what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"Richard Fry" wrote
...
On Jun 30, 1:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
The difference between EM and electrons is in compressibility.
Electrons are compressed in the ends of the open circuit (condenser and
antenna). There the voltage is doubled (at least). Alternate electric
field
is created. It is radio wave. The longitudinal electric wave.

Then shouldn't we all expect a condensor to be as good a radiator of
EM waves as a dipole?

All radio people know that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dipolentstehung.gif
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Yes.

We experience 80M activity every day irrespective of it being
Newtonian or Quantum. All it reveals is that something with a very,
very, very low energy is still quite measurable.

However, you "can" deliberately choose the wrong instrument to measure
the energy. That instrument reveals more about the choice-maker than
the energy.

For instance, a 1KW 80M energy source presents a near 0 degree
absolute temperature. A fever thermometer is not going to register
that energy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 30 jun, 16:00, Richard Clark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:41:52 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Yes.

We experience 80M activity every day irrespective of it being
Newtonian or Quantum. *All it reveals is that something with a very,
very, very low energy is still quite measurable. *

However, you "can" deliberately choose the wrong instrument to measure
the energy. *That instrument reveals more about the choice-maker than
the energy.

For instance, a 1KW 80M energy source presents a near 0 degree
absolute temperature. *A fever thermometer is not going to register
that energy.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dear Richard:

What I said is what my physics book says, I swear there no creation of
mine... :) (I have not any authority on this matter).
I was thinking in quantic number describing the energy of a typical
100 W 80 m oscillator devolped in one second, representing a quantic
number n = 4.3 * 10^28; we know our quanta represents the minimun
possible energy of a 80 m radiation AND the minimun "delta" Energy
possible for a given oscillator, energy difference between (among?)
one quanta an two quanta of 80 m radiation is 2.3 * 10^ -27 J, that
difference (my physic book say) it is unmeasurable experimentally
(this energy leap (skip?, hop?) it is in the order of 10^-8 smaller
that green light leap (in reality my book -Resnick Halliday- give a
moving dust particle example with quantic number very much lower than
my 80 m example yet = n = 3 * 10^14, they said "we can not
distiguish energy difference among n = 3 * 10^14 and n = [3 * 10^14]
+1")
What it is the ohysical sense of working with magnitudes we can not
measure? Nobody (as we know) use (or need) quantum mechanics to deal
with (or explain) locomotive movement :)

Cecil said "electrons can not travel at light speed, photon yes
therefore EM waves are photons", well... EM CAN travel at light speed,
then photons are EM waves :D :D As I know duality (particles can
behave as waves and vice versa) have not dead yet (or he died and I
found out?).
Cecil said: "When the concept of displacement current was invented,
nobody
knew that RF fields were actually made up of particles (photons) but
now we do know". Cecil seem to me as Zarathustra has declared: "¡Wave
is dead!" :)

Yes, yes, I know some people bring very strange ideas into the forums,
but I think it is not necessary argue them with exotic others -even if
they are true- because the partner will double the bet and will bring
other even more bizarre yet...! :)

Well, dont be bothered by my comments, I am joking a little...

73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

Keith obviously understands the requirements for energy flow, but a
casual reader might draw the wrong conclusions. . .

Keith Dysart wrote:
. . .

This is quite incorrect. Energy flows must balance, otherwise energy
is being created or destroyed to sustain a difference in flow.

On the average, yes. But not moment-by-moment. Energy can be stored and
retrieved from storage, resulting in unequal energy flow (power) into
and out of a point. For a while. This was explicitly stated earlier when
discussing a capacitor, but I think it's important to make the
distinction here between instantaneous and average requirements. In
steady state, the average condition (energy flow balance) must be met
each cycle. That is, the total energy into a node over a cycle has to
equal the energy out of a node over a cycle.

. . .

Unfortunately wrong. Energy flows must balance as well. Otherwise,
energy is coming from nowhere to sustain the flow.

Ditto.

. . .

Yes, indeed. At that instant, zero energy is flowing from the inductor
to the capacitor. But very soon, energy will be flowing from the
capacitor to the inductor. The balance is that the energy flowing
out of the capacitor is always and exactly equal to the energy flowing
in to the inductor. That is the energy flow balance. The only way for
this not to be true is for energy to be created or destroyed.

Ditto.

. . .

Instead, think that at every instant, the energy flow between the
entities in the experiment must balance.

No, it doesn't, unless I'm misunderstanding the statement. At a given
instant, more energy can flow into a component (e.g., a capacitor or
inductor) than is flowing out, or vice-versa. But in steady state,
whatever flows in during one part of the cycle must flow out during the
remainder of the cycle.

Every time one of your instantaneous power curves crosses the zero
axis, power has been destroyed. Every time one of your instantaneous
power curves reaches a peak, power has been created.

I think you may be confused because you are only looking at the
flow in and out of a single entity. This is clearly not conserved.
Nor for that matter is the energy within that entity. It is the
total energy within the system that is conserved, just as it is
the total of the flows of energy between the entities within the
system that must be conserved.

Put more strictly: The sum of all the energy flows in to all of
the entities within the system must equal the energy flow in to
the system.

Again, only on an average or steady-state cycle-by-cycle basis. Great
inequalities can exist for shorter periods.

. . .

Like Keith, I firmly believe that an instantaneous time-domain analysis
is essential in understanding what really happens to the energy in an AC
system. Averaging reduces the amount of information you have -- if all
you know is the average value of a waveform, you have no way of going
back and finding out what the waveform was, out of an infinite number of
possibilities. If averaging is to be done, it should be done after you
calculate and understand what's going on at each instant, not before you
begin the analysis.

But it's also essential to make absolutely clear what conditions must be
met every instant, such as p(t) = v(t) * i(t), and which must be met
only on the average, such as energy in = energy out.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

lu6etj wrote:
On 29 jun, 15:08, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:54 pm, Jim Lux wrote:

photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?
Yes, after I posted it, I realized that it was a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I learnt displacement current inside a condenser it was = eo* d(phi E)/
dt no EM radiation inside the condenser to made that current possible,
in any case EM radiation in physical condenser will come out from
condenser to the rest of the universe :).
I also learnt photons was necessary to explain certain energy
interchange phenomena such as fotoelectric effect or subatomic
particle interactions, wave-particle duality for me means "duality",
not "wave kaput" :) to account for EM wave well explainable
phenomenom.
As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Miguel LU6ETJ

Photons are very useful in the analysis of transmission lines. They can
be brought into the discussion to divert it from taking a path that
makes a participant uncomfortable. If unable to answer a question
logically, simply toss photons, optics, quantum mechanics, aether, and
other confounding factors in, and presto, people will begin arguing
about the spurious concepts and forget that you've avoided answering the
difficult question. It's called misdirection, a time-honored technique
used by politicians and prestidigitators as well as promoters of
pseudoscience.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:02:14 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I was thinking in quantic number describing the energy of a typical
100 W 80 m oscillator devolped in one second,

Hi Miguel,

Power? Energy? One second? Choose one to talk about, and perhaps
the mystery of numbers might clear up.

one quanta an two quanta

Quanta? Two Quanta? We are now up to four intermixed terms.
Simplify. Choose one thing.

of 80 m radiation is 2.3 * 10^ -27 J, that
difference (my physic book say) it is unmeasurable experimentally
(this energy leap (skip?, hop?) it is in the order of 10^-8 smaller
that green light leap

True, but immaterial. You are confusing wavelength and quanta (no
surprise given the blearing of topic). Compare Green and IR. Is
there a correlation on a scale of two that predicts out to a scale of
10^8? Compare Green and deep IR. Is there a correlation on a scale
of ten that predicts out to a scale of 10^8? Compare Green and the
Sub-millimeter band. Is there a correlation on a scale of 100 that
predicts out to a scale of 10^8?

(in reality my book -Resnick Halliday- give a
moving dust particle example with quantic number very much lower than
my 80 m example yet = n = 3 * 10^14, they said "we can not
distiguish energy difference among n = 3 * 10^14 and n = [3 * 10^14]
+1")

So a quantum of smaller energy of a dust particle is measureable but
80M transmission is not? Common sense is wheezing in this dust.

OK, so they are talking about the difference in quantum, not energy.
Would it surprise you that you cannot even tell the difference between
one quanta of green light and two with conventional detecting
technology?

What it is the ohysical sense of working with magnitudes we can not
measure? Nobody (as we know) use (or need) quantum mechanics to deal
with (or explain) locomotive movement :)

The limitation is called Quatum Efficiency and the human eye is vastly
superior (to all but $1,000,000 components) at rougly QE = 50%.

Cecil said
Cecil said
Yes, yes, I know some people bring very strange ideas into the forums,

Indeed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

Considering the steady state...

If we accept the P(t) is the product of instantaneous voltage and
current, then there will be some points on any mismatched line where P(t)
is always positive. In between those points, P(t) will have positive and
negative excursions.

I think that it is a reasonable interpretation that at those points where
P(t) is always positive, then there is never at any instant, a flow of
energy away from the load, energy is never exchanged during a cycle
across those points, it always flows from source to load.

It may be that energy is exhanged during a cycle at the load end of the
line, and it may be that energy is exchanged during a cycle at the source
end of the line, but if the line is sufficiently long, there will exist
points where instantanous power is always positive, and therefore, energy
always flows in the load to source direction at those points.

The notion that a reflected wave in general conveys power over the entire
path from load to source is not consistent with the above. This notion is
emboddied in common language when talking about 'reflected power', but
the language belies the actual phenomena.

Owen

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 30 jun, 19:16, Richard Clark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:02:14 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I was thinking in quantic number describing the energy of a typical
100 W 80 m oscillator devolped in one second,

Hi Miguel,

Power? *Energy? *One second? *Choose one to talk about, and perhaps
the mystery of numbers might clear up.

one quanta an two quanta

Quanta? *Two Quanta? *We are now up to four intermixed terms.
Simplify. *Choose one thing.

of 80 m radiation is 2.3 * 10^ -27 J, that
difference (my physic book say) it is unmeasurable experimentally
(this energy leap (skip?, hop?) it is in the order of 10^-8 smaller
that green light leap

True, but immaterial. *You are confusing wavelength and quanta (no
surprise given the blearing of topic). *Compare Green and IR. *Is
there a correlation on a scale of two that predicts out to a scale of
10^8? * Compare Green and deep IR. *Is there a correlation on a scale
of ten that predicts out to a scale of 10^8? * Compare Green and the
Sub-millimeter band. *Is there a correlation on a scale of 100 that
predicts out to a scale of 10^8?

(in reality my book -Resnick Halliday- give a
moving dust particle example with quantic number very much lower than
my 80 m example yet *= n = 3 * 10^14, they said "we can not
distiguish energy difference among n = 3 * 10^14 and n = [3 * 10^14]
+1")

So a quantum of smaller energy of a dust particle is measureable but
80M transmission is not? *Common sense is wheezing in this dust.

OK, so they are talking about the difference in quantum, not energy.
Would it surprise you that you cannot even tell the difference between
one quanta of green light and two with conventional detecting
technology?

What it is the ohysical sense of working with magnitudes we can not
measure? Nobody (as we know) use (or need) quantum mechanics to deal
with (or explain) locomotive movement *:)

The limitation is called Quatum Efficiency and the human eye is vastly
superior (to all but $1,000,000 components) at rougly QE = 50%.

Cecil said
Cecil said
Yes, yes, I know some people bring very strange ideas into the forums,

Indeed.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Dear Richard:

On examples we usually start with a visible common data, here I made
with a 100 W TX power during one second to gives certain amount of
energy, this amount of energy stored in a system (for example a LC
tank) gives the quantic number of the system. well... Energy it is
Power * Time and n=E/h*v, it easy, it is an electrical cuasi identical
example as page 1616 part II Spanih translated Resnick & Halliday
book. if for Resnick & Halliday guys is a good example for me is good
too :)

I do not confussing wavelengh with quanta!, quantized energy it is
E=nhv and v it is 1/lambda, how do you calculate E without v in such
equation?
I don not believe my translations are too wrong! I wrote what book say
= "they said "we CAN NOT DISTINGUISH energy difference among n = 3 *
10^14 and n = [3 * 10^14] +1"), (page 1652 op.cit.); where you read:
"quantum of smaller energy of a dust particle is measureable"? my text
says just the opposite!

You say: "OK, so they are talking about the difference in quantum, not
energy" I do not know if I am translating well your sentence...
perhaps you refer to my missuse of the latin word quanta (plural)
instead "quantum" (singular) (in spanish we usually say "cuanto/
cuantos" -not latin-, in english I believe you use latin, sorry by my
translating error), but I think not is that.
Quantum in this context is "energy quantum", they are talking about
difference of energy, that difference it is not continuos but
quantized, and each energy quantum is 2.3 * 10^ -27 J, one quantum,
two quantum... n*quantum, n*quantum in the system = E (op. cit. page
1615), what is wrong?

I am talking about 80 m technically useles quantum treatment, and you
say to me: "The limitation is called Quatum Efficiency and the human
eye is vastly superior (to all but $1,000,000 components) at rougly QE
= 50%."

What sort of human eye we use to see 80 m "light"? :)

I did not want go out off topic, I claimed quantum mechanics do not
help so much to solve TL related problems and give some reasons for
that. I am not an expert in quantum physics and I am not going further
that my elementary physic book examples. Are they wrong? well... then,
I am wrong too :) PSE do not argue with me, I am innocent of charges,
read the references...

73 - Miguel - LU6ETJ

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

Owen Duffy wrote:
Considering the steady state...

If we accept the P(t) is the product of instantaneous voltage and
current, then there will be some points on any mismatched line where P(t)
is always positive. In between those points, P(t) will have positive and
negative excursions.

I think that it is a reasonable interpretation that at those points where
P(t) is always positive, then there is never at any instant, a flow of
energy away from the load, energy is never exchanged during a cycle
across those points, it always flows from source to load.

I'd make a small addition, that . . .there is never at any instant a
*net* flow of energy away from the load. . .

The problem is that I don't know of any way to keep track of a
particular bundle of energy -- it gets mixed together. So you could have
energy constantly flowing both ways through a point while maintaining a
net flow (power) in one direction and it would look just the same as
energy going only one way. Keith's DC thought experiments illustrate
these different approaches and some of their logical -- and illogical --
consequences.

Quite some time ago I wrote and made available a little graphic program
showing the voltage, current, power, and energy on lines under several
conditions. When a complete standing wave exists, there are points of
zero voltage and current and hence zero power. For one half the cycle
you can see energy moving into those points equally from both directions
(obviously being stored at the node), and during the other half, energy
is moving out of those points in both directions (being retrieved from
storage). One interpretation is that the energy arriving from the left
exits to the right, and vice-versa, and that fits neatly into the
concept of waves of energy simultaneously moving in both directions. Or
you can decide that the energy which came in from the right exits to the
right, and in from the left exits to the left. If that's your
interpretation, then you conclude that no energy ever crosses the
boundary. I think this is the genesis of Cecil's view that energy waves
somehow bounce off the standing wave node. Both interpretations fit
equally well with the observed net flow of energy but, like Keith's DC
thought experiments and Cecil's writings show, take you down quite
different paths when trying to divine some concept of what's
fundamentally happening.

. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 30, 10:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
lu6etj wrote:
On 29 jun, 15:08, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 29, 12:54 pm, Jim Lux wrote:

photons can flow through a dielectric.. isn't that what EM propagation
is, after all?
Yes, after I posted it, I realized that it was a rhetorical question.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I learnt displacement current inside a condenser it was = eo* d(phi E)/
dt no EM radiation inside the condenser to made that current possible,
in any case EM radiation in physical condenser will come out from
condenser to the rest of the universe :).
I also learnt photons was necessary to explain certain energy
interchange phenomena such as fotoelectric effect or subatomic
particle interactions, wave-particle duality for me means "duality",
not "wave kaput" :) to account for EM wave well explainable
phenomenom.
As it was taught to me (I am not physicist), quantum nature of a 80 m
wavelenght energy it is useless for calculations and invisible to our
instrument resolution because its immensely large quantic number. Is
it wrong?

Miguel LU6ETJ

Photons are very useful in the analysis of transmission lines. They can
be brought into the discussion to divert it from taking a path that
makes a participant uncomfortable. If unable to answer a question
logically, simply toss photons, optics, quantum mechanics, aether, and
other confounding factors in, and presto, people will begin arguing
about the spurious concepts and forget that you've avoided answering the
difficult question. It's called misdirection, a time-honored technique
used by politicians and prestidigitators as well as promoters of
pseudoscience.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

yeah, ain't it great fun!