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

Cecil Moore wrote:
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.


Cecil,

Your exact words we

***
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.
***

This says that steady state depends on something else, namely the
beginning and the end of the steady state condition. That is simply
incorrect. In steady state conditions there is no concept of beginning
or end.

ad hominem

If you don't know the rules, you can't play the game.

/ad hominem

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
This says that steady state depends on something else, namely the
beginning and the end of the steady state condition. That is simply
incorrect. In steady state conditions there is no concept of beginning
or end.

A 12VDC battery is sitting there with a 200 amp*hour charge. Are
you asserting that there is no concept of where the 200 amp*hours
came from? Please tell me you are not that stupid.

Consider the one second long transmission line with 200W of forward
power and 100W of reflected power. That requires 300 joules of
energy during steady-state. If the 300 joules was not supplied
during the transient state, then it must have magically appeared
out of thin air in violation of the conservation of energy principle?
Is that what you are trying to tell us?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
This says that steady state depends on something else, namely the
beginning and the end of the steady state condition. That is simply
incorrect. In steady state conditions there is no concept of beginning
or end.

A 12VDC battery is sitting there with a 200 amp*hour charge. Are
you asserting that there is no concept of where the 200 amp*hours
came from? Please tell me you are not that stupid.

Consider the one second long transmission line with 200W of forward
power and 100W of reflected power. That requires 300 joules of
energy during steady-state. If the 300 joules was not supplied
during the transient state, then it must have magically appeared
out of thin air in violation of the conservation of energy principle?
Is that what you are trying to tell us?

Cecil,

You can wave your hands all you want, but it won't have much impact on
the correct math and physics.

Try writing the appropriate equations for your puzzler, in steady state
conditions, and then figure out where to insert the transient behavior.
Good luck.

This is basic stuff taught in numerous math and technical courses. If
don't accept the basic math, then I guess we will not agree.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Try writing the appropriate equations for your puzzler, in steady state
conditions, and then figure out where to insert the transient behavior.

I have already provided the equations, Gene. In a one second long
lossless transmission line, 200 watts of forward power equals 200
joules of energy in the forward wave. 100 watts of reflected power
equals 100 joules in the reflected wave. Total joules in the
transmission line equals 200 + 100 = 300 joules. The equations
are trivial.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Try writing the appropriate equations for your puzzler, in steady state
conditions, and then figure out where to insert the transient behavior.

I have already provided the equations, Gene. In a one second long
lossless transmission line, 200 watts of forward power equals 200
joules of energy in the forward wave. 100 watts of reflected power
equals 100 joules in the reflected wave. Total joules in the
transmission line equals 200 + 100 = 300 joules. The equations
are trivial.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP


Cecil,

Gee, somehow I can't quite pull the wave equations out of your "trivial"
response.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:33:03 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
In steady state conditions there is no concept of beginning
or end.

If the 300 joules was not supplied
during the transient state, then it must have magically appeared
out of thin air in violation of the conservation of energy principle?

Hi Gene,

The bare contradiction is enough to condemn this thread.

However, it does have its amusing character of "Who's on first?"

Continuing that metaphor, Cecil would believe having been born on
third base, that he had hit a triple to be there. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:10:14 -0700, Richard Clark
wrote:

Continuing that metaphor, Cecil would believe having been born on
third base, that he had hit a triple to be there. ;-)

For the concept challenged,

Being on third is the steady state.

The transient state is one of:
Being born;
hitting a triple;
hitting a double and then a batter advancing the runner(s);
hitting a single (then like wise with the batter's assist);
stealing a base;
or two.

The steady state also has to satisify other conditions that were taken
up by transients like outs and innings. e.g. being on third with
three outs does not mean you can stay on third.

Thus the next transient is
The side is retired (state change)
or, as in this case of the bottom of the ninth and an untied score
The game is over (solution).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
Continuing that metaphor, Cecil would believe having been born on
third base, that he had hit a triple to be there. ;-)

That is actually the other side of the argument. When
an observer arrived after the game started, Cecil was
on third base. Using steady-state logic, the newcomer
assumes that Cecil is there without ever having to swing
a bat.

Someone looks at a transmission line during steady-state.
The source is supplying 100 watts. The load is dissipating
100 watts. The forward power is 200 watts. The reflected
power is 100 watts. The incorrect assumption is that the
source is incapable of delivering the 200 watts of forward
power and the 100 watts of reflected power. But the exact
amount of energy required to support those values
was provided to the transmission line before steady-
state was reached. It was rejected by the load and is
still there in the transmission line during steady-state.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp