On Mar 24, 10:46 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
The energy flow into the battery is exactly and always
accounted for by the energy flow that heats the battery
and the energy flow consumed in the reversable chemical
reaction.

Point is, energy can be stored and released at a
later time. You earlier said that reactances do not
store energy for release at a later time yet that
is exactly what reactances do.

Yes indeed. And what I have said, is that when this is
happening it is always possible to identify the element
which is storing the energy and provide the function
that describes the energy flow in and out of the
element. It is this identification and function that
I keep asking for to back up the handwaving claim that
you have been making.

A strange of way of looking at it. It seems easier just
to say that there is no theta. And add the voltages.

Saying there is no theta is a shortcut that can get
one into trouble as it did with you. Since there is
no such thing as negative energy, there is also no
such thing as negative power.

Bzzt. Power is the rate of change of energy. The
quantity of energy can be dropping (i.e. negative power),
without the quantity of energy ever going below zero.

Note there are no
negative power signs in the power density equation
where 'theta' is the phase angle between the two
interfering voltages:

Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(theta)

Unfortunately, I took a small shortcut in my last
post and left out the "(t)" from all the functions.
You immediately jumped to an RMS interpretation.

Please re-read all the equations with "(t)". There
is no "cos(theta)" factor when "(t)" is present.

The last term is known as the "interference term",
page 388 of "Optics" by Hecht, 4th edition. When
90 theta 180, the sign of the last term is negative
indicating destructive interference. When
0 = theta 90, the sign of the last term is positive
indicating constructive interference. When theta = 90,
there is zero interference which is what Part 1 of my
web articles is based upon.

But this applies to RMS voltages and average powers.
You have extended this to instantaneous, for which a
"cos(theta)" factor is inappropriate.

This Pr.correction term has nothing to do with
interference, ...

Your argument is not with me but rather is with
Eugene Hecht who defined that term as the "interference
term" in "Optics". Have you even read his chapter on
interference? If not, I would suggest that you do so.
Two other enlightening chapters are on "Superposition"
and "Coherency".

Read it as Pr.correction(t) to emphasize that it is not
average power of which I am writing. Then it is not
interference.

Note that there is no hint that Pr.correction needs to be
stored when it is negative nor come from somewhere when
it is positive.

You're correct, there's no hint. It is spelled out in
detail in "Optics". The possibilities are listed below.
Your above statement is a conceptual violation of the
conservation of energy principle.

Of course not. Because the powers imputed to the
constituent voltages of superposition do not represent
actual energy flows. Conservation of energy only
applies to powers that represent actual energy flows.

In the absence of
any other energy source or energy sink, localized
destructive interference must exactly match the
localized constructive interference magnitude in
order to avoid a violation of the conservation of
energy principle. This is why a Z0-match works.

But you have to be cautious that you are applying
conservation to powers that represent actual energy
flows.

Since one needs to know the constituent voltages to
determine the sign of Pr.correction, why not just use
superposition to compute the total voltage and then
derive the power?

That is what has extended this discussion to arguments
over the past quarter century. That 30,000 foot method
says nothing about where the ExH energy in the reflected
wave goes. The irradiance (power density) equation with
its defined "interference term" tells us exactly where
all the energy goes and answers the question: What happens
to the ExH energy in the reflected wave?

It would be more valuable were you to thoroughly study
and understand what is happening in a transmission line
and then apply those learnings to ExH. The transmission
line is easier to understand. The voltages, currents and
time relationships can easily be precisely computed and
measured. Once you have gained a full understanding of
what power means in this easier to follow environment,
extend that understanding to the meaning of power in
an ExH, or optics environment where calculation and
measurement is much more difficult.

Here are the basic principles:

When destructive interference occurs, there is "extra"
energy left over from that isolated event. That energy
must go somewhere. Here are the possibilities in a
typical lossless RF transmitting system.

1. The source can throttle back on its energy output
to compensate for the destructive interference energy.

2. Reactive components can store the destructive
interference energy and return it to the network at
a later time.

3. In the absence of (1) and (2) above, an RF energy
wave is launched in a direction that allows the
"extra" energy to leave the destructive event area.

Or perhaps, these powers of which you speak do not
represent actual energy flows and therefore your
requirement that they need accounting is incorrect
and all of your attempts to explain them, unnecessary.

The difficulty of accounting for these powers is entirely
consistent with them not representing the actual flow
of energy.

The last possibility is why we can observe reflected
energy being redistributed back toward the load in
the complete absence of single-wave reflections.

When constructive interference occurs, there is "missing"
energy needed to be supplied into that isolated event. That
energy must come from somewhere. Here are the possibilities
in a typical lossless RF transmitting system.

1. The source can simply supply the energy needed by
the constructive interference event.

2. Reactive components can return stored energy to
the network.

3. In the absence of (1) and (2) above, constructive
interference energy *must* be supplied in real time
by destructive interference between two other waves.

Or possibly, the premise that these powers represent
actual energy flows is flawed.

************************************************** *******
* The last possibility is how a Z0-match redistributes *
* all of the reflected energy back toward the load when *
* the physical reflection coefficient is not 1.0. *
************************************************** *******

The two-step process of redistributing 100% of the ExH reflected
wave energy back toward the load is covered in my other energy
analysis article on my web page at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

This turns out, however, just to be an ideosyncracy of the math,
much like the way Pf-Pr is the actual energy flow in the transmission
line because of the way that Vf and Vr are derived from Vactual
and Iactual.

This analysis also makes clear the nature of powers
computed from the constituent voltages of superposition.
These powers do not represent real energy flows. As
discussed far above, real energy flows can be summed
to test for conservation of energy.

Translation: Don't bother trying to ascertain where the
ExH component wave energy goes. Since the conservation
of energy principle cannot be violated in reality, it
is OK to violate it conceptually. Now where have I
heard that argument before? :-)

"I personally don't have a compulsion to understand where
this power 'goes'."

Do you really think that the ExH energy in a reflection
from a mirror does not represent real energy flow?

What can I say? That is what the math proves. The
reflected power is a power computed from partial E and
H fields that are being superposed, and we know that when
you superpose, you need to compute the total voltage and
current (or E and H) and then use that to compute the
actual energy flow.

It would be good, if just for a day, you let go of the
idea that Preflected represents an actual energy flow.
Explore the actual measureable behaviour of transmission
lines without using the idea that Preflected represents
an actual energy flow.

Everything works. There is no violation of conservation
of energy or any other fundamental physical law.

And the explanations are much simpler. You will no longer
find the question "where does the reflected power go?"
relevant. You can terminate your quest.

And as for "2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(theta)", this will just be
an idiosyncracy of the math that allows you to compute
the total power, if you are presented with P1 and P2 (not
being actual powers) that were computed from the
constituent voltages of superposition; a useful tool
when you can not measure the voltages (e.g. in optics),
but not to be confused with reality.

....Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Point is, energy can be stored and released at a
later time. You earlier said that reactances do not
store energy for release at a later time yet that
is exactly what reactances do.

Yes indeed. And what I have said, is that when this is
happening it is always possible to identify the element
which is storing the energy and provide the function
that describes the energy flow in and out of the
element. It is this identification and function that
I keep asking for to back up the handwaving claim that
you have been making.

Good grief, Keith, do you not know how to track the
energy flow into and out of a reactance during an RF
cycle? Isn't that covered in EE201, "Alternating
Current Circuits", by Kerchner and Corcoran, 3rd
edition (c)1951? Quoting page 19:

"The implication is that the inductive element
receives energy from the source during one-quarter
of a cycle of the applied voltage and returns exactly
the same amount of energy to the driving source during
the next one-quarter of a cycle."

The equations are provided if you really need them.
Hint: A shorted 1/8WL stub is inductive.

Bzzt. Power is the rate of change of energy.

Sorry, you are wrong about that.
From the IEEE Dictionary: "power - the rate of
generating, transferring, or using energy".

Power is a rate, not a rate of change. The
energy flow can be constant, i.e. rate of change
equal zero.

Please re-read all the equations with "(t)". There
is no "cos(theta)" factor when "(t)" is present.

I assume that exponential (phasor) notation for the
instantaneous values of the interfering voltages could
be used in which case there would indeed be a cos(theta)
present.

But this applies to RMS voltages and average powers.
You have extended this to instantaneous, for which a
"cos(theta)" factor is inappropriate.

Nope, it's not. See above. Your same argument could
extend to the real part of phasors in which case you
could argue that the irradiance equation is bogus.
Good luck on that one. If the math didn't work, it
would have been discarded long ago and Hecht wouldn't
have an entire chapter devoted to "Interference".

Read it as Pr.correction(t) to emphasize that it is not
average power of which I am writing. Then it is not
interference.

That statement makes it obvious that you don't understand
interference. When instantaneous values are being used,
if [V1(t)^2 + V2(t)^2] NOT= [V1(t) + V2(t)]^2, then
interference is present. Did you miss Physics 201?

Because the powers imputed to the
constituent voltages of superposition do not represent
actual energy flows.

That statement is a violation of the wave reflection
model. Do you really believe that when you look
yourself in the mirror that those reflections are
devoid of energy? If so, please feel free to prove
your assertion.

But you have to be cautious that you are applying
conservation to powers that represent actual energy
flows.

Reflected waves contain energy whether from your mirror
or from a mismatched load at the end of a transmission
line. You are arguing that the wave reflection model
is wrong. Please prove it.

Or perhaps, these powers of which you speak do not
represent actual energy flows and therefore your
requirement that they need accounting is incorrect
and all of your attempts to explain them, unnecessary.

Yes, perhaps the wave reflection model is wrong but
that makes your argument not with me, but with Ramo,
Whinnery, Johnson, Chipman, Slater, Hecht, and Walter
Maxwell. Good luck on winning that one.

The difficulty of accounting for these powers is entirely
consistent with them not representing the actual flow
of energy.

No, it is perfectly consistent with a large degree
of ignorance which few people desire to alleviate.

Ignoring the role of interference and lumping all the
energy components into a mashed potato salad is one
method of sweeping everything under the rug so you
can ignore the problem instead of solving it.

Or possibly, the premise that these powers represent
actual energy flows is flawed.

Feel free to prove the wave reflection model wrong.

This turns out, however, just to be an ideosyncracy of the math,
much like the way Pf-Pr is the actual energy flow in the transmission
line because of the way that Vf and Vr are derived from Vactual

Feel free to prove the math wrong.

It would be good, if just for a day, you let go of the
idea that Preflected represents an actual energy flow.

I will do that the day that you prove those reflections
from your mirror, that allow you to see yourself each
morning, contain zero energy. Your concepts seem more
like a religion than anything associated with reality.
Your mantra seems to be: "If I don't understand it,
it doesn't exist."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

[snip]


That statement is a violation of the wave reflection
model. Do you really believe that when you look
yourself in the mirror that those reflections are
devoid of energy? If so, please feel free to prove
your assertion.


[snip]


Yes, perhaps the wave reflection model is wrong but
that makes your argument not with me, but with Ramo,
Whinnery, Johnson, Chipman, Slater, Hecht, and Walter
Maxwell. Good luck on winning that one.

Cecil,

I have completely stayed away from any comments in this thread, but one
thing has caught my attention. You repeatedly refer to the "wave
reflection model" almost as if it was the equivalent of the Grand
Unified Theory.

I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back. Of
course many of those references are irrelevant to the topic at hand, but
of the ones that seemed to be related to transmission lines and/or RF,
it appears that all of the references come back to you.

I tried adding Ramo, Whinnery, Johnson, Chipman, Slater, Hecht, and
Walter Maxwell to the search (one at a time) and came up with no hits,
other than your references.

Perhaps your specific interpretation of the writings of the masters to
form your "wave reflection model" is part of the source of the disagreement.

Do you have a concise reference to exactly what you mean by "wave
reflection model"?

There is no need to explain reflection, interference, conservation of
energy, or any other standard wave phenomenon. I am merely seeking the
definition of "wave reflection model" or a lead to any other reference
that uses that terminology.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
I am merely seeking the
definition of "wave reflection model" or a lead to any other reference
that uses that terminology.

The wave reflection model is, of course, the body of
mathematics encompassing the reflection mechanics for
EM waves. Everywhere except on r.r.a.a, it is a subset
of the distributed network model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Gene Fuller wrote:
I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back.

That's strange. When I did the identical thing, 1,970,000
references came back. Wonder what is wrong with your computer?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back.

That's strange. When I did the identical thing, 1,970,000
references came back. Wonder what is wrong with your computer?

When quotes are used, I get 455. Without quotes, I get about 297,000.
Since I am looking for the exact expression, not just the three words
somewhere in a web page, I use the quotes.

I am using Firefox with plain 'ol Google. No special setups.

In any case, you answered my question. "Wave reflection model" means
nothing beyond ordinary electromagnetic theory. Big deal.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Gene Fuller wrote:
In any case, you answered my question. "Wave reflection model" means
nothing beyond ordinary electromagnetic theory. Big deal.

It is a big deal when someone asserts that there is
no energy in a reflected EM wave or that the energy
in a reflected EM wave doesn't have to be conserved
or that a reflected wave doesn't obey the rules
of the wave reflection model.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
I did a little bit of the cheap modern day replacement for research by
Googling "wave reflection model". Some 455 references came back.

That's strange. When I did the identical thing, 1,970,000
references came back. Wonder what is wrong with your computer?

I used the quote marks around the words and got 266 references.
Few of them, other than yours, relate to electronics at all, much less
radio.

Dave K8MN

On Mar 25, 10:28*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Point is, energy can be stored and released at a
later time. You earlier said that reactances do not
store energy for release at a later time yet that
is exactly what reactances do.

Yes indeed. And what I have said, is that when this is
happening it is always possible to identify the element
which is storing the energy and provide the function
that describes the energy flow in and out of the
element. It is this identification and function that
I keep asking for to back up the handwaving claim that
you have been making.

Good grief, Keith, do you not know how to track the
energy flow into and out of a reactance during an RF
cycle? Isn't that covered in EE201, "Alternating
Current Circuits", by Kerchner and Corcoran, 3rd
edition (c)1951? Quoting page 19:

"The implication is that the inductive element
receives energy from the source during one-quarter
of a cycle of the applied voltage and returns exactly
the same amount of energy to the driving source during
the next one-quarter of a cycle."

The equations are provided if you really need them.
Hint: A shorted 1/8WL stub is inductive.

Instead of writing two lines identifying the element
and providing the function describing its energy flow,
you write 14 lines tell me I should do it.

But my explanations do not require this element to
store and return the "interference energy".

You should consider that perhaps your inability to
identify the element and its energy function really
calls into question your concept of "interference
energy" being stored and returned later.

Bzzt. Power is the rate of change of energy.

Sorry, you are wrong about that.
*From the IEEE Dictionary: "power - the rate of
generating, transferring, or using energy".

Power is a rate, not a rate of change. The
energy flow can be constant, i.e. rate of change
equal zero.

When energy is transferred, the quantity is decreasing
in the supplier and increasing in the receiver. From
the supplier's perspective, this is a negative flow and
from the receiver's perspective, a positive flow.

In calculus terms, energy flow is the derivative of the
quantity of energy, i.e. the rate of change of the
amount of energy. The slope of the curve recording the
amount of energy can be negative, even though the amount
of energy is always positive.

Please re-read all the equations with "(t)". There
is no "cos(theta)" factor when "(t)" is present.

I assume that exponential (phasor) notation for the
instantaneous values of the interfering voltages could
be used in which case there would indeed be a cos(theta)
present.

No. "cos(theta)" only appears in the equations describing
the average, and not in those equations that describe the
actual function of time.

[snip]
Read it as Pr.correction(t) to emphasize that it is not
average power of which I am writing. Then it is not
interference.

That statement makes it obvious that you don't understand
interference. When instantaneous values are being used,
if [V1(t)^2 + V2(t)^2] NOT= [V1(t) + V2(t)]^2, then
interference is present. Did you miss Physics 201?

I suppose, if you want to rename superposition as interference.
But none of my basic circuit theory books use the word
interference when discussing superposition.

Because the powers imputed to the
constituent voltages of superposition do not represent
actual energy flows.

That statement is a violation of the wave reflection
model. Do you really believe that when you look
yourself in the mirror that those reflections are
devoid of energy? If so, please feel free to prove
your assertion.

If the powers imputed to the constituent voltages of
superposition did represent actual energy flows, then
you would be able to simply add them to get the total
flow, since energy can not be created or destroyed.

The fact that a correction needs to be applied when
adding them is proof that they can not be actual energy
flows.

But you know that, and that is why you have to search
for where this correction, that which you call the
"interference energy", goes. Because only if you can
account for it, can you claim that it is an actual
energy flow, which is needed to make you explanations
agree with conservation of energy. But in this example
you can not account for this "interference energy".
You have not identified the element that stores it nor
being able to obtain a function which describes the flow
into that element. You should take this as a reason to
call into question the whole idea that this "interference
energy" is an actual energy flow.

But you have to be cautious that you are applying
conservation to powers that represent actual energy
flows.

Reflected waves contain energy whether from your mirror
or from a mismatched load at the end of a transmission
line. You are arguing that the wave reflection model
is wrong. Please prove it.

If *your* "wave reflection model" includes the idea that
Pref always represents an actual energy flow, then *your*
"wave reflection model" is wrong.

Or perhaps, these powers of which you speak do not
represent actual energy flows and therefore your
requirement that they need accounting is incorrect
and all of your attempts to explain them, unnecessary.

Yes, perhaps the wave reflection model is wrong but
that makes your argument not with me, but with Ramo,
Whinnery, Johnson, Chipman, Slater, Hecht, and Walter
Maxwell. Good luck on winning that one.

I am not convinced. It is clear that *your* "wave reflection
model" is wrong, but I have not seen these other authors
invest any effort in trying to explain where the reflected
power goes. Perhaps they realized it was a meaningless
question and their "wave reflection models" do not require
that the Pref represent an actual energy flow.

The difficulty of accounting for these powers is entirely
consistent with them not representing the actual flow
of energy.

No, it is perfectly consistent with a large degree
of ignorance which few people desire to alleviate.

Ignoring the role of interference and lumping all the
energy components into a mashed potato salad is one
method of sweeping everything under the rug so you
can ignore the problem instead of solving it.

I am still waiting for the simple answer as to which
element stores and returns this "interference energy" and
the function that describes the flow into this element.

Or possibly, the premise that these powers represent
actual energy flows is flawed.

Feel free to prove the wave reflection model wrong.

That your "wave reflection model" is inconsistent with
conservation of energy (until you identify the storage
element and its energy transfer function) should be proof
enough.

This turns out, however, just to be an ideosyncracy of the math,
much like the way Pf-Pr is the actual energy flow in the transmission
line because of the way that Vf and Vr are derived from Vactual

Feel free to prove the math wrong.

The math is correct. It is the interpretation that is in error.

Pf-Pr is always equal to Pnet simply because of the way that Vfor
and Vref are computed. Even though Pf-Pr adds to the actual measured
energy flow, it does not mean that Pf and Pr are actual energy flows.
They MUST add simply becase of the way they are computed.

The same is true for some of the "proofs" in your other papers. The
successful equalities are simply a consequence of the way the numbers
being added are computed. A successful equality does not necessarily
prove an interpretation.

It would be good, if just for a day, you let go of the
idea that Preflected represents an actual energy flow.

I will do that the day that you prove those reflections
from your mirror, that allow you to see yourself each
morning, contain zero energy.

This is indeed the root of the problem. You need to let go
of the mirror just long enough to get over the hump. As it
stands, whenever you approach the hump, you think about the
mirror and refuse to see what might be on the other side of
the hump. That is why I suggest letting go of the mirror
just for a short while. Explore to see if there exists a
completely self consistent set of explanations on the other
side of the hump. You will find it to be so. But this can
only happen if you let go of the mirror long enough to get
over the hump.

If it doesn't work out, you can always pick up the mirror
again. There is nothing to lose by temporarily doing some
exploration without the mirror.

[snip]

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
You should consider that perhaps your inability to
identify the element and its energy function really
calls into question your concept of "interference
energy" being stored and returned later.

I have previously multiple times identified the element
as the network reactance and pointed you to a reference.

If you were asking me to teach you the English
language on r.r.a.a, you would get the same response.

I suppose, if you want to rename superposition as interference.
But none of my basic circuit theory books use the word
interference when discussing superposition.

I'm not renaming superposition. I'm using the
definition of "interference" provided by Hecht
in "Optics". Superposition can occur with or
without interference. The present discussion is
about superposition with interference present.
Interference is just a word which identifies
the special case of superposition that is
under discussion.

If the powers imputed to the constituent voltages of
superposition did represent actual energy flows, then
you would be able to simply add them to get the total
flow, since energy can not be created or destroyed.

There you go again, confusing power and energy.
There is *NO* conservation of power principle.
Until you give up on superposing powers, you
are doomed to failure. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with storing energy and turning it into
power later in time. Do you think that backup
storage batteries are a violation of the
conservation of energy principle?

The fact that a correction needs to be applied when
adding them is proof that they can not be actual energy
flows.

There is *NO CORRECTION TO THE ENERGY COMPONENTS*. There
is only a correction to the power components to account
for the time the energy is being stored before it is
dissipated. You really need to learn the difference
between energy and power.

You should take this as a reason to
call into question the whole idea that this "interference
energy" is an actual energy flow.

Your argument is not with me - it is with experts
like Eugene Hecht. Please read his *57 page* Chapter
9 on "Interference" and then get back to us. With 57
pages devoted to the subject, Hecht doesn't seem to
share your problems with it.

If *your* "wave reflection model" includes the idea that
Pref always represents an actual energy flow, then *your*
"wave reflection model" is wrong.

When you can prove that reflected traveling waves contain
zero energy, i.e. that ExH=0, I will accept your assertion
but not before. Exactly how does a TDR detect zero energy?

In fact, the thing you need to do is forget the transmission
line and deal with light waves encountering boundaries with
different indexes of refraction. The problem is identical,
but dealing with light out in the open prohibits you from
pushing your mashed-potatoes energy religion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com