On Jun 3, 4:03*pm, lu6etj wrote:
Thanks to all

Hey boys! (Cecil, David, Michael, et al) It is very funny and
entertaining, I enjoy your postingss mostly in "read only" mode
because translate not simple mine ones still being a struggle for
me :-)
....
Cecil, I never studied standing waves with Maxwell equations (except
in usual examples of cavity resonators cases learning classes), I
studied only classic electric differential solution to the
telegraper's equations.

Hi Keith: *We tend to think of energy as a "tangible and real" easely
intuited thing "out there" (as a water or horses) but we must not
forget energy is a really elusive CONCEPT devised to explain changes
in physical systems. Familiarity tend us to fetishize concepts, then
we easily can get caught in troubles type = "Where velocity goes when
the car smash?" :-D :-D. We must be carefully with forces, powers,
velocities, etc. in this sense...
Note how Terman prudenty deals with differential solution of
Telegrapher's equations: "This combinatiosn of voltage and current can
be INTERPRETED as a wave train traveling toward receiver" (1)
(capitalized letters by me).

Terman does seem to be extraordinarily careful with his language.

The very term "standing waves" leads to endless Ham controversies
about concept of "wave" word in our context.(wave as "a disturb that
propagates" and wave as pattern-figure-graphics-representation of
interference pattern of voltage/current measured along the TL). This
"wave pattern" (is it correct to write "wavy" pattern?) do not carry
any energy from one place to another on the TL it is not a "wave" in
the other sense (transport phenomena). What do you think?

I tend to agree. Wave is an overloaded term and this leads to some of
the confusion. There are some phenomena that transport energy which
have a wavy nature. This does not mean that every thing with a wavy
nature is transporting energy.

In particular, it does not mean that when there is a situation in
which
energy is not being transported (e.g. a zero on a transmission line),
that just because the conditions on the line can be described by
decomposing into two waves going in opposite directions, that these
two waves are carrying energy.

Attempting to do this, and believing that these decomposed waves
actually
represent energy flows leads to having to answer questions like "where
does the reflected energy go"? When I first started lurking in this
group
about a decade and half ago, the 'obvious' answer accepted by many was
that it went in to the final and fried the tube. Many have moved
beyond
this simplicity, but some have not yet moved as far as they need to.

....Keith