Keith Dysart wrote:
Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

Do you really expect us to believe that those voltages
and currents can exist without energy? Maybe an example
of EM voltage and EM current existing without ExB joules/sec
would help.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

Do you really expect us to believe that those voltages
and currents can exist without energy? Maybe an example
of EM voltage and EM current existing without ExB joules/sec
would help.

Cecil,

If you actually understood the way the Poynting Theorem works, you would
not waste your time worrying about ExB. It provides no useful
information in support of your wacky energy flow ideas.


Hint: Although the Poynting vector is defined as ExB, this is only a
flux. If you are interested in information relating to conservation of
energy it is necessary to integrate over a closed volume. The total
integral of the flux over the surface of that volume is then equal to
the rate of change of energy within the volume.

In your favorite example, where energy is coursing back and forth along
the two directions of a lossless transmission line, this integral over
any volume you choose will be exactly zero. Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components. The same amount of energy exits the integration
volume as enters it. Only in the case where there is a source or where
there is loss will the Poynting energy calculation yield a non-zero value.

If you want further information you can check advanced textbooks such as
"Classical Electrodynamics" by Jackson or "Principles of Optics" by Born
and Wolf. I am sure there are many other references, but those are the
two I check almost daily.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

So net energy equals zero? So what! We are NOT discussing net
energy here. We are discussing the forward Poynting vector
and the reflected Poynting vector as described in "Fields and
Waves ...", by Ramo and Whinnery. The Superpositon Principle
gives us permission to do so and the final result is identical
to any other valid analysis. Why are you guys so irrationally
afraid of the wave reflection model? What is your ulterior
motive in denying the existence of reflected waves during
steady-state? It has seemingly turned into a steady-state
religion administered by the steady-state high priests.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 30, 8:54 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

You always seem to like changing the experiment and then not
acting surprised when you get different results.

Odd is it not?

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate
the forward and reverse waves the Poynting vector energy calculation
would still come out to exactly zero for each component as well as the
sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

You always seem to like changing the experiment and then not
acting surprised when you get different results.

I don't see an experiment described in Gene's posting
so you must be describing yet another dream of yours.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Even if you could separate the forward and reverse waves the Poynting
vector energy calculation would still come out to exactly zero for
each component as well as the sum of the components.

Forward and reflected waves are easily separated by a
circulator so their existence is difficult to deny.

So net energy equals zero? So what! We are NOT discussing net
energy here. We are discussing the forward Poynting vector
and the reflected Poynting vector as described in "Fields and
Waves ...", by Ramo and Whinnery. The Superpositon Principle
gives us permission to do so and the final result is identical
to any other valid analysis. Why are you guys so irrationally
afraid of the wave reflection model? What is your ulterior
motive in denying the existence of reflected waves during
steady-state? It has seemingly turned into a steady-state
religion administered by the steady-state high priests.


Cecil,

I guess I was not quite clear. I don't care if you are talking net
energy, gross energy, with or without circulators, or anything else. As
long as there are no sources or sinks of energy in the region of
interest, the Poynting vector tells you absolutely nothing about energy
balance or conservation of energy.

You could have a completely incorrect analysis of forward and reverse
waves, and the Poynting analysis will not reveal the error. The required
integral will still come out to exactly zero.

Radio amateurs and radio charlatans love to talk about Poynting vectors,
but it is obvious that most of those folks simply don't understand the
full picture. Just forget about ExB (or more commonly, ExH). It is
completely useless in support for the typical RRAA discussions.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I guess I was not quite clear. I don't care if you are talking net
energy, gross energy, with or without circulators, or anything else. As
long as there are no sources or sinks of energy in the region of
interest, the Poynting vector tells you absolutely nothing about energy
balance or conservation of energy.

That's not the point at all. The question is pretty
simple. Does the principle of superposition give us
permission to analyze the individual forward and
reflected waves separately and then superpose the
results? If you say "no", then you don't accept the
superposition principle. If you say "yes", then
please stop harping that the only valid way to solve
a problem is your way.

Just forget about ExB (or more commonly, ExH).

Your advice is to forget acquired knowledge and tools
and put one's trust in who? You?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I guess I was not quite clear. I don't care if you are talking net
energy, gross energy, with or without circulators, or anything else.
As long as there are no sources or sinks of energy in the region of
interest, the Poynting vector tells you absolutely nothing about
energy balance or conservation of energy.

That's not the point at all. The question is pretty
simple. Does the principle of superposition give us
permission to analyze the individual forward and
reflected waves separately and then superpose the
results? If you say "no", then you don't accept the
superposition principle. If you say "yes", then
please stop harping that the only valid way to solve
a problem is your way.

Just forget about ExB (or more commonly, ExH).

Your advice is to forget acquired knowledge and tools
and put one's trust in who? You?

Cecil,

I have said many times that you can choose to analyze the individual
components or you can analyze the superposed combination, i.e., a
standing wave. It is purely a matter of mathematical convenience.
However, if you get different answers, including more or less
completeness, then you have made an error. That is the essence of
superposition. If that property was not true, then superposition would
be of little value.

It is rather ironic that you are accusing *me* of allowing only one
valid method when I have repeatedly stated a flexible approach. Is that
some sort of debating technique you learned?

Are you instead seeing a reflection of yourself? Is this some sort of
mirror trick?

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I have said many times that you can choose to analyze the individual
components or you can analyze the superposed combination, i.e., a
standing wave. It is purely a matter of mathematical convenience.
However, if you get different answers, including more or less
completeness, then you have made an error. That is the essence of
superposition. If that property was not true, then superposition would
be of little value.

An energy analysis yields exactly the same results as any
other valid method of analysis and is often much easier.
There are no "different answers", yet you imply there are.
An energy analysis obeys all of the principles of physics.
Optical physicists have been solving energy analysis
problems for centuries.

It's a simply yes/no question: Does the analysis of the
forward wave and reflected wave separately abide by the
rules of the principle of superposition? The answer is
obviously "yes" because identical results are obtained
using either method.

It is rather ironic that you are accusing *me* of allowing only one
valid method when I have repeatedly stated a flexible approach.

Stated, yes. Practiced, no. I don't attack your methods,
Gene, yet you repeatedly attack other valid methods that
yield results identical to yours with less effort. You
only pay lip service to your "flexible approach". Your
practiced approach is pretty narrow-minded - your way or
no way.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Keith Dysart wrote:
Superposition of voltages and currents seems to be quite
accepted and is an excellent tool for circuit and transmission
line analysis.

Do you really expect us to believe that those voltages
and currents can exist without energy? Maybe an example
of EM voltage and EM current existing without ExB joules/sec
would help.
--
and yet again you cross up terms... voltage and current are on wires. E and
B are fields between or outside of wires. while they can be handled
similarly they should not be compared directly as you are asking. and yes,
there is at least one very good example of a voltage without ExB... just
charge a balloon up with some stray electrons and leave it alone long enough
to reach steady state... voila, E with no B. Please do this experiment and
reply when you have truly reached steady state.