On Jun 30, 10:03*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 6:43*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

You have really latched on to that haven't you. I remember the good
ol' days when you were superposing powers and the very same people with
whom you are arguing today were trying to convince you that
superposing power was an invalid operation.

And I remember the good ol' days when you were still messing your
diapers. Do you still do that?

Warning! Warning! Descent in to scatology.

I probably did try to superpose power
back when I was young and foolish but I learned the error of my ways
and corrected it.

Learning is good. But now you want to over apply the rules.

When I add up the energy flows for the same purpose, that does not
mean that superposition is at work.

But you are NOT adding up the energy flows - you are adding up the
power.

Ummm. Energy flow is power. Joules/s!

If it helps, any place I have written 'power', please replace with
'energy flow'.

That's superposition of power and is a no-no. Power does not
obey any conservation of power principle.

Try the multiple pipe, water container, water flow example to
understand how flows must also be conserved if matter (or
energy) is not to be created or destroyed.

The instantaneous maximum
charge on a capacitor contains any amount of energy while power equals
zero. What is it about that concept that you don't understand?

Excellent concept. There is no conflict with conserving flows, or
energy
for that matter.

True. You must always use the actual energy flows in the entity and
not the powers that are not real.

What happens when energy = 1 joule, and de/dt = 0 watts. This happens
all the time during an RF cycle so you are not using actual energy
flows. You are using power which goes to zero even when maximum energy
is still present.

Yes, indeed. That is a fundamental possibility and occurs on
transmission lines with infinite VSWR.

There is obviously NOT a one-to-one correspondence
between power and energy.

Correct. Power is the time derivitive of energy. They are related
but definitely not one-to-one.

YOU CANNOT USE WATTS TO TRACK ENERGY UNLESS THERE IS A ONE-TO-ONE
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN WATTS AND JOULES.

This is quite incorrect. Energy flows must balance, otherwise energy
is being created or destroyed to sustain a difference in flow.

Also true. And as is done in my example.

Actually false, as I have proved above. Please plot the joules, not
the watts.

If it makes you happier, since it is a discrete simulation, you can
simply substitute joules per degree wherever there is a curve labeled
Watts. You need to scale, of course, between degrees and seconds, but
the shape and sums will be identical.

Please provide an example of such an error, preferably from one
of my expositions.

At a current node in a standing wave, you claim there is zero power
which is true.

Excellent. I am glad you have come to accept that.

You claim that since there is zero power, there is also
zero energy

I have never claimed that. In fact, the minima and maxima are
where the energy peaks will be found. I have claimed there is
no energy flow across (i.e. power) these points.

which is absolutely false since that is a voltage maximum
point and you will fry yourself if you grab it. The energy in the
voltage maximum is unrelated to the power being zero

Not quite. It follows from the functions for each. Since power is
the derivitive of energy, it should come as no surprise that
maximum energy occurs at the point of minimum power. In basic
calculus looking for the zero in the derivitive is how you
locate the maximum value of the curve.

- just one more
proof that energy does not correspond to power. At the zero power
points, there is a maximum of energy in one of the fields which you
are ignoring.

Of course it does. Energy must always balance; not just at the end
of the cycle.

Energy must balance but power doesn't have to balance and usually does
not balance. Power only balances for special cases. You are using
power in the general case as an example so anything you say is
invalid.

Unfortunately wrong. Energy flows must balance as well. Otherwise,
energy is coming from nowhere to sustain the flow.

Now you are allowing us to create and destroy energy as long as it
balances at the end of the cycle?

No, energy cannot be created or destroyed. But power is created and
destroyed all the time because there is no conservation of power
principle. Your glaring error is that you are using power as if it
were energy and it is not. I have given numerous examples. In an LC
oscillator, when all of the non-destructable energy is stored in the
capacitor, there is ZERO power, i.e. power has been destroyed.

Yes, indeed. At that instant, zero energy is flowing from the inductor
to the capacitor. But very soon, energy will be flowing from the
capacitor to the inductor. The balance is that the energy flowing
out of the capacitor is always and exactly equal to the energy flowing
in to the inductor. That is the energy flow balance. The only way for
this not to be true is for energy to be created or destroyed.

Why do
you refuse to discuss that fact of physics? 90 degrees later in the
cycle, power has been created.

One way of thinking about it, I suppose. But not too useful.

Instead, think that at every instant, the energy flow between the
entities in the experiment must balance.

Every time one of your instantaneous power curves crosses the zero
axis, power has been destroyed. Every time one of your instantaneous
power curves reaches a peak, power has been created.

I think you may be confused because you are only looking at the
flow in and out of a single entity. This is clearly not conserved.
Nor for that matter is the energy within that entity. It is the
total energy within the system that is conserved, just as it is
the total of the flows of energy between the entities within the
system that must be conserved.

Put more strictly: The sum of all the energy flows in to all of
the entities within the system must equal the energy flow in to
the system.

We do not suffer from the same constraints as optics.

You suffer from the delusion that power obeys the same laws of physics
that energy does. You willy-nilly interchange power and energy. Until
you admit the error of your ways, there is little that can be done to
alleviate your ignorance.

An intriguing accusation, but you do need to provide a concrete
example of where my analysis has gone wrong.

....Keith