RadioBanter - what happens to reflected energy ?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - what happens to reflected energy ? (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/151739-what-happens-reflected-energy.html)

what happens to reflected energy ?

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:46:10 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

a 100 W TX power during one second to gives certain amount of
energy

Hi Miguel,

POWER. Please observe the distinction as appeals to 100W or "one
second" have no bearing on where you seem to be fixated with quanta
and energy. Introducing distractions is not very useful. [I can
appreciate that you are not the source of the distractions.]

I do not confussing wavelengh with quanta!, quantized energy it is

Then quanta is a distraction, or wavelength is.

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

Why do you compare 80M to green light? The more wavelength
appropriate scale would be invisible in the 800nM Infra Red or in the
80nM Ultra Violet. Green light's correlative would be in the 55.5M
band (tropical SW).

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.

Indeed, no doubt this [distraction] is attributable to a Texas
[distracting] snake in the grass.

Quantum mechanics can give a certain perspective and sense of scale,
but [distracting] amateurs shouldn't try that at home or on the
Internet.

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...

The Cosmic Radiation Background has been measured to about 2.76 K,
where the mapping variation (fluctuations of 30 microKelvins) are
within the Energy perturbation (contribution) of our Amateur
transmissions.

So as to not argue, I firmly agree with you that no one is going to
find any utility in any of this. But the debate will rage on
heedless.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?

On Jun 30, 3:03*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

That reminds me that somewhere in the morass of this thread, I believe
I saw an "exchange" about whether it was more proper to think of a TEM
line in terms of inductance and capacitance, or in terms of (electric
and magnetic) fields. I suppose someone had lost sight of the fact
that capacitance is simply a model that relates energy stored in an
electric field to the applied voltage, and inductance is simply a
model that relates energy stored in a magnetic field to the conducted
current. How easy it seems for some to become so invested in a
particular viewpoint that they can't see that other viewpoints are
equally valid (and often just a different way to say the same thing)
-- and may on occasion lead to new insights. Of course, those
viewpoints that have little to recommend them don't have to be given a
particularly prominent position in our thoughts. Far be it from me to
say that 10MHz energy isn't quantized, but since the quanta are far
too small for me to measure, I seldom give them much thought.

Cheers,
Tom

what happens to reflected energy ?

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jun 30, 1:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Photons are in the real light. The natural light is not coherent. It is
emitted in the portions (packets).
Radio waves are emitted continously. Radar waves are in the portions.

Laser light can usually be considered to be coherent light

No. People produce the coherent light in :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HalbachArrayFEL.png

as are
waves generated by an RF transmitter. But of course, nothing is
perfect.

Radio waves and the light photons flow directly through the dielectric
layer
of a capacitor.

Energy flow, just not as "current".

Each waves transports the mass and energy.

Electrons are compressed in the ends of the open circuit (condenser and
antenna).

"Compressed" may be overstating the phenomenon. Have you ever
calculated exactly how far an electron moves at 10 MHz?

Electro gas behaves like all gases.

Electrons are simple.

Yes, too simple to move at the speed of light.

Air particles move with the speed temperature dependent.
Electrons do the same.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?

"Roy Lewallen" wrote
...

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

Each wave transports the mass and energy from the source (or mirror).
In the microwave oven the all energy is transfered into heat.

In antenna the part of energy and mass is emitted. The reflected part is
smaller.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?

On Jul 1, 6:14*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"Cecil Moore" ...
On Jun 30, 1:30 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Photons are in the real light. The natural light is not coherent. It is
emitted in the portions (packets).
Radio waves are emitted continously. Radar waves are in the portions.

Laser light can usually be considered to be coherent light

No. People produce the coherent light in :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HalbachArrayFEL.png

as are

waves generated by an RF transmitter. But of course, nothing is
perfect.

Radio waves and the light photons flow directly through the dielectric
layer
of a capacitor.
Energy flow, just not as "current".

Each waves transports the mass and energy.

Electrons are compressed in the ends of the open circuit (condenser and
antenna).
"Compressed" may be overstating the phenomenon. Have you ever

calculated exactly how far an electron moves at 10 MHz?

Electro gas behaves like all gases.

Electrons are simple.
Yes, too simple to move at the speed of light.

Air particles move with the speed temperature dependent.
Electrons do the same.
S*

you can do better than that, you just aren't being any fun now!

what happens to reflected energy ?

On Jun 30, 11:29*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
Check the a0 coefficient in the Fourier transform. This represents
the DC component of the signal.

And the result is zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your
argument falls apart.

Without this, how would you deal with a signal such as
* V(t) = 10 + 2 cos(3t)

If the cosine term is zero, there are zero EM waves, either forward or
reflected, and your argument falls apart.

Incidentally, V(t) = 10, is a perfect way to prove that energy and the
time derivitive of energy are not the same thing and your argument
falls apart.

Alternatively, one can use the standard trick for dealing with
non-repetitive waveforms: choose an arbitrary period. 24 hours
would probably be suitable for these examples and transform from
there. Still, you will have zero frequency component to deal
with, but there will be some at higher frequencies (if you
choose your function to make it so).

Windowing doesn't generate EM waves where none exist in reality and
your argument falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?

On Jul 1, 12:37*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:29*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

Check the a0 coefficient in the Fourier transform. This represents
the DC component of the signal.

And the result is zero EM waves, either forward or reflected, and your
argument falls apart.

Without this, how would you deal with a signal such as
* V(t) = 10 + 2 cos(3t)

If the cosine term is zero, there are zero EM waves, either forward or
reflected, and your argument falls apart.

Incidentally, V(t) = 10, is a perfect way to prove that energy and the
time derivitive of energy are not the same thing and your argument
falls apart.

Alternatively, one can use the standard trick for dealing with
non-repetitive waveforms: choose an arbitrary period. 24 hours
would probably be suitable for these examples and transform from
there. Still, you will have zero frequency component to deal
with, but there will be some at higher frequencies (if you
choose your function to make it so).

Windowing doesn't generate EM waves where none exist in reality and
your argument falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

a better argument is that a constant voltage produces a constant
electric field everywhere, since the field is not varying in time or
space there is no time or space derivative to create a magnetic field
so there can be no propagating em wave. you could do the same with
zero or constant current producing a constant magnetic field.

essentially the dc case IS unique in that you must wait forever for it
to reach sinusoidal steady state since the lowest frequency component
is 0hz.

what happens to reflected energy ?

On Jun 30, 11:30*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
But you are NOT adding up the energy flows - you are adding up the
power.

Ummm. Energy flow is power. Joules/s!

If it helps, any place I have written 'power', please replace with
'energy flow'.

One too many words - what I meant to say is that you are not adding up
the energy - you are adding up the power. There is no such thing as
conservation of energy flow. That is proved by your own graphs. There
are times when the energy flow is destroyed. There are other points on
your power graphs where energy flow is created.

There is no conflict with conserving flows, ...

The conflict is that conservation of flows doesn't exist. Keith, you
need to go back to college. There is no such thing as conservation of
energy flow so your argument falls apart. When one looks up
"conservation" in a physics book one finds:

conservation of energy principle
conservation of mass-energy
conservation of mechanical energy
conservation of momentum principle

There is NO conservation of energy flow or conservation of power.
Until you give up on that ridiculous concept, we don't have much to
discuss except your religion.

What happens when energy = 1 joule, and de/dt = 0 watts. This happens
all the time during an RF cycle so you are not using actual energy
flows. You are using power which goes to zero even when maximum energy
is still present.

Yes, indeed. That is a fundamental possibility and occurs on
transmission lines with infinite VSWR.

If power goes to zero, power has been destroyed. Therefore, there is
no conservation of power principle. Anything that can go to zero, i.e.
can disappear, cannot be conserved.

Power is the time derivitive of energy. They are related
but definitely not one-to-one.

Well, that shoots your argument down. If power and energy do not have
a one-to-one correspondence, then you cannot use the conservation of
energy principle to prove that power is conserved and your argument
falls apart. You must then product a conservation of power principle,
something that every physics professor has warned us doesn't exist.

I can provide any number of references to support the conservation of
energy principle. Please provide just one bona fide reference that
supports your conservation of energy flow (power) principle.

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

Good grief! Any physicist knows that is false. Any number of examples
prove that is false.

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

Given a black box with an input and output. Measurements of the power
flow vector indicates that the magnitude of each power flow vector is
50 watts and both vectors are pointing inside the black box. How can
the instantaneous energy flows possibly balance?

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

You are contradicting yourself. Assume the capacitor *IS* the system
inside a black box. The instantaneous energy flow does NOT balance.

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.

You have it half right. Energy must be conserved. Energy flow is not
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.

Please see the black box experiment above and balance the energy flow.
Please produce a reference for the conservation of power principle.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?

On Jun 30, 5:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
It's called misdirection, a time-honored technique
used by politicians and prestidigitators as well as promoters of
pseudoscience.

Translation: Don't bother me with technical facts based on the laws of
physics. I am perfectly happy with my present metaphysics.

Actually, recognizing that EM waves are photonic in nature and are
therefore bound by the laws of physics governing photons is an attempt
to correct the previous years of misdirection engaged in by some RF
gurus. Such concepts as zero energy in EM reflected waves comes to
mind. If EM reflected waves do not obey the laws of physics, then they
don't exist - but they do.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com