On Jun 5, 1:05 pm, lu6etj wrote:
Hi. ¡Good evening (here) to all..!

We need to carefully understand the meaning of the words. Power is
energy that is moving;

Since the energy can be dissipated also transmitted, If we talk in
power FLUX terms (instead power only), I think the issue it would be a
little more understandable because surfaces may have associated
vectors (with "power moving" I believe you are thinking about power
crossing an imaginary surface)
(Note: when I spoke about "unidimensional" nature of a TL space I am
pointing to "degrees of freedom" of energy flux circumscribed to its
physical path, of course).

For the sake of example we could imaginate a coaxial TL provided with
a resistive inner conductor and perfectly conductive outer one. On
such TL perhaps we could clearly visualize power flux vector (Poynting
vector) "slanted" towards inner conductor to "see" -through simple
vectorial decomposition on (over?) the inner wire and pependicular to
it directions both = transmission and dissipative nature of
phenomenom.
At the same time I believe will be also more ease to account for net
power FLUX of opposite directions traveling waves and do not confuse
with net power being zero, leading us to the idea of zero energy
stored in a ideal resonant TL. Note: In my last mensage I forget to
clear that with "resonant line" I was speaking about a section of TL
with its ends open or shorted (or a mix) to force a "chemically pure"
standing wave :)

I believe we always must escape from words as "real" or
"true" (outside of safe environments such mathematics or digital
logic), because "she" easily leads us to the Holy Inquisition
dangers :) Let us the Wave word to be free for jointing with
standing, sine, hand, etc, etc. and do we make efforts to understand
its conceptual meaning on each context :)

Good day Miguel,

I do not disagree with anything you have written, but I do think it
is much too early to introduce Poynting vectors and lossy conductors
to the discussion.

Some of the posters to this group have basic misunderstandings of
the behaviour of transmission lines and using Poynting to address
these misunderstandings is like trying to use quantum mechanics
to address misunderstandings of Newton’s third law. And it will
be just as unsuccessful.

The basic misunderstanding is believing that a reflected wave
necessarily and always transports energy. Rather than using
basic circuit theory to demonstrate that this assumption is
incorrect, these posters introduce Poynting, optics and
photons to reinforce their beliefs. Believing that a
reflected wave necessarily transports energy then begs the
question ‘where does this energy go?’. At one time it was
a commonly held belief that this reflected ‘energy’ entered
the transmitter and fried the final. This notion has generally
disappeared, but has been replaced by faulty concepts
attempting to explain how the reflected ‘energy’ is re-reflected
so that is does not enter the transmitter. And all this effort
is expended because of a misunderstanding of the nature of
reflected ‘energy’.

Until these basic behaviours are properly understood, optics,
photons and Poynting merely assist with obfuscation.

....Keith