what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 27, 5:05*pm, lu6etj wrote:
Have you P1, P2, P3 and P4, for your 100 W example, to clear
it? )

100w---50 ohm---+---1/2WL 291.5 ohm---50 ohm load

At '+', rho = 0.707, rho^2 = 0.5

P1 = Pfor1(1-rho^2) = 100w(0.5) = 50w

P2 = Pref2(rho^2) = 100w(0.5) = 50w

P3 = Pfor1(rho^2) = 100w(0.5) = 50w

P4 = Pref2(1-rho^2) = 100w(0.5) = 50w

Pref1 = P3 + P4 - 2*SQRT(P3*P4) = 0w

Pfor2 = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2) = 200w

How's that?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 27, 6:20*pm, lu6etj wrote:
Or if you prefer, tell me if in your article: P1=48.98 W; P2=53.15 W;
P3=51.02 W; P4=51.02 W-

P1+P3 = Pfor1 = 100w

P2+P4 = Pref2 = 104.1w

Yes, those look like close to the correct values. I guess I should add
them to my article.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 27, 11:59*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:27*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 27, 2:23*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Example 1: Step function applied to a transmission line. After the
* * * * * *line settles, a forward and reflected voltage wave
* * * * * *continue on the line but no energy is being transferred.

As far as I am concerned, if Maxwell's equations don't work on an
example, it might as well be ignored. There is nothing during DC
steady-state that allows Maxwell's equations to work because there are
no EM waves during DC steady-state. Why don't you already know that?

I always thought that Maxwell's equations were more complete than that
and worked all the way down to DC. Two of them do not even include
time
and nothing says that a derivative with respect to time can't be 0.


of course they do constant electric field and constant magnetic fields
work just fine and go out to infinity in the dc steady state case.
this of course means there can be no moving electrons, therefor no
current, no d/dt terms, etc... which means no waves.


I can take your approach and do you one better. Please prove that you
exist. If you cannot prove that you exist, then nothing you say is of
any consequence. See, I can do it also.

From the above, you have proved that I exist. Thank you.

i would debate the existence of a vacuum.


Example 2: On a line with infinite VSWR no energy crosses a
* * * * * *voltage minimum or maximum.

Completely false assumption. You are back to asserting that since the
north-bound traffic equals the south-bound traffic on the Golden Gate
Bridge that there is no traffic and no bridge maintenance is required.
When are you going to give up on that irrational wet dream of yours?
No *NET* energy crosses at a voltage zero or current zero point. That
doesn't make the north-bound energy equal to zero and doesn't make the
south-bound energy equal to zero. It just makes them equal. Just
because there is no NET traffic flow on the Golden Gate Bridge doesn't
mean there is zero traffic flow in both directions. Please stop
clowning around with such absurb notions.

I suppose, but then you have to give up on P(t)=V(t)*I(t), generally
considered to be a rather fundamental equation.

very fundamental, and very restricted. only good for one point in
space at one time, and for one pair of voltage and current
measurements... can not be applied to separate waves that are
superimposed, only to the final total voltage and current at the
measurement point at that instant.



Example 3: With the 1/8 wavelength line described in
* * * * * *http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htmtheenergycan not be
* * * * * *properly accounted for on a moment by moment basis.

There is no conservation of power principle.

There is no mention of power above; simply energy.

Are you saying that conservation of energy only applies some of
the time?

If you would track the RF
joules and the conversion of RF joules to heat instead of the joules/
second, everything would become clear to you. As it is, you are
laboring under some serious misconceptions about the laws of physics.
Power simply doesn't balance within a single cycle - because it
doesn't have to - because there is no conservation of power principle.

In your example, the RF energy does seem to disappear and re-appear,
when tracked on a moment by moment basis.


when doing conservation of energy you must include the WHOLE system!
it doesn't work on one section of a transmission line any more than it
works for the infamous undergraduate teaser:

take a refrigerator, put it in a perfectly insulated room, and then
open the doors... what happens to the temperature in the room?


People who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to commit the
same mistakes over and over. Keith, you seem to be all output and no
input. Please enable your input channels for a change.

Well, it would help if you could actually find and articulate a flaw
inhttp://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/radio6.

...Keith

that site is rather worthless... you say Vs can be used to get the
time reference for the other signals, but time is a variable, as is
space. you seem to have a snapshot of a bunch of sine waves on an
angular scale, but is that scale time or distance?

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 27, 11:59*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:27*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jun 27, 2:23*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Example 1: Step function applied to a transmission line. After the
* * * * * *line settles, a forward and reflected voltage wave
* * * * * *continue on the line but no energy is being transferred.

As far as I am concerned, if Maxwell's equations don't work on an
example, it might as well be ignored. There is nothing during DC
steady-state that allows Maxwell's equations to work because there are
no EM waves during DC steady-state. Why don't you already know that?

I always thought that Maxwell's equations were more complete than that
and worked all the way down to DC. Two of them do not even include
time
and nothing says that a derivative with respect to time can't be 0.


of course they do constant electric field and constant magnetic fields
work just fine and go out to infinity in the dc steady state case.
this of course means there can be no moving electrons, therefor no
current, no d/dt terms, etc... which means no waves.


I can take your approach and do you one better. Please prove that you
exist. If you cannot prove that you exist, then nothing you say is of
any consequence. See, I can do it also.

From the above, you have proved that I exist. Thank you.

i would debate the existence of a vacuum.


Example 2: On a line with infinite VSWR no energy crosses a
* * * * * *voltage minimum or maximum.

Completely false assumption. You are back to asserting that since the
north-bound traffic equals the south-bound traffic on the Golden Gate
Bridge that there is no traffic and no bridge maintenance is required.
When are you going to give up on that irrational wet dream of yours?
No *NET* energy crosses at a voltage zero or current zero point. That
doesn't make the north-bound energy equal to zero and doesn't make the
south-bound energy equal to zero. It just makes them equal. Just
because there is no NET traffic flow on the Golden Gate Bridge doesn't
mean there is zero traffic flow in both directions. Please stop
clowning around with such absurb notions.

I suppose, but then you have to give up on P(t)=V(t)*I(t), generally
considered to be a rather fundamental equation.

very fundamental, and very restricted. only good for one point in
space at one time, and for one pair of voltage and current
measurements... can not be applied to separate waves that are
superimposed, only to the final total voltage and current at the
measurement point at that instant.



Example 3: With the 1/8 wavelength line described in
* * * * * *http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htmtheenergycan not be
* * * * * *properly accounted for on a moment by moment basis.

There is no conservation of power principle.

There is no mention of power above; simply energy.

Are you saying that conservation of energy only applies some of
the time?

If you would track the RF
joules and the conversion of RF joules to heat instead of the joules/
second, everything would become clear to you. As it is, you are
laboring under some serious misconceptions about the laws of physics.
Power simply doesn't balance within a single cycle - because it
doesn't have to - because there is no conservation of power principle.

In your example, the RF energy does seem to disappear and re-appear,
when tracked on a moment by moment basis.


when doing conservation of energy you must include the WHOLE system!
it doesn't work on one section of a transmission line any more than it
works for the infamous undergraduate teaser:

take a refrigerator, put it in a perfectly insulated room, and then
open the doors... what happens to the temperature in the room?


People who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to commit the
same mistakes over and over. Keith, you seem to be all output and no
input. Please enable your input channels for a change.

Well, it would help if you could actually find and articulate a flaw
inhttp://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/radio6.

...Keith

that site is rather worthless... you say Vs can be used to get the
time reference for the other signals, but time is a variable, as is
space. you seem to have a snapshot of a bunch of sine waves on an
angular scale, but is that scale time or distance?

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 27, 9:16*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 27, 4:42*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

It is not my insistence. It follows from the math.

Unfortunately for your arguments, math models do not dictate reality.
If the math model doesn't match reality, it is invalid. Your math
models obviously do not match reality.

And yet, you have not located any errors in the math or the models.

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 27, 9:48*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 27, 6:59*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
I suppose, but then you have to give up on P(t)=V(t)*I(t), generally
considered to be a rather fundamental equation.

I have absolutely no problem with giving up on the conservation of
power principle in which no rational technical person can possibly
believe.

There again, a non-sequitor non-answer.

Do you reject P(t)=V(t)*I(t) ?

Are you saying that conservation of energy only applies some of
the time?

No, I am saying that if you cannot balance the energy equation at all
times, you have made a mistake.

I agree completely. And my analysis does successfully track all the
energy at all times.

And after averaging, it even agrees with your analysis.

Methinks that you are perturbed that it demonstrates that your
analysis
does not track all the energy all the time, but only succeeds with
averages.

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 28, 5:11 pm, K1TTT wrote:
On Jun 27, 11:59 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
I suppose, but then you have to give up on P(t)=V(t)*I(t), generally
considered to be a rather fundamental equation.

very fundamental, and very restricted. only good for one point in
space at one time, and for one pair of voltage and current
measurements... can not be applied to separate waves that are
superimposed, only to the final total voltage and current at the
measurement point at that instant.

True, but others reject it completely.

In your example, the RF energy does seem to disappear and re-appear,
when tracked on a moment by moment basis.

when doing conservation of energy you must include the WHOLE system!
it doesn't work on one section of a transmission line any more than it
works for the infamous undergraduate teaser:

take a refrigerator, put it in a perfectly insulated room, and then
open the doors... what happens to the temperature in the room?

The teaser is amusing, but hardly relevant. In my example, all of
the energy is tracked. Or, I invite you to point out that which was
overlooked. Cecil has not found any and would rather prattle on about
the difference between energy and power than actually understand.

Well, it would help if you could actually find and articulate a flaw
inhttp://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/radio6.

...Keith

that site is rather worthless... you say Vs can be used to get the
time reference for the other signals, but time is a variable, as is
space. you seem to have a snapshot of a bunch of sine waves on an
angular scale, but is that scale time or distance?

Time, of course. I agree, though, it is not as clear as it could
have been. It helps a bit if you look at Cecil’s schematic.

Still, it is complicated and will probably take some effort to
understand.

It would probably be better to start with the step wave example
offered previously in another post and copied below for
convenience:

example
I am not sure where you think there is an error. Perhaps you can
point them out in the following example:
Generator:
- 100V step in to an open circuit
- 50 ohm source impedance
Line:
- 50 ohm
- open circuit
Generator is commanded to produce a step.
This will produce 50 V and 1 A at the line input which will
propagate down the line.
The open end of the line has a reflection co-efficient of 1.0.
Just before the 50 V step reaches the end of the line, the
whole line will be at 50 V and 1 A will be flowing everywhere.
The 50 V step hits the end and is reflected, producing a 50 V
step (on top of the 50V already there) which propagates back
to the generator. In front of the 50 V step, the current is
still 1 A (which provides the charge necessary to produce
the reverse propagating 50 V step. Behind the step, the
current is 0.
When the reverse 50 V step (which is actually a step from
50V to 100V) reaches the generator, the source impedance
matches the line impedance so there is no further reflection.
The line state is now 100V and 0A all along its length.
The settling time was one round-trip.
The generator is still producing the step, so the forward
step voltage wave is still 'flowing' and being reflected so
there is still a reflected step voltage wave, each of 50 V.
Since the generator open circuit voltage is 100 V and the
line voltage is now 100 V, current is no longer flowing
from the generator to the line.
Does this agree with your understanding?
/example

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 28, 10:50*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jun 28, 5:11 pm, K1TTT wrote:

On Jun 27, 11:59 pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
I suppose, but then you have to give up on P(t)=V(t)*I(t), generally
considered to be a rather fundamental equation.

very fundamental, and very restricted. *only good for one point in
space at one time, and for one pair of voltage and current
measurements... can not be applied to separate waves that are
superimposed, only to the final total voltage and current at the
measurement point at that instant.

True, but others reject it completely.

In your example, the RF energy does seem to disappear and re-appear,
when tracked on a moment by moment basis.

when doing conservation of energy you must include the WHOLE system!
it doesn't work on one section of a transmission line any more than it
works for the infamous undergraduate teaser:

take a refrigerator, put it in a perfectly insulated room, and then
open the doors... what happens to the temperature in the room?

The teaser is amusing, but hardly relevant. In my example, all of
the energy is tracked. Or, I invite you to point out that which was
overlooked. Cecil has not found any and would rather prattle on about
the difference between energy and power than actually understand.


of course its relevant... so what happens to the temperature?


Well, it would help if you could actually find and articulate a flaw
inhttp://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/radio6.

...Keith

that site is rather worthless... you say Vs can be used to get the
time reference for the other signals, but time is a variable, as is
space. *you seem to have a snapshot of a bunch of sine waves on an
angular scale, but is that scale time or distance?

Time, of course. I agree, though, it is not as clear as it could
have been. It helps a bit if you look at Cecil’s schematic.

Still, it is complicated and will probably take some effort to
understand.

It would probably be better to start with the step wave example
offered previously in another post and copied below for
convenience:

example
I am not sure where you think there is an error. Perhaps you can
point them out in the following example:
Generator:
- 100V step in to an open circuit
- 50 ohm source impedance
Line:
- 50 ohm
- open circuit
Generator is commanded to produce a step.
This will produce 50 V and 1 A at the line input which will
propagate down the line.
The open end of the line has a reflection co-efficient of 1.0.
Just before the 50 V step reaches the end of the line, the
whole line will be at 50 V and 1 A will be flowing everywhere.
The 50 V step hits the end and is reflected, producing a 50 V
step (on top of the 50V already there) which propagates back
to the generator. In front of the 50 V step, the current is
still 1 A (which provides the charge necessary to produce
the reverse propagating 50 V step. Behind the step, the
current is 0.
When the reverse 50 V step (which is actually a step from
50V to 100V) reaches the generator, the source impedance
matches the line impedance so there is no further reflection.
The line state is now 100V and 0A all along its length.
The settling time was one round-trip.
The generator is still producing the step, so the forward
step voltage wave is still 'flowing' and being reflected so
there is still a reflected step voltage wave, each of 50 V.
Since the generator open circuit voltage is 100 V and the
line voltage is now 100 V, current is no longer flowing
from the generator to the line.
Does this agree with your understanding?
/example

...Keith

this is different than what you claimed before. on june 17th you
claimed:
If(t) = 50/50 = 1a
Ir(t) = 50/50 = 1a
now you sy current is no longer flowing.

i will object to you saying the voltage 'wave' is still flowing. The
line is at a constant 100v, there is no current, there can be no em
wave without current AND voltage, therefore voltage can not be
flowing.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 28, 5:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
And yet, you have not located any errors in the math or the models.

Superposition of power *IS* an error! You add and subtract powers
willy-nilly as if that mathematical step were valid which it is not.
Two coherent 50w waves do not add up to a 100w wave, even using
average powers, except for the special case of zero interference where
the waves are 90 degrees out of phase with each other.

In order to use power as an energy tracking tool, we must be very
careful to ensure that there is a one-to-one correspondence between
energy and power, i.e. every joule passing a point in one second must
result in one watt of power (no VARs allowed). If that one-to-one
correspondence doesn't exist, no valid conclusion can be drawn from
tracking the power and any valid conclusion must be based on tracking
the energy which is no small task. The key is that there is no such
thing as imaginary energy. All energy is real. Some "power" is not
real.

A one-to-one correspondence does not exist in a standing wave.
Therefore, tracking power as if it were equivalent to energy in
standing waves is invalid. You have made that error for years.

One-to-one correspondence also does not exist over a fraction of a
wave. Therefore, instantaneous power is irrevelent in tracking the
energy. That's your latest error which is the same conceptual error as
before. In general, average power in the traveling waves over at least
one complete cycle (or over many cycles) has a one-to-one
correspondence to the average energy in the traveling waves. But that
one-to-one correspondence is more often than not violated within a
fraction of each cycle.

Here's a quote from "Optics", by Hecht, concerning power density
(irradiance).

"If however, the 'T' is now divided out, a highly practical quantity
results, one that corresponds to the average energy per unit area per
unit time, namely 'I'." - where 'I' is the irradiance (*AVERAGE* power
density).

If I calculate the Z0 of a 1/4WL transformer, I get two roots when I
take the square root of R1*R2. One of the roots is negative. If I ask
you to prove something is in error with the math that yielded a
negative Z0, could you find the math error? If not, does it follow
that you can find the transmission line with the negative
characteristic impedance existing in reality?

That's your argument in a nutshell. There may (or may not) be an error
in your math but it doesn't matter either way. The conclusions that
you reach from your math do not match reality so your math is a moot
point, i.e. there is no one-to-one correspondence between your math
and the real world.

If you have forgotten the importance of the one-to-one correspondence
concept in mathematics, now would be a good time to review that
concept. Without a one-to-one correspondence to reality, math is just
fantasy existing only in your mind.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 28, 5:33*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Do you reject *P(t)=V(t)*I(t) ?

I certainly reject as a moronic method for attempting to track
instantaneous energy.

I agree completely. And my analysis does successfully track all the
energy at all times.

That is obviously false. You have tracked the *power* after assuming a
one-to-one correspondence between power (watts) and energy (joules).
Your assumption is most likely false. You usually cannot use
instantaneous watts to track joules within a fraction of a cycle. If
the voltage and current are out of phase, some of the joules are
occupied as reactive power, and not available as watts of real power.
Why do you think the power companies spend so much money trying to
balance the power factor?

Methinks that you are perturbed that it demonstrates that your
analysis does not track all the energy all the time, but only
succeeds with averages.

What bothers me is that, "Figures don't lie, but liers figure." :-) I
have made no assertion or effort to track instantaneous energy. I
would have to review a lot of physics to even remember how. What I do
know is that you have been tracking power, not energy, and therefore
any conclusion that you reach is probably invalid. You first must
prove a one-to-one correspondence at all delta-t sections between the
joules at that point and the watts at that point. We know that
integrating over a complete second will make the joules equal to the
watts for a traveling wave (but not for a standing wave). Now you must
integrate over every partial cycle to prove that there are the exact
number of joules in that delta-t of time to support the exact number
of watts in that delta-t of time. I remember being warned by my
professors more than half a century ago that it was a "fool's
errand".
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com