Jim Kelley wrote:
The question implies that there are issues regarding the flow of energy
which you continue to misunderstand. Your answer confirms this.

So please enlighten me. How does a wave know whether to
carry energy or not depending upon its future fate? It
is my understanding that the power in an EM wave is ExH
no matter what its future fate.

Does a laser beam reflected from an ideal mirror carry any
less energy than the forward beam just because it has been
reflected? If so, how does that not violate the conservation
of energy principle?

In a one second long lossless transmission line, watts
equal joules. A forward wave of 200 watts contains 200
joules of energy. A reflected wave of 100 watts contains
100 joules of energy. Under such conditions, the source
has supplied exactly 300 joules more than has been
delivered to the load, no more and no less.

Is your claim that the above describes the system with, or without, the
circulator load?

Yes, in both cases the voltage reflection coefficient
at the load is 0.707 making the power reflection
coefficient = 0.5, i.e. half the power incident upon
the load is reflected.

The system with the circulator load at the signal
generator has the signal generator supplying 200
watts and the circulator load resistor dissipating 100
watts. 'SGCR' stands for a signal generator equipped with
a circulator and circulator load resistor equal to the
Z0 of the feedline. There's 300 joules of energy in the
feedline during steady-state. 100 watts is dissipated
in the load.

200W SGCR-----one second long feedline-------load
Pfor=200W-- --Pref=100W

The system without the circulator and load consists of
a 100 watt source feeding an ideal autotuner tied to
the transmission line. In this case all reflected energy
is re-reflected by the Z0-matched autotuner. 'SGAT' stands
for a signal generator equipped with an ideal autotuner.
There's 300 joules of energy in the feedline during
steady-state. 100 watts is dissipated in the load.

100W SGAT-----one second long feedline-------load
Pfor=200W-- --Pref=100W
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

How does a wave know whether to
carry energy or not depending upon its future fate?

Does a laser beam reflected from an ideal mirror carry any
less energy than the forward beam just because it has been
reflected?

What can be said other than; these questions appear to have been posed
by someone who is struggling to understand some pretty simple concepts.

In a one second long lossless transmission line, watts
equal joules. A forward wave of 200 watts contains 200
joules of energy. A reflected wave of 100 watts contains
100 joules of energy. Under such conditions, the source
has supplied exactly 300 joules more than has been
delivered to the load, no more and no less.

Is your claim that the above describes the system with, or without,
the circulator load?


Yes, in both cases the voltage reflection coefficient
at the load is 0.707 making the power reflection
coefficient = 0.5, i.e. half the power incident upon
the load is reflected.

But, is the latter really more than a mathematical convenience? (You
may recall that 'power' isn't something which actually moves in
physical systems. And being a scalar, it can be tricky to do a proper
vector analysis.) How energy moves is dependent upon factors
throughout the entire system - not just at the load.

The system with the circulator load at the signal
generator has the signal generator supplying 200
watts and the circulator load resistor dissipating 100
watts. 'SGCR' stands for a signal generator equipped with
a circulator and circulator load resistor equal to the
Z0 of the feedline. There's 300 joules of energy in the
feedline during steady-state. 100 watts is dissipated
in the load.

200W SGCR-----one second long feedline-------load
Pfor=200W-- --Pref=100W

The system without the circulator and load consists of
a 100 watt source feeding an ideal autotuner tied to
the transmission line. In this case all reflected energy
is re-reflected by the Z0-matched autotuner. 'SGAT' stands
for a signal generator equipped with an ideal autotuner.
There's 300 joules of energy in the feedline during
steady-state. 100 watts is dissipated in the load.

100W SGAT-----one second long feedline-------load
Pfor=200W-- --Pref=100W

Very inventive. The question was posed without a load on the
circulator, not without a circulator. You still haven't answered that
question. Perhaps you wouldn't mind just considering one system at a
time. No sense changing the variables just to make the solution come
out the way we want. Don't they teach you that you're not supposed to
change horses in the middle of a stream out there in Texas? ;-)

So, since we've obviously been talking about the steady state, what's
with all the weird questions about 'how the wave knows' what's going
to happen in the future?

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
What can be said other than; these questions appear to have been posed
by someone who is struggling to understand some pretty simple concepts.

Actually, I am struggling to understand your concepts which
you appear somewhat incapable of putting into words, hence
the total absence of anything technical in your posting.

Is energy-passing-a-point "power" as defined by the IEEE
Dictionary? Does an EM wave possesses ExH amount of power
as the technical references assert?

So, since we've obviously been talking about the steady state, what's
with all the weird questions about 'how the wave knows' what's going to
happen in the future?

Steady-state had a beginning and it will have an end. It
cannot be analyzed without knowing what happened in the
beginning and what will happen in the end. Steady-state
is the rug under which you and others try to sweep the
laws of physics including the conservation of energy
principle. I'm doing what I can to call your bluff.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]

Steady-state had a beginning and it will have an end. It
cannot be analyzed without knowing what happened in the
beginning and what will happen in the end. Steady-state
is the rug under which you and others try to sweep the
laws of physics including the conservation of energy
principle. I'm doing what I can to call your bluff.

Cecil,

Countless mathematicians and scientists would disagree with your
characterization of steady state. Perhaps even a few engineers as well. 8-)

This sort of stuff is thoroughly covered in differential equations
courses and in any physics or engineering course that look at electrical
or mechanical response to impulses and other stimuli. Surely they dealt
with such matters at TAMU.

If you refuse to accept standard technical conventions, then there is
little hope of getting others to agree with you.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
If you refuse to accept standard technical conventions, then there is
little hope of getting others to agree with you.

Gene, have you stopped beating your wife? Your usual ad
hominem attack completely devoid of any technical content
is duly noted.

In a one second long lossless transmission line where the
forward power is 200W and the reflected power is 100W, it
can be proved that the source has supplied 300 joules that
have not been accepted by the load. If those joules are not
contained in the forward and reflected waves, where are they?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
If you refuse to accept standard technical conventions, then there is
little hope of getting others to agree with you.

Gene, have you stopped beating your wife? Your usual ad
hominem attack completely devoid of any technical content
is duly noted.

In a one second long lossless transmission line where the
forward power is 200W and the reflected power is 100W, it
can be proved that the source has supplied 300 joules that
have not been accepted by the load. If those joules are not
contained in the forward and reflected waves, where are they?

Cecil,

I recall that you selectively quote only those parts of messages to
which you disagree. I guess you accepted the remainder of my comments.

You quite clearly said that "steady state" is not really steady. I
challenged that in a straight-forward manner. So what is "ad hominem"
about my message?

ad-hominem

This is a typical trick, Cecil, when you have been caught dealing
nonsense. You ignore the issue and attempt diversion. It won't work
here. The meaning of steady state is not controversial.

/ad-hominem

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
You quite clearly said that "steady state" is not really steady.

No I didn't. You either misunderstood or are trying
to set up a straw man.

The meaning of steady state is not controversial.

I never said it was so this is just another one of
your straw men.

--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller wrote:
If you refuse to accept standard technical conventions, then there is
little hope of getting others to agree with you.

I am advocating the wave reflection model as explained in:

Johnson's, "Transmission Lines and Networks", 1st Edition

Ramo/Whinnery's, "Fields and Waves in Modern Radio", 2nd Edition

Hecht's, "Optics", 4th Edition

Maxwell's, "Reflections" and "Reflections II"

"The ARRL Antenna Book", 15th Edition

I am also advocating the conservation of energy principle.
I hope that one doesn't need references.

Exactly what is it about the wave reflection model and the
conservation of energy principle with which you disagree?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
If you refuse to accept standard technical conventions, then there is
little hope of getting others to agree with you.

I am advocating the wave reflection model as explained in:

Johnson's, "Transmission Lines and Networks", 1st Edition

Ramo/Whinnery's, "Fields and Waves in Modern Radio", 2nd Edition

Hecht's, "Optics", 4th Edition

Maxwell's, "Reflections" and "Reflections II"

"The ARRL Antenna Book", 15th Edition

I am also advocating the conservation of energy principle.
I hope that one doesn't need references.

Exactly what is it about the wave reflection model and the
conservation of energy principle with which you disagree?

Cecil,

My only comment was in regard to the definition of steady state. I am
not sure why you directed this list to me. I have three out of the five
references you list, and I have multiple equivalents for the others.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
My only comment was in regard to the definition of steady state.

I doubt that we have different definitions of "steady-state".
I didn't post a definition and I don't recall you posting one.

What I said was that some of the 300 joules existing in the
one second long transmission line during steady-state was
supplied by the source before steady-state was reached,
i.e. during the initial transient state.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp