On Jun 28, 5:33*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Do you reject *P(t)=V(t)*I(t) ?

I certainly reject as a moronic method for attempting to track
instantaneous energy.

I agree completely. And my analysis does successfully track all the
energy at all times.

That is obviously false. You have tracked the *power* after assuming a
one-to-one correspondence between power (watts) and energy (joules).
Your assumption is most likely false. You usually cannot use
instantaneous watts to track joules within a fraction of a cycle. If
the voltage and current are out of phase, some of the joules are
occupied as reactive power, and not available as watts of real power.
Why do you think the power companies spend so much money trying to
balance the power factor?

Methinks that you are perturbed that it demonstrates that your
analysis does not track all the energy all the time, but only
succeeds with averages.

What bothers me is that, "Figures don't lie, but liers figure." :-) I
have made no assertion or effort to track instantaneous energy. I
would have to review a lot of physics to even remember how. What I do
know is that you have been tracking power, not energy, and therefore
any conclusion that you reach is probably invalid. You first must
prove a one-to-one correspondence at all delta-t sections between the
joules at that point and the watts at that point. We know that
integrating over a complete second will make the joules equal to the
watts for a traveling wave (but not for a standing wave). Now you must
integrate over every partial cycle to prove that there are the exact
number of joules in that delta-t of time to support the exact number
of watts in that delta-t of time. I remember being warned by my
professors more than half a century ago that it was a "fool's
errand".
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com