On Jun 30, 11:30*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
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'.

One too many words - what I meant to say is that you are not adding up
the energy - you are adding up the power. There is no such thing as
conservation of energy flow. That is proved by your own graphs. There
are times when the energy flow is destroyed. There are other points on
your power graphs where energy flow is created.

There is no conflict with conserving flows, ...

The conflict is that conservation of flows doesn't exist. Keith, you
need to go back to college. There is no such thing as conservation of
energy flow so your argument falls apart. When one looks up
"conservation" in a physics book one finds:

conservation of energy principle
conservation of mass-energy
conservation of mechanical energy
conservation of momentum principle

There is NO conservation of energy flow or conservation of power.
Until you give up on that ridiculous concept, we don't have much to
discuss except your religion.

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.

If power goes to zero, power has been destroyed. Therefore, there is
no conservation of power principle. Anything that can go to zero, i.e.
can disappear, cannot be conserved.

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

Well, that shoots your argument down. If power and energy do not have
a one-to-one correspondence, then you cannot use the conservation of
energy principle to prove that power is conserved and your argument
falls apart. You must then product a conservation of power principle,
something that every physics professor has warned us doesn't exist.

I can provide any number of references to support the conservation of
energy principle. Please provide just one bona fide reference that
supports your conservation of energy flow (power) principle.

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

Good grief! Any physicist knows that is false. Any number of examples
prove that is false.

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

Given a black box with an input and output. Measurements of the power
flow vector indicates that the magnitude of each power flow vector is
50 watts and both vectors are pointing inside the black box. How can
the instantaneous energy flows possibly balance?

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

You are contradicting yourself. Assume the capacitor *IS* the system
inside a black box. The instantaneous energy flow does NOT balance.

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.

You have it half right. Energy must be conserved. Energy flow is not
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.

Please see the black box experiment above and balance the energy flow.
Please produce a reference for the conservation of power principle.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com