offered that as a solution, you
turned it down flat. Now you seem to be agreeing with it.

No. We do not know what an ideal voltage source does with
energy it removes. We can not say that it stores and then
returns it, though a particular implementation might do
so. Another implementation might not. So this can not be
used as an explanation.

Absorb is not a good word for you, since you can find absorption
in the IEEE dictionary and it also suggests conversion to heat.

That's why I have been arguing loud and long against the
absorption of energy by the source. It would imply that
the source is heating up or has an infinite ability to
"irreversibly convert the energy of an EM wave into another
form of energy". That irreversible energy conversion is
what I have been objecting to. There is no way an impedance
of 0+j0 can cause an irreversible energy conversion.

I am sorry that the occasional use of the word 'absorb' so
mislead you. I avoided 'dissipate' for that reason. It is
not so obvious why you were mislead by the use of 'remove'.

A word that gives no hint about where this energy goes would
be best, ...

So you can sweep it under the rug and "not care where it
went"?

No. Because the definition of an ideal voltage does not specify
where the energy goes. Therefore we had better not care when
we use an ideal voltage source.

As I said, further discussion is pointless. You
have a magic source that obeys your every whim. Why didn't
you just say that in the first place?

No. My ideal voltage source just obeys the definition of an
ideal voltage source. It provides energy to the circuit when
the circuit conditions demand that it do so and similarly it
removes energy when the circuit conditions demand that it do
so. The definition does not tell us where the energy it
provides comes from, nor does it tell us where the energy
it removes goes.

A fairly simple defintion: The voltage at the terminals is
maintained at the desired value, regardless of the current
flow needed to do so.

No magic in the definition whatsoever. And no need to obey
whims.

...Keith