On Jan 3, 12:55*pm, Mike Monett wrote:
* Keith Dysart wrote:

* [...]

* You did *not directly answer Q1, but I take if from all *the other
* responses that *you *are *saying *the answer *is *"no, *it *is not
* appropriate to view a transmission line as distributed capacitance
* and inductance *and analyze its behaviour using *charge *stored in
* the capacitance and moving in the inducatance?"

* That is not what you originally stated.

* Taking this *invalidates all the subsequent *questions *since they
* are based *on *the * premise * that * this * kind *of *analysis is
* appropriate.

* Yes, it does.

* Your explanation is easily proven false. Let's suppose it was true.

* Suppose it *was *possible *to introduce a *pulse *of *charge *onto a
* conductor.

* Since like charges repel each other, what keeps the pulse together?

* In other words, what prevents it from destroying itself?

* Then, when *the first pulse meets the second, what *mechanism allows
* them to bounce off each other?

* Then, after *they have bounced off each other, what *mechanism keeps
* them together?

All good questions. But it appears that your underlying
suggestion is that charge and charge flow in the distributed
capacitance and inductance can not be used to analyze
transmission lines.

And yet I commonly see discussion of current in transmission
lines. Current is charge flow per unit time. Is this all
invalid? Must we abondon measurements of current? Voltage?
These are all based on the assumption of charge being
a useful concept.

...Keith