On Jun 9, 8:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
6. Keith, using basic circuit theory, reflection coefficients and
* *analysis in the time domain, shows that Cecil's conclusions do not
* *align with expected behaviours.

I must have missed the posting where you proved RF waves do not obey
the *average* power density (irradiance) equation from "Optics", by
Hecht. Neither Hecht nor I have ever said anything about instantaneous
virtual power except that it is "of limited usefulness". Nothing you
have posted about instantaneous virtual power has disagreed or
disproved anything that I have said about *average* power where I
simply quoted Hecht. I suspect that your instantaneous virtual power
must necessarily obey the conservation of energy principle but I am
not going to waste my time trying to prove it. Hecht and I seem to
agree 100% that *average* energy flow obeys the laws of physics.

May I suggest that you read "Optics", by Hecht and post anything with
which you disagree. I, and others, stopped taking you seriously when
you said that an equal magnitude of the forward Poynting vector and
the reflected Poynting vector proves that zero energy is crossing the
boundary (without adding that it is zero NET energy). You have
probably ruined your technical reputation with such nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jun 9, 8:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
6. Keith, using basic circuit theory, reflection coefficients and
* *analysis in the time domain, shows that Cecil's conclusions do not
* *align with expected behaviours.

I had to run an errand and, as usual, the answer popped into my head.
The problem has to do with the definition of "power". If, in a flat
system, one measures 100 watts at 100 points between the source and
the load, does that mean that there are 10,000 watts of power
available to be dissipated or radiated? Of course not! That is your
conceptual error.

Keith, your instantaneous virtual power is not *real* power until it
is dissipated (or radiated). Thus your instantaneous virtual power is
not required to obey the conservation of energy principle and all bets
are off. If your instantaneous virtual power seems to violate the laws
of physics, it is simply because you are counting it too many times or
too few times.

Instantaneous virtual power is *absolutely irrelevant* until it is
dissipated or radiated. In my resistive-source/resistive-load (no
radiation) example, nothing of value actually happens until power is
dissipated in one of the two resistors. I have accounted for all the
power being dissipated in the two resistors. Your V(t)*V(t)
instantaneous power doesn't matter unless it is being dissipated and
surprise!, it is not, i.e. your instantaneous power doesn't *count*
until it is dissipated. Please feel free to try again.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 9 jun, 13:23, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

6. Keith, using basic circuit theory, reflection coefficients and
* *analysis in the time domain, shows that Cecil's conclusions do not
* *align with expected behaviours.

I must have missed the posting where you proved RF waves do not obey
the *average* power density (irradiance) equation from "Optics", by
Hecht. Neither Hecht nor I have ever said anything about instantaneous
virtual power except that it is "of limited usefulness". Nothing you
have posted about instantaneous virtual power has disagreed or
disproved anything that I have said about *average* power where I
simply quoted Hecht. I suspect that your instantaneous virtual power
must necessarily obey the conservation of energy principle but I am
not going to waste my time trying to prove it. Hecht and I seem to
agree 100% that *average* energy flow obeys the laws of physics.

May I suggest that you read "Optics", by Hecht and post anything with
which you disagree. I, and others, stopped taking you seriously when
you said that an equal magnitude of the forward Poynting vector and
the reflected Poynting vector proves that zero energy is crossing the
boundary (without adding that it is zero NET energy). You have
probably ruined your technical reputation with such nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Good evening. (sunny and cold day, here)

Superposition works just fine for voltage and current,

And electromagnetic waves... We also study TL in physics with a
electromagnetic model (E-H fields).

but is mostly
invalid for power. Attempting to apply superposition to power will
lead to inaccurate results.

Yes. As Cecil pointed, power not apply to superposition because it is
a scalar magnitude.

I am curious as to what I wrote on the web page that suggested
disagreement with the superposition principle.

Because my interpretation of this sentences on the wave page:

What happens when the signals from two identical generators
at each end of a transmission line collide in the middle?

Term "collide" without quotes suggest (to me) interaction (as
particles). I learnt travelling waves do not "collides" in space (or
linear mediums), simply they crossing each other (as ghosts).( I do
not be sure about this translation)
or, quoting UCLA web page note, "Wave maintain their integrity upon
overlapping (without themselves being permanently changed)".

Does energy cross the midpoint of the transmission line?
.....
The plot shows that the voltage in the middle of the transmission
line is always zero (that's femtoVolts on the left, not a bad
representation for 0 in a simulation). Recalling that Power =
(Volts times Amps), if the voltage is always 0, then there
is no power. With no power, no energy is crossing the
middle of the transmission line.

My interpretation of last sentence (and reading technical controversy
with Cecil and K1TT in thread) make me think that it does not match to
superposition principle (except when there are not any travelling
waves in system, of course). (I do not considered here spice
application to travelling wave model issues).

Please tell me if you agree with Java applets linked -applied to TL
travelling waves- to clarify my understanding of your proposition.

73

Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

PS: I hope to have some time today to make simple test of my own about
Cecil, and Roy's web page examples cited on early posts of this
thread.

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

Good evening. (sunny and cold day, here)

Hi Miguel,

I've been wondering about your time of day and climate comments until
I realized you live in the outskirts of Buenos Aires. I visited there
a few years ago (and Iguazú Cataratas). Amazing city. (Most
stupendous water falls imaginable.)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Jun 9, 8:33*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 9, 6:44*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

Superposition works just fine for voltage and current, but is mostly
invalid for power. Attempting to apply superposition to power will
lead to inaccurate results.

It is invalid to try to use superposition on scalar values.

You may wish to rethink this assertion, otherwise...

Go.... Do not pass Go. Do not collect 200$.

....Keith

On Jun 9, 8:55*am, joe wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 8, 11:27 pm, lu6etj wrote:
On 8 jun, 22:33, Keith Dysart wrote:

On Jun 8, 8:54 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 8, 6:04 am, Keith Dysart wrote:
It is too bad, because the time domain is quite enlightening.
Nothing wrong with a time domain analysis but analyzing problems whose
basic premises violate the laws of physics is a waste of my time and
yours.
I assume that you do not consider that the problems you propose to be
ones "whose basic premises violate the laws of physics".
Consider then, the problem you propose inhttp://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr..htm.
A time domain analysis (http://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/
radio6),
demonstrates that the analysis presented inhttp://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm
results in the wrong answers.
Perhaps you could locate a flaw in the time domain analysis. Finding a
flaw
would pretty much settle the matter.
...Keith
Hi Cecil. Yes, good comment, definitions of terms specifying their
meanings in each context avoid innecessary disagreements. I think that
it is an essential predialogal "must".

Keith: I just saw your web page =http://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/radio3
where you seems disagree (please correct me if I am wrong) with our
ideas about superposition principle. I search examples in the Net -for
not paid the price of my hard and slow translations ;)- What do you
think about them?

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb/...osition/waveSu....

http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/...php?topic=18.0

Superposition works just fine for voltage and current, but is mostly
invalid for power. Attempting to apply superposition to power will
lead to inaccurate results.

From any circuit analysis, superposition is used to find the voltages
and the currents, and then the resulting total voltages and currents
are
used to compute powers. Doing it in the other order does not work.

I am curious as to what I wrote on the web page that suggested
disagreement with the superposition principle.

...Keith

I think the issue is the assertion there is no energy flow when I or V
is 0 is where people disagree.

I've tried to show with very simple (EE101) circuits that just because v
= 0 at some points in a circuit there is still energy flowing.

But, nobody apparently saw that.

The leap from v=0 to energy flow=0 is the source of contention. Just
because the amount of power sourced in one part of a circuit matches the
power dissipated in that portion does not mean that all the power
sourced in a portion of a circuit stayed in that portion to be
dissipated there. The whole rest of the circuit is involved.

When you do your Spice evaluation you only see the _net_ results of the
underlaying evaluation and note the _apparent_ lack of energy flow.

By selecting situations that give the results you want, you are
reinforcing the misperception. *If the generators did not put out
identical pulses would you see the same lack of energy transfer?

Of course not, because then there would be. And the measurement of
voltage and current would show it to be so. P=VI holds.

If one selects a V and I that are not appropriately related then one
does not compute a useful power, though the units may still be J/s.
As an illustrative example, if I measure the voltage across my stove
and the current through my light, I can multiply them together to
get watts, but it does not mean much.

A linear system, where superposition applies should not change based on
minor changes to the signals in it.

Agreed. The computations done with the altered signals will
successfully
predict the altered outcome.

Limiting any analysis to steady state sine waves or uniform pulse trains
may cause you to reach the wrong conclusions

Yes, and no. I suggest that the models that are claimed to
successfully
predict the behaviour for sinusoids should also successfully predict
the
behaviour for simpler examples. Otherwise the models are suspect. So I
use the simpler examples to show that the models break down.

....Keith

On Jun 9, 12:23*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

6. Keith, using basic circuit theory, reflection coefficients and
* *analysis in the time domain, shows that Cecil's conclusions do not
* *align with expected behaviours.

I must have missed the posting where you proved RF waves do not obey
the *average* power density (irradiance) equation from "Optics", by
Hecht. Neither Hecht nor I have ever said anything about instantaneous
virtual power except that it is "of limited usefulness". Nothing you
have posted about instantaneous virtual power has disagreed or
disproved anything that I have said about *average* power where I
simply quoted Hecht.

Ahhh, so you are only claiming that 'on average', the energy does not
enter the PA or 'on average' the energy is reflected.

The finer grained time domain analysis, reveals that some energy does
enter the PA, but that it comes back out again to keep the average the
same.

So if you want to live with the coarser, less complete models, that
is
fine as long as you understand the limitations of your model. It would
be good if you were to articulate these limitations to the readers
to reduce confusion.

Of course, if you are happy with averages, it is not obvious to me
why you want to bother with separating the signal in to forward
and reflected. Why not just use the overall average energy flowing
towards the load.

....Keith

On Jun 9, 2:37*pm, lu6etj wrote:
On 9 jun, 13:23, Cecil Moore wrote:





On Jun 9, 8:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

6. Keith, using basic circuit theory, reflection coefficients and
* *analysis in the time domain, shows that Cecil's conclusions do not
* *align with expected behaviours.

I must have missed the posting where you proved RF waves do not obey
the *average* power density (irradiance) equation from "Optics", by
Hecht. Neither Hecht nor I have ever said anything about instantaneous
virtual power except that it is "of limited usefulness". Nothing you
have posted about instantaneous virtual power has disagreed or
disproved anything that I have said about *average* power where I
simply quoted Hecht. I suspect that your instantaneous virtual power
must necessarily obey the conservation of energy principle but I am
not going to waste my time trying to prove it. Hecht and I seem to
agree 100% that *average* energy flow obeys the laws of physics.

May I suggest that you read "Optics", by Hecht and post anything with
which you disagree. I, and others, stopped taking you seriously when
you said that an equal magnitude of the forward Poynting vector and
the reflected Poynting vector proves that zero energy is crossing the
boundary (without adding that it is zero NET energy). You have
probably ruined your technical reputation with such nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Good evening. (sunny and cold day, here)

Superposition works just fine for voltage and current,

And electromagnetic waves... We also study TL in physics with a
electromagnetic model (E-H fields).

Yes, of course.

but is mostly
invalid for power. Attempting to apply superposition to power will
lead to inaccurate results.

Yes. As Cecil pointed, power not apply to superposition because it is
a scalar magnitude.

Not quite. It does not apply to power because it does apply to
voltages.
If one doubles the voltage, one gets 4 times the power. There is no
way to make superposition (which is simply addition) simultaneously
work
for voltage and power.

As for scalars... Superposition works quite fine for circuit analysis
with scalars.

I am curious as to what I wrote on the web page that suggested
disagreement with the superposition principle.

Because my interpretation of this sentences on the wave page:

What happens when the signals from two identical generators
at each end of a transmission line collide in the middle?

Term "collide" without quotes suggest (to me) interaction (as
particles). I learnt travelling waves do not "collides" in space (or
linear mediums), simply they crossing each other (as ghosts).( I do
not be sure about this translation)
or, quoting UCLA web page note, "Wave maintain their integrity upon
overlapping (without themselves being permanently changed)".

Superposition is a mathematical trick that allows the solution of
the problem. It does not mean that the pulses pass through each
other, though that is one of the visualizations. Consider a point
on the line where the current is always 0, no electrons cross
this point nor does any energy. Did the pulses cross through
such a point? The voltage envelope appears to, but does that mean
the pulse did?

Does energy cross the midpoint of the transmission line?
.....
The plot shows that the voltage in the middle of the transmission
line is always zero (that's femtoVolts on the left, not a bad
representation for 0 in a simulation). Recalling that Power =
(Volts times Amps), if the voltage is always 0, then there
is no power. With no power, no energy is crossing the
middle of the transmission line.

My interpretation of last sentence (and reading technical controversy
with Cecil and K1TT in thread) make me think that it does not match to
superposition principle (except when there are not any travelling
waves in system, of course). (I do not considered here spice
application to travelling wave model issues).

Please tell me if you agree with Java applets linked -applied to TL
travelling waves- to clarify my understanding of your proposition.

I have no issues with the applets. They show voltage waves crossing
each other and appropriately use superposition to derive the results.

Like many optical illusions, there are multiple ways to visualize
what is happening. The second one for example can also be seen as
the two pulses bouncing off of each other. The response would be
identical if the transmission line was cut at the point of collision.

These two simulations do not claim to show energy moving all the
way down the line in both directions, nor do they superpose powers.
So they look fine.

....Keith

On 9 jun, 23:55, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:37*pm, lu6etj wrote:





On 9 jun, 13:23, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 9, 8:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

6. Keith, using basic circuit theory, reflection coefficients and
* *analysis in the time domain, shows that Cecil's conclusions do not
* *align with expected behaviours.

I must have missed the posting where you proved RF waves do not obey
the *average* power density (irradiance) equation from "Optics", by
Hecht. Neither Hecht nor I have ever said anything about instantaneous
virtual power except that it is "of limited usefulness". Nothing you
have posted about instantaneous virtual power has disagreed or
disproved anything that I have said about *average* power where I
simply quoted Hecht. I suspect that your instantaneous virtual power
must necessarily obey the conservation of energy principle but I am
not going to waste my time trying to prove it. Hecht and I seem to
agree 100% that *average* energy flow obeys the laws of physics.

May I suggest that you read "Optics", by Hecht and post anything with
which you disagree. I, and others, stopped taking you seriously when
you said that an equal magnitude of the forward Poynting vector and
the reflected Poynting vector proves that zero energy is crossing the
boundary (without adding that it is zero NET energy). You have
probably ruined your technical reputation with such nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Good evening. (sunny and cold day, here)

Superposition works just fine for voltage and current,

And electromagnetic waves... We also study TL in physics with a
electromagnetic model (E-H fields).

Yes, of course.

but is mostly
invalid for power. Attempting to apply superposition to power will
lead to inaccurate results.

Yes. As Cecil pointed, power not apply to superposition because it is
a scalar magnitude.

Not quite. It does not apply to power because it does apply to
voltages.
If one doubles the voltage, one gets 4 times the power. There is no
way to make superposition (which is simply addition) simultaneously
work
for voltage and power.

As for scalars... Superposition works quite fine for circuit analysis
with scalars.

I am curious as to what I wrote on the web page that suggested
disagreement with the superposition principle.

Because my interpretation of this sentences on the wave page:

What happens when the signals from two identical generators
at each end of a transmission line collide in the middle?

Term "collide" without quotes suggest (to me) interaction (as
particles). I learnt travelling waves do not "collides" in space (or
linear mediums), simply they crossing each other (as ghosts).( I do
not be sure about this translation)
or, quoting UCLA web page note, "Wave maintain their integrity upon
overlapping (without themselves being permanently changed)".

Superposition is a mathematical trick that allows the solution of
the problem. It does not mean that the pulses pass through each
other, though that is one of the visualizations. Consider a point
on the line where the current is always 0, no electrons cross
this point nor does any energy. Did the pulses cross through
such a point? The voltage envelope appears to, but does that mean
the pulse did?





Does energy cross the midpoint of the transmission line?
.....
The plot shows that the voltage in the middle of the transmission
line is always zero (that's femtoVolts on the left, not a bad
representation for 0 in a simulation). Recalling that Power =
(Volts times Amps), if the voltage is always 0, then there
is no power. With no power, no energy is crossing the
middle of the transmission line.

My interpretation of last sentence (and reading technical controversy
with Cecil and K1TT in thread) make me think that it does not match to
superposition principle (except when there are not any travelling
waves in system, of course). (I do not considered here spice
application to travelling wave model issues).

Please tell me if you agree with Java applets linked -applied to TL
travelling waves- to clarify my understanding of your proposition.

I have no issues with the applets. They show voltage waves crossing
each other and appropriately use superposition to derive the results.

Like many optical illusions, there are multiple ways to visualize
what is happening. The second one for example can also be seen as
the two pulses bouncing off of each other. The response would be
identical if the transmission line was cut at the point of collision.

These two simulations do not claim to show energy moving all the
way down the line in both directions, nor do they superpose powers.
So they look fine.

...Keith- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Hello Keith:

I believe I just understand where is the problem You are talking
about "Superposition Theorem" of circuit theory and we are talking
about "Superposition pinciple of waves". There are not the same stuff.
Please read this page from "Physics for scientists and engineers with
modern physics" book to aliviate my translation :)

http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=...uantum&f=false

Uf, what a large link!! If do not works search on page 501 of Google
books with the appointed title.

Note = "Two travelling waves can pass trough each other without being
destroyed or even altered". (Op. Cit.). (Please pay attention to pond
example).

The applet there do not represent an opticall illusion, You can
experiment with different shape opposite end launched pulses in a rope
to verify that do not collide but pass through each other. It is a
usual student laboratory work on applied physics.

73

Miguel ghezzi LU6ETJ

PS: Yes Richard I live outside of Buenos Aires city. I hope you have
been welcome on your visit to Argentine... and... what do you think of
our beautiful girls, ah? ;D

On 10 jun, 01:45, lu6etj wrote:
On 9 jun, 23:55, Keith Dysart wrote:





On Jun 9, 2:37*pm, lu6etj wrote:

On 9 jun, 13:23, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 9, 8:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

6. Keith, using basic circuit theory, reflection coefficients and
* *analysis in the time domain, shows that Cecil's conclusions do not
* *align with expected behaviours.

I must have missed the posting where you proved RF waves do not obey
the *average* power density (irradiance) equation from "Optics", by
Hecht. Neither Hecht nor I have ever said anything about instantaneous
virtual power except that it is "of limited usefulness". Nothing you
have posted about instantaneous virtual power has disagreed or
disproved anything that I have said about *average* power where I
simply quoted Hecht. I suspect that your instantaneous virtual power
must necessarily obey the conservation of energy principle but I am
not going to waste my time trying to prove it. Hecht and I seem to
agree 100% that *average* energy flow obeys the laws of physics.

May I suggest that you read "Optics", by Hecht and post anything with
which you disagree. I, and others, stopped taking you seriously when
you said that an equal magnitude of the forward Poynting vector and
the reflected Poynting vector proves that zero energy is crossing the
boundary (without adding that it is zero NET energy). You have
probably ruined your technical reputation with such nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Good evening. (sunny and cold day, here)

Superposition works just fine for voltage and current,

And electromagnetic waves... We also study TL in physics with a
electromagnetic model (E-H fields).

Yes, of course.

but is mostly
invalid for power. Attempting to apply superposition to power will
lead to inaccurate results.

Yes. As Cecil pointed, power not apply to superposition because it is
a scalar magnitude.

Not quite. It does not apply to power because it does apply to
voltages.
If one doubles the voltage, one gets 4 times the power. There is no
way to make superposition (which is simply addition) simultaneously
work
for voltage and power.

As for scalars... Superposition works quite fine for circuit analysis
with scalars.

I am curious as to what I wrote on the web page that suggested
disagreement with the superposition principle.

Because my interpretation of this sentences on the wave page:

What happens when the signals from two identical generators
at each end of a transmission line collide in the middle?

Term "collide" without quotes suggest (to me) interaction (as
particles). I learnt travelling waves do not "collides" in space (or
linear mediums), simply they crossing each other (as ghosts).( I do
not be sure about this translation)
or, quoting UCLA web page note, "Wave maintain their integrity upon
overlapping (without themselves being permanently changed)".

Superposition is a mathematical trick that allows the solution of
the problem. It does not mean that the pulses pass through each
other, though that is one of the visualizations. Consider a point
on the line where the current is always 0, no electrons cross
this point nor does any energy. Did the pulses cross through
such a point? The voltage envelope appears to, but does that mean
the pulse did?

Does energy cross the midpoint of the transmission line?
.....
The plot shows that the voltage in the middle of the transmission
line is always zero (that's femtoVolts on the left, not a bad
representation for 0 in a simulation). Recalling that Power =
(Volts times Amps), if the voltage is always 0, then there
is no power. With no power, no energy is crossing the
middle of the transmission line.

My interpretation of last sentence (and reading technical controversy
with Cecil and K1TT in thread) make me think that it does not match to
superposition principle (except when there are not any travelling
waves in system, of course). (I do not considered here spice
application to travelling wave model issues).

Please tell me if you agree with Java applets linked -applied to TL
travelling waves- to clarify my understanding of your proposition.

I have no issues with the applets. They show voltage waves crossing
each other and appropriately use superposition to derive the results.

Like many optical illusions, there are multiple ways to visualize
what is happening. The second one for example can also be seen as
the two pulses bouncing off of each other. The response would be
identical if the transmission line was cut at the point of collision.

These two simulations do not claim to show energy moving all the
way down the line in both directions, nor do they superpose powers.
So they look fine.

...Keith- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Hello Keith:

I believe I just understand where is the problem *You are talking
about "Superposition Theorem" of circuit theory and we are talking
about "Superposition pinciple of waves". There are not the same stuff.
Please read this page from "Physics for scientists and engineers with
modern physics" book to aliviate my translation :)

http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=...01&lpg=PA501&d...

Uf, what a large link!! If do not works search on page 501 of Google
books with the appointed title.

Note = "Two travelling waves can pass trough each other without being
destroyed or even altered". (Op. Cit.). (Please pay attention to pond
example).

The applet there do not represent an opticall illusion, You can
experiment with different shape opposite end launched pulses in a rope
to verify that do not collide but pass through each other. It is a
usual student laboratory work on applied physics.

73

Miguel ghezzi LU6ETJ

PS: Yes Richard I live outside of Buenos Aires city. I hope you have
been welcome on your visit to Argentine... and... what do you think of
our beautiful girls, ah? ;D- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Before I forget... Here is early mornig and I am ready for bed (I'm
nocturnal habits). I want give a QSL to Cecil's comment on Maxwell
article and Joe's example in CC. Also, noblesse oblige, I recall that
Cecil make this comment in a very early post in this thread:

Yes, standing waves are hard to visualize, but there is indeed
same- cycle interference involving forward waves and reflected
waves. There is a certain delay from the source signal to the
load and back that can be calculated if one chooses. The
wave reflection model is closer to Maxwell's equations than
is the lumped-circuit model where EM waves propagate
instantaneously.

Pointing to differences between lumped constants circuit theory models
(superposition theorem) and TL issues. I aknowledge his linked page
=
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...06V-3Vix1MXnrA
where it said:

"There are no standing waves on a lumped element circuit component.
(In fact, lumped-element circuit theory inherently employs the
cosmological presupposition that the speed of light is infinite, as
every EE sophomore should know. See, e.g., - Electric Circuits, by
J.W. Nilsson, Addison-Wesley, 1983, p. 3.)"

Probabily Cecil had in mind this controversy when I submitted my
question to this newsgroup. He will correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you very much, and now, I am go to ZZZZZZZ...!

Miguel