Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:45:10 -0800, Roger Sparks
wrote:

Current is the tag
....
At the crossing point, we can not measure current,

Hi Roger,

Hence the information as to the source of energy that arrives at its
final destination is completely lost.

Barring this tracking, then, there is no way to prove effects due to
the "crossing point."

So, why does this discussion proceed without hope of any meaningful
proof? Certainly, given more than 400, 500, 1000 postings there must
be some other tagging mechanism that you are unaware of, or has been
withheld from comment. Did we miss that announcement?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:44:01 -0800 (PST)
art wrote:


Roger you are conversing with old men most of which oppose change.
Having been taught some fifty years ago they want to protect those
teachings the originators of which are all dead.
Thus regardless of what has happened and discovered or intruded upon
by inquiring minds they wish to stay in the past.In the past, statics
was viewed as a subset of electro-dynamics and the old timers want it
to stay that way. By starting with Gauss and adding a time varient I
added a visual to Maxwell that was missing from his equations because
Gauss was not the leading
contributor to the time varient theme. It is this that the old timers
are resisting because it brings away the thought that statics is just
a subset. Thus you see that there is inherrent resistance to the
mathematics that supplies a visual to Mawellian equations. It took
Richard several months to accept the legitimacy of the mathematics
involved in the steps I took. As yet nobody else has admitted to the
legitamacy of the mathematics. Thus protecting the notion of static
being just a subset. This manoever has placed ham radio into a
quagmire from which they cannot extricate themselves and thus advance
to analyse the intricacies of propagation.
Who would have believed that ham radio would take to task of a Doctor
working at MIT on space reseach for NASA for faulty use of mathematics
to prove the relavence of statics?
Can science really be held up while old men are still living?
Art Unwin KB9MZ...XG

Hi Art,

Like you, I would like to find a better way of doing things, especially some easier math for the electromagnetic equations. Until we find that better way, we must use what we have.

What we have is very, very good, because it has brought us TV, computers, the Internet, space travel, and much more. What ever we find that could be "better", must also contain the knowledge we have today, but perhaps can explain todays knowledge easier or more completely.

I try to learn from the old men because the sum of their knowledge is far greater than my own can ever be. Having said that, I also recognize that the knowledge of each man is limited by his own talent, experience, and human frailty, so a judgement must be made as to wisdom and accuracy.

I really admire the willingness of all participants to contribute to discussions. The hard part is knowing how to fit each new tibit of knowledge into my own personal knowledge base.

73, Roger, W7WKB

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:59:24 -0800
Richard Clark wrote:


So, why does this discussion proceed without hope of any meaningful
proof? Certainly, given more than 400, 500, 1000 postings there must
be some other tagging mechanism that you are unaware of, or has been
withheld from comment. Did we miss that announcement?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The writtings of many of us still have "hope". Many postings reflect a curiosity that has not been satisfied. Is there a tagging mechanism that I did not mention? If so, please articulate it.

73, Roger, W7WKB

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:23:39 -0800, Roger Sparks
wrote:

The writtings of many of us still have "hope".

Hi Roger,

Ah, yes. Hope without proof is called faith. There are testimonials,
and there are witnesses to miracles - however, those, too, seem to be
far and few between.

Faith in "what" seems to be an even greater mystery, and a strange
basis for belief.

Another conceit I've seen ripple through the threads - I don't think
you offered it either, but authorship is vague - is that this "what"
may be waves bouncing.

Hope in waves bouncing (for which only faith supports this where proof
is absent) may solve the mystery of "what," but like Russian Dolls
nested one inside another, certainly this faith is ever spiraling out
toward some even greater mystery in beliefs.

To put it in religious terms: "So What?"

Is this the road to redemption?

Is it like the discovery of the mirror? Did the discoverer (inventor
if you will seeing as the mirror might be currently in the process of
patenting) attain a new insight? a new perspective?

Even there, our using (measuring with) a mirror gives us a means to
tag information through parallax. Is this thread missing something as
simple as parallax to tag currents as to their origin? It would seem
after 800 contributions that this contribution (parallax) would have
resolved the thread and brought closure to allow everyone to transcend
obstacles on that road to redemption.

Is anyone actually pursuing the goal of finding and expressing the
parallax problem (or revealing any tagging); or are they simply
content to have hope and wait for the end of days milling about the
edges of the purgatory of Babel?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Jan 11, 8:12*am, "Dave" wrote:
"Keith Dysart" wrote in message

...

Thanks for offering the two capacitor/one capacitor view of the middle
of the line. It took a bit of time to decide whether the commingling
of the charge in the single capacitor at the middle of the line would
solve my dilemma.

So I considered this one capacitor in the exact center of a perfect
transmission line. It is the perfect capacitor, absolutely
symmetrical. So as the exactly equal currents flow into it on
the exactly symmetrical leads, the charge is perfectly balanced
so that the charge coming from each side exactly occupies its
side of the conductor. As the two flows of charge flow over
the perfectly symmetrical plates, they meet in the exact
center, and flow no more. I conclude that a surface can
be found *exactly in the center of this capacitor across
which no charge flows. Thus (un)happily returning me exactly
to where I was before; there is a line across which no
charge, and hence no energy, flows.

absolutely correct. *no charge flows through the insulator of a capacitor.

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Jan 11, 11:15*am, Roger Sparks wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:52:28 -0800 (PST)Keith Dysart wrote:

snip............



I would really appreciate seeing some other possible explanations.

One other one which I have seen and am not confortable with is the
explanation that energy in the waves pass through the point in
each direction and sum to zero. But this is indistinguishable from
superposing power which most agree is inappropriate. As well, this
explanation means that P(t) is not equal to V(t) times I(t),
something that I am quite reluctant to agree with.

The other explanation seen is that the voltage waves or the
current waves travel down the line superpose, yielding a total
voltage and current function at each point on the line which
can be used to compute the power. With this explanation, P(t)
is definitely equal to V(t) time I(t), which I do appreciate.
The weakness of this explanation is that it seems to deny
that the wave moves energy. And yet before the pulses collide
it is easy to observe the energy moving in the line, and if
a pulse was not coming in the other direction, there would
be no dispute that the energy travelled to the end of the
line and was absorbed in the load. Yet when the pulses
collide, no energy crosses the middle of the line. Yet
energy can be observed travelling in the line before
and after the pulses collide.

So...

I can give up on pulses (or waves) moving energy. I am not
happy doing that.
I can give up on P(t) = V(t) * I(t). I am not happy doing
that either.

So the (poorly developped) "charge bouncing" explanation
seems like a way out, but I certainly would appreciate
other explanations for consideration.

Hi Keith,

I think you are putting too much emphasis on the measurement of energy in the pulse, or maybe not enought, depending upon how you are making and using the measurements. *

I hope you agree that the transmission line you are pulsing has no standing waves. *

"Standing waves" seem to more be a consequence of sinusoidal
excitation than pulse.
So I expect no "standing waves".

I don't even like using the words "traveling wave" to describe the
pulse situation
since "traveling wave" also seems to bring a lot of baggage.

If not, then the pulse must be a treveling wave. *If it is a traveling wave, the impedance of the wave will be the impedance of the transmission line, except where the two pulses cross paths. *At the crossing point, the impedance will jump to infinity, Z = v/i = v/zero = infinity.

I do not recommend computing this ratio and calling it impedance. I
find it leads
to difficulties. Better just to think of the V and I independantly.

How about the energy/power levels? *Except at the center, as the pulse passes, current and voltage can be measured, so power is being delivered from one section of the line to a second section more distant from the source. *The energy delivered by the power equation can be measured by U = (v^2)/r = (i^2)*r where r is the Zo if the transmission line.

More accurately P(t) = V(t) * I(t). it happens that for the pulses in
question,
except when colliding, that V and I of the pulses observed on the line
are related
by Z0 so by substitution, the expressions above can be derived. But
sometimes it is
better to stick with the more basic expression P=VI.

Where the two pulses cross, the energy level must be the sum of the two energy levels, which would be 2U = 2*(v^2)/r (assuming two pulses of equal voltage). *As you have pointed out, power would not flow at the point of wave first meeting, spreading from the meeting point back towards the two sources a distance equal to the square pulse width. Energy is present however, measured as U = (v^2)/r.

The transmission line can be considered as a lineal capacitor, so U = (CV^2)/2, where C is the capacitance per unit length. *If the waves "bounce", and occupy physical space for a period of time, they should comingle, stop, and fill the capacitor during that time. If so,

2U = C*V'^2
* *= 2*(V^2)/r where v is the voltage of a single pulse and V' = 1,414*v = voltage observed at point of crossing. *

But the voltage at the crossing is 2V. A puzzle? When the pulse is
"travelling",
there is energy in the capacitance and in the inductance of the line.
When the
current stops, the energy in the inductance is added to the energy in
the
capacitance, thus the voltage reaches 2V.

At a disconinuity, we find a doubling of the voltages, not an increase of 1.414. *This leads me to believe that the crossing pulses never stop in a physical sense. *They do stop in the sense that power is not delived through the center point.

...Keith

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Jan 11, 1:44*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:15:09 -0800, Roger Sparks
wrote:

They do stop in the sense that power is not delived through the center point.

Hi Roger,

I'm not sure if this is original to you, or one of those conceits that
is being passed around; but how, short of tagging energy (power?), can
you tell its origin? *In other words, delivery by return, or
completion of the path needs to be separable by some information about
the origin that to this point has been missing from the discussion.

If energy can be tagged with a return address, what is that tag?

I suggest that since the current at the middle of the line
is always 0, the power is always 0 and therefore no energy
crosses the middle. While tracking mixed energy is difficult,
when no energy crosses a boundary it seems easy to keep the
energy on each side of the boundary separate.

...Keith

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

"Keith Dysart" wrote in message
...

absolutely correct. no charge flows through the insulator of a capacitor.

This was not the line I meant. My line was perpendicular to the
plates. Current does not cross this line because it arrives equally from
both
sides.

huh?? no charge passes from one plate of a capacitor to the other. but
current does in the form of displacement current. if you are trying to look
at the microscopic field and charge distributions during a transient in a
capacitor you are way beyond anything i ever studied, or would want to
study.

waves do not bounce.

What about charge?

charge is being moved by the fields of the wave, and it moves very little in
the wire as has been shown in the past. when equal and opposite waves
arrived at a point where the current cancels the charges superimpose to
result in a zero field so there is no motion, hence no current at that
point. as the waves pass each other the fields no longer cancel so the
electrons on the other side of the cancelation point start to move again in
the opposite directions. if you want to call that a bounce knock yourself
out, but it will lead to a rather limited view that is only helpful in
certain circumstances where exact cancelation occurs.

Or is it the "standing wave" which is real and it just happens that
it can also be described as the sum of two waves going in opposite
directions? But the wave going in one direction can be described
as the sum of a number of waves going in that direction? (Especially\
when there are multiple reflections!) How many waves in each
direction?
When do we stop?

I respectfully submit that it is only the resultant that is real.
The rest are merely alternate descriptions (though often useful).

then enjoy your fantasy. the forward and reverse wave components are easily
separated and observed anywhere on the line. its just that most amateur
grade equipment doesn't bother because it is sufficient for 99.44% of us to
only measure your 'real' standing wave to properly adjust our antennas and
radios.

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:03:10 -0800 (PST), Keith Dysart
wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:44*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:15:09 -0800, Roger Sparks
wrote:

They do stop in the sense that power is not delived through the center point.

Hi Roger,

I'm not sure if this is original to you, or one of those conceits that
is being passed around; but how, short of tagging energy (power?), can
you tell its origin? *In other words, delivery by return, or
completion of the path needs to be separable by some information about
the origin that to this point has been missing from the discussion.

If energy can be tagged with a return address, what is that tag?

I suggest that since the current at the middle of the line
is always 0, the power is always 0 and therefore no energy
crosses the middle. While tracking mixed energy is difficult,
when no energy crosses a boundary it seems easy to keep the
energy on each side of the boundary separate.

Hi Keith,

If you cannot identify the source, then you cannot proclaim a
separation.

The best term for this is "the enigma effect." I hate to turn this
loose on the world because I know many here will pick it up and run to
their perceived goal for a touch-down.

Before anyone tackles me for a touchback, I'm going to pass this off
and watch the quarterbacks wrestle with religion in the huddle.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Standing-Wave Current vs Traveling-Wave Current
 

On 11 Jan, 14:03, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:44*pm, Richard Clark wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:15:09 -0800, Roger Sparks
wrote:

They do stop in the sense that power is not delived through the center point.

Hi Roger,

I'm not sure if this is original to you, or one of those conceits that
is being passed around; but how, short of tagging energy (power?), can
you tell its origin? *In other words, delivery by return, or
completion of the path needs to be separable by some information about
the origin that to this point has been missing from the discussion.

If energy can be tagged with a return address, what is that tag?

I suggest that since the current at the middle of the line
is always 0, the power is always 0 and therefore no energy
crosses the middle. While tracking mixed energy is difficult,
when no energy crosses a boundary it seems easy to keep the
energy on each side of the boundary separate.

...Keith

Keith,
Richard has not entered the actual discussion nor has he shown any
indication
he understands what is going on. All he is doing is intimating he
knows all the answers but he is not going to reveal them. Why? He has
no choice if later he wants to state "I knew that all the time". In
the mean time he is taunting people with off subject topics and then
deigns not to provide technical content. He is very good at arousing
people to respond to him in a defensive manner as you can now
personally point out, usually by asking questions without any effort
to support the discussion.His degree is in english which is why he is
practicing on this newsgroup
Have a great week end
Art