what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 3, 6:13*pm, lu6etj wrote:
... then I asked
you if you can hear sound 80 dB below insect shooting your window.

That reminds me of the medical profession two hundred years ago when
doctors believed that there was no such thing as a virus because they
couldn't see it and besides that, how could it possibly exist and be
alive without a cellular structure?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 3, 9:34*pm, lu6etj wrote:
Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another
guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners?

Don't worry about it, Miguel. I am an English major and understand
your English better than Richard's. He is not unlike a court jester
who talks in riddles and takes pride in himself when nobody
understands.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 4, 12:02*am, Richard Clark wrote:
You can experience one photon, however could you state that it was not
two instead?

Actually, human rods can detect one photon but that small impulse does
not reach the brain. It takes about nine photons for our brains to
experience photons. It's a transmission line problem, not a detector
problem.

Cecil is among those who cannot be
trusted to write on the white board.

Translation: Don't bother me with technical facts. I am already
satisfied with my present metaphysics. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jul 4, 8:28 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"lu6etj"
...

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another

guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Try to understand. Richard gives the free English lessons. I have learnt
a
lot from him.
S*

just nothing about electromagnetics i guess.

Yes. Because I am interested in the antennas and Richard is an expert in it.
In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 4, 4:19*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 4, 8:28 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"lu6etj"
...

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another

guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Try to understand. Richard gives the free English lessons. I have learnt
a
lot from him.
S*
just nothing about electromagnetics i guess.

Yes. Because I am interested in the antennas and Richard is an expert in it.
*In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.
S*

unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of
maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jun 30, 5:55*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
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.

I think you are misunderstanding, possibly because I am not expressing
as clearly as could be. I find it difficult to pick a vocabulary that
will not be confusing due to prior associations with the words. But
then words like 'entity' are too fuzzy.

The system I have in mind has ports through which energy can flow in
or out of the system and components inside the system which can
store energy. For such a system, the energy flowing in to ports
of the system minus the energy flowing out of ports must
equal the increase in energy being stored in the system.

This must be true at all times, or energy is being created or
destroyed; a bit of a no-no.

This system can be subdivided in to sub-systems for which this
energy flow balance must also hold.

As such, if the energy stored in one of the entities (e.g.
capacitor) is increasing, either net energy is flowing in to
the ports of the system, or the energy stored in some other
entity in the system is decreasing (or both). But the sum
of all the flows entering or leaving the ports, plus
the flows between the internal entities must balance on
a moment by moment basis.

Of course the expressions written to describe this will
be dependent on the details of the system. One must also
not forget to account for energy that leaves the system
as heat courtesy resistors. These can be thought of as
ports which only remove energy from the system.

The requirement for moment-by-moment balance is more stringent
than the requirement for average balance. The former inevitably
leads to the latter, but the converse is not true.

From Wikipedia, I have just learned that the concept I am attempting
to describe is known as a "Continuity equation".

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 ?
 

On Jul 1, 8:37*am, 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.

What was my argument that fell apart? I am not the one pushing the
notion
of forward and reflected EM waves. That's you. I am just trying to
help
you fit square waves in to your model.

So how do you characterize a slow square wave? Say one that is 0V for
one year, then 10V for a year, then 0, then...

With several meters of open circuited transmission line, what do you
think is happening on the line for the year while you are waiting for
the
signal to drop back to zero volts? Does it have a constant voltage?
And
0 current for most of that year? Is it an EM wave?

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.

You need to read more carefully. I have never claimed they are the
same.

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.

A question for your model...

With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function,
is there an EM wave propagating down the line?

If not, what is it that is propagating down the line? Especially at
the leading edge?

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 8:53*am, K1TTT wrote:
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.

The same question for you...

With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function,
is there an EM wave propagating down the line?

If not, what is it that is propagating down the line? Especially at
the leading edge?

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

You have used similar phrases before. Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 4 jul, 20:53, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 4, 4:19*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 4, 8:28 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

"lu6etj"
...

Hi hi, Why I find it more hard to translate your writings than another

guys ones? is it a peculiarity of your playing with words or your zone
manners? I am sorry because I miss some of your subtleties or
grammatical tricks and I suspect they have more funny meanings that I
can capture :)

Try to understand. Richard gives the free English lessons. I have learnt
a
lot from him.
S*
just nothing about electromagnetics i guess.

Yes. Because I am interested in the antennas and Richard is an expert in it.
*In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.
S*

unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of
maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. *if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

Hello all, friends.

Sorry, I thought we was basically alone in this issue with Richard :)

Then, perhaps some of you can help me if I am not capable to make my
poor english writings intelligible enough. I feel as if Richard had
not pointed in the direction I point. I think that because his
references to S+N/N and others made me think Richard are thinking in
detect low frequency wave quanta at little energy levels, and I am
talking about to perceive the little LF quanta at high energy levels
(large scale oscillators).
In my original example I said we are not able distinguish (today...
tomorrow who knows?) Osc. A from Osc. B, having Osc. A 4*10^28
quanta and Osc. B 4*10^28 +1 quanta, having each 80 m quantum 2.3 *
10^-19 J.

(I know my friend Richard inevitably is going to penalize me for this
"analogy", but it is so beautiful that I could not resist..!) = The
problem is such as distinguish between two zeppelins of about 1500 m^3
each one having zeppelin A only one molecule more than zeppelin B...!
Do not we need an alien Roswell Grey technology for that? :)

Last night I found in the web the "strange word", it is not
"granularity" it is = "graininess", graininess translate to spanish
properly to "granularidad" and granularidad to english as
granularity :)

At the end of this link: http://panda.unm.edu/Courses/Finley/...hermalRad.html
there are a similar text in its original english words =

"Therefore, we see that the quantization of energy simply does not
show up for large-scale oscillators. The smallness of Planck's
constant makes the graininess in the energy much too fine to detect in
those experiments. This is quite similar to the statement that we do
not ordinarily observe the fact that the air in the room is actually
made up of many, many individual molecules. Nonetheless, we can indeed
perform experiments in which this graininess is noticeable, and even
important. Obviously the behavior of the spectral radiancy at very
short wavelengths is one such case. The phenomena involved with the
photoelectric effect, and the Compton effect, are others."

I apologize for my insistence dear Richard, I do not want to be
stubborn but I remember Carl Sagan telling: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence" and my posting about the very large
quantum number of the 3.5 MHz Xmtrs play here the "conservative"
role :)

73 to all Miguel - LU6ETJ

PS: Szczepan: Thanks for your info.
Richard: Why a "white board"? has a special meaning? - You are
saying Cecil it is as Dr. House? - Really nice car your RX-7, I envy
you! - My London friend is "missing2 I owe you some answers :(

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 1, 10:20*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

One example you should be familiar with is Kirchoffs Current Law;
it tells you that sum of the FLOWs must equal 0 based on the
Conservation of Charge law. Recall that current is charge per
unit time.

For a more general treatment look up 'Continuity equation' in
Wikidedia where you will find "A continuity equation in physics is a
differential equation that describes the transport of some kind of
conserved quantity. Since mass, energy, momentum, electric charge
and other natural quantities are conserved, a vast variety of
physics may be described with continuity equations.".

Welcome to a new tool for analysis.

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.

See above, though it seems the common term is Continuity equation.

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?

Inside the box are some elements whose stored energy is increasing
at the same rate.

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.

Expand your thinking a bit. Energy is being stored in the capacitor.
You do need to account for this. It is just another flow to track.

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.

See above.

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.

See above.

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jul 4, 4:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.

unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of
maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.

Maxwell's aether was as perfect solid with the molecular vortices. The
magnetic field was the sum of the molecular.
The Faraday effect was explained. Transverse waves possible. But in solid
possible are also the longitudinal.
Which of them are in reality decide experiments.

Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but withot
the molecular vortices:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge

Now inside the solenoid no rotations. What rotate the polarisation plane?

Heaviside (father of Maxwell' equations) did not understand Maxwell and did
not agree with the rest:

"Prof. Thomson, who otherwise confirms my results, has also extended the
matter by supposing that the medium itself is set in motion, as well as the
electrification. This is somewhat beyond me. I do not yet know certainly
that the ether can move, or its laws of motion if it can. Fresnel thought
the earth could move through the ether without disturbing it; Stokes, that
it carried the ether along with it, by giving irrotational motion to it."

" I must, however, disagree with Prof. Thomson's assumption that the motion
must be irrotational. It would appear, by the above, that this limitation is
unnecessary."

I simply agree with Maxwell, Stokes, Thompson and the rest famous scientists
that no rotational vibrations (transverse waves).

You prefer Heaviside (engineer) and Authors of the textbooks .
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:51:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I apologize for my insistence dear Richard, I do not want to be
stubborn but I remember Carl Sagan telling: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence"

Hi Miguel,

Sagan never impressed me, and this quote even less. It relies on
mystical explanations when ordinary works quite well.

and my posting about the very large
quantum number of the 3.5 MHz Xmtrs play here the "conservative"
role :)

The link leads to a lot of tedious and pedantic writing.

Your new analogy fails as quickly as the rest, so by extension I must
presume that the work revealed at your link fails too. That is the
usual fate of tying two things together when one is a rhetorical
anchor.

When I speak of S+N/N, this is to mean that extraneous detail (fables
of mosquitoes, large cars and even larger blimps) only adds noise.

Skip the "extraordinary," stop the fables, and simply state your case.
When you remove all this noise, you may discover you are not writing
about a quantum system at all, but numbers without meaning. A simple
test: what changes its quantum state at 3.5MHz? Is it sub-atomic,
atomic, or molecular?

Richard: Why a "white board"? has a special meaning? - You are
saying Cecil it is as Dr. House? - Really nice car your RX-7, I envy
you! - My London friend is "missing2 I owe you some answers :(

Dr. House refuses to let students write on his white board.

I've driven RXs for 28 years: a 1978 and a 1990 GTU.

London is a nice place to be missing in. I've spent time near
Vauxhall bridge in Westminster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 1:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 1, 8:53*am, K1TTT wrote:



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.

The same question for you...

With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function,
is there an EM wave propagating down the line?

If not, what is it that is propagating down the line? Especially at
the leading edge?

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

You have used similar phrases before. Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

...Keith

'it depends'... in the special case you have concocted where the
signal source has no reflections it only takes one round trip. this
case is very misleading if you try to extend it to cover other cases.
in general it takes infinitely long and you must account for the
infinite series of reflections. that is why the approximations used
to come up with the sinusoidal steady state solution is so useful, and
exactly why it can not be applied to steps and square waves and other
non sinusoidal constant sources.


and in your infinite line example it never reaches steady state so the
step wave propagates forever.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 1:58*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 1, 10:20*am, Cecil Moore wrote:



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.

One example you should be familiar with is Kirchoffs Current Law;
it tells you that sum of the FLOWs must equal 0 based on the
Conservation of Charge law. Recall that current is charge per
unit time.

For a more general treatment look up 'Continuity equation' in
Wikidedia where you will find "A continuity equation in physics is a
differential equation that describes the transport of some kind of
conserved quantity. Since mass, energy, momentum, electric charge
and other natural quantities are conserved, a vast variety of
physics may be described with continuity equations.".

Welcome to a new tool for analysis.



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.

See above, though it seems the common term is Continuity equation.

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?

Inside the box are some elements whose stored energy is increasing
at the same rate.

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.

Expand your thinking a bit. Energy is being stored in the capacitor.
You do need to account for this. It is just another flow to track.

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.

See above.

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.

See above.

...Keith

'normally' black boxes are just that, opaque elements that you can not
measure an internal state with. when you specify a box or something
generic with a couple of ports any good engineer will assume that you
know NOTHING about what is inside the box, and that you don't care.
those type of simplifications are common in engineering methods in
order to simplify problems down to the things that you are really
interested in... normally BY DEFINITION you don't know and don't care
about what is inside 'the box'. so your statement that you know the
energy stored in the box is a function of instantaneous flows in and
out is non-sequitar, we engineers just don't care and would never try
to do a balance like that. if you want to study the energy flow in
and out of a box AND the storage of it in the box then provide the
circuit for the box and study it properly.

for instance, take your infinitely long transmission line. as an
engineer my first action is to reduce that line to a resistor that has
a value equal to the characteristic impedance of the line. i can use
that equivalent resistor for all calculations for EVERYTHING ELSE in
the circuit, but NOT for the internal state of the replacement box....
for obviously if you look in the box and find a resistor dissipating
all the power you put into it as heat that will be much different from
looking in the box and seeing an infinite transmission line with all
that energy propagating forever as an em wave.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 8:12*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 4, 4:19 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



In electromagnetics Maxwell and Heaveside are the experts. Available on
line.
unfortunately you have to learn modern em to know what writings of

maxwell and heaveside to bother believing... they both went through
learning periods before they came to the final transverse wave
formulations. *if you read their earlier works you will be mislead
because they were still learning and following dead end paths like
aether theory and fluid analogies.

Maxwell's aether was as perfect solid with the molecular vortices. The
magnetic field was the sum of the molecular.
The Faraday effect was explained. Transverse waves possible. But in solid
possible are also the longitudinal.
Which of them are in reality decide experiments.

Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but withot
the molecular vortices:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge


if that is all the further you have read then you have much to learn.
at the very beginning they are conjecturing about the possibility of
infinite vs finite propagation velocity, so obviously they have not
made the critical measurements yet to refine the equations to the
proper ones and eliminate all the possible aetheric solutions.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 4, 8:08*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
The system I have in mind has ports through which energy can flow in
or out of the system and components inside the system which can
store energy. For such a system, the energy flowing in to ports
of the system minus the energy flowing out of ports *must
equal the increase in energy being stored in the system.

This must be true at all times, or energy is being created or
destroyed; a bit of a no-no.

But you are not tracking energy - you are tracking power. As Roy has
said, there is no requirement that instantaneous power must balance.
Where are the stored energy terms in any of your instantaneous power
equations? How do you handle the difference in dimensions between
energy and power? The only condition for which NET power must balance
is during a time interval in which there is zero NET stored power,
e.g. during one cycle.

I have rev'ed my zero interference article to include the following
statement:

"Over a time period of many cycles, e.g. one second at MHz
frequencies, the net average energy and the net average power are
related by joules/second. Thus, if certain conditions are met, net
average power can be used to track the net average energy flow based
on the conservation of energy principle. However, at time intervals of
less than one cycle, as exists for instantaneous power, power cannot
be used to track energy because energy is often stored in a reactance,
is not moving at that instant, and is therefore technically not power.
In fact, unlike energy, power often appears and disappears. There are
special cases where average power in joules/second can be used to
track average energy in joules but instantaneous power is not one of
those special cases."
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 4, 8:24*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

From Wikipedia, I have just learned that the concept I am
attempting to describe is known as a "Continuity equation".

In all your previous equations, you have presented only the first term
and completely ignored the second (delta-dot-v) term of the equation
which is required for balance. When you add the proper term, i.e. you
track and account for all of the energy, your energy equation will
balance - as I told you days ago.

So how do you characterize a slow square wave? Say one that is 0V for
one year, then 10V for a year, then 0, then...

The same way I characterize, "How many angels can dance on the head of
a pin?" The length of time makes absolutely no difference to the
concept involved. The above conditions do not match the DC steady-
state conditions of your earlier example.

With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function,
is there an EM wave propagating down the line?

Yes, there is an EM wave at the leading edge. Electrons cannot move at
the speed of light. But it is impossible to window such an example in
a valid manner because windowing creates other EM waves where none
exist in your example. There is no trailing edge in your example yet
windowing would necessarily create a trailing edge. Since an
infinitely long transmission line is impossible, we are back to the
"angels on the head of a pin" problem. In any region of the example
where steady-state DC conditions exist, EM waves have ceased to exist.
That's what happens when you make the line a fixed length and
terminate it at that point. Anywhere DC steady-state conditions exist,
your DC forward and reflected wave analysis falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 4, 8:26*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

Your infinitely long open-circuited transmission line example
certainly takes infinitely long to reach steady-state so the leading-
edge EM wave continues forever with zero reflected EM waves and your
argument involving reflected waves falls apart.

Your finite open-circuited transmission line example reaches DC steady-
state where EM waves cease to exist so your argument involving forward
and reflected waves falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 4, 8:58*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Expand your thinking a bit. Energy is being stored in the capacitor.
You do need to account for this. It is just another flow to track.

I don't need to track it. I am not the one who is arguing that
instantaneous power is conserved. I have said all along that your
instantaneous power equations were not tracking all the energy. It is
*you* who have not been tracking the energy stored in the capacitor.
When you do that in a valid way, you will discover that the energy
does balance but the instantaneous power still does NOT balance, nor
is it required to balance. IT IS ENERGY THAT IS CONSERVED, NOT POWER!
Please note that the 'Continuity equation' discussion does *NOT* list
power as one of the conserved quantities.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 1:16*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:26*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

Your infinitely long open-circuited transmission line example
certainly takes infinitely long to reach steady-state so the leading-
edge EM wave continues forever with zero reflected EM waves and your
argument involving reflected waves falls apart.

Your finite open-circuited transmission line example reaches DC steady-
state where EM waves cease to exist so your argument involving forward
and reflected waves falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

'dc steady state' is an oxymoron...

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 8:38*am, K1TTT wrote:
'dc steady state' is an oxymoron...

Webster's says an "oxymoron" is self-contradictory. "DC transient
state" would be an oxymoron. "DC steady-state" is merely
redundant. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Jul 5, 8:12 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but
withot
the molecular
vortices:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge

if that is all the further you have read then you have much to learn.
at the very beginning they
infinite vs finite propagation velocity, so obviously they have not
made the critical measurements yet to refine the equations to the
proper ones and eliminate all the possible aetheric solutions.

You probably have heard about the sulimation of matter and photoemission of
electrons,
It means that in the space is the saturated vapour (todays plasma). It is
the medium for your radio waves.
It is known from Ludwig Lorenz.

Todays authors are conjecturing about the possibility of the transverse
waves. Is it not funny?
What waves are in your transmissing line?
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 4:41*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On Jul 5, 8:12 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



Heaviside modified Maxwell' model. His aether is also motionless but
withot
the molecular
vortices:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electr..._moving_charge
if that is all the further you have read then you have much to learn.

at the very beginning they
infinite vs finite propagation velocity, so obviously they have not
made the critical measurements yet to refine the equations to the
proper ones and eliminate all the possible aetheric solutions.

You probably have heard about the sulimation of matter and photoemission of
electrons,
It means that in the space is the saturated vapour (todays plasma). It is
the medium for your radio waves.
It is known from Ludwig Lorenz.

Todays authors are conjecturing about the possibility of the transverse
waves. Is it not funny?
What waves are in your transmissing line?
S*

i still want to see how you polarize longitudinal waves.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 11:41*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
What waves are in your transmissing line?

They are photonic waves, obviously subject to the laws of physics that
govern photons.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w wiadomosci
...
On Jul 5, 4:41 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

You probably have heard about the sulimation of matter and photoemission
of
electrons,
It means that in the space is the saturated vapour (todays plasma). It is
the medium for your radio waves.
It is known from Ludwig Lorenz.

Todays authors are conjecturing about the possibility of the transverse
waves. Is it not funny?
What waves are in your transmissing line?
S*

i still want to see how you polarize longitudinal waves.

Richard has learn me that the dipoles are polarized not waves.
Monopoles do not need the directional orientation.
Directional patterns are the result of interference.

Is is trouble with understanding that the all scientists work on plasma?
Only students are in the solid aether. But they simply do not know that the
famous equations describes such.
Vectors describes the motions of something. Students should not be told what
it is. Because the goal is math (field method) teaching.
S*
S*

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 5 jul, 10:16, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:26*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

Your infinitely long open-circuited transmission line example
certainly takes infinitely long to reach steady-state so the leading-
edge EM wave continues forever with zero reflected EM waves and your
argument involving reflected waves falls apart.

Your finite open-circuited transmission line example reaches DC steady-
state where EM waves cease to exist so your argument involving forward
and reflected waves falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Hi Richard, good day:

Again you give me another rethoric answer... Please, tell us how to
measure to distinguish Osc. A from Osc. B, having Osc. A 4*10^28
quanta and Osc. B 4*10^28 +1 quanta, having each 80 m quantum 2.3 *
10^-19 J.

Your answers are making me remember = "It was the only explicit
answer you will ever get" or "Superman's cataracts with his xray
vision. This is probably going to be your only direct
answer." (Please do not go upsetting, I am joking).

You dislike my examples, you dislike R & H & K classic and obviously
really good peer reviewed book reference (and examples), you dislike
university notes, you dislike analogies, you dislike Sagan... Today I
know all things you dislike, what I do not know is how measure A and B
oscillator to distinguish each other... :D
Remember, you are rebutting things stated in standard university
physics book, does not reverse the burden of proof.
Please be a good boy, be plain and do not resort to old tricks such as
posting esoteric rocket science hiper-specialized incomprehensible
answers :)

73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

Keith Dysart wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding, possibly because I am not expressing
as clearly as could be. I find it difficult to pick a vocabulary that
will not be confusing due to prior associations with the words. But
then words like 'entity' are too fuzzy.

. . .

The problem I had was the use of "energy flow balance" which implied
equal energy flow into and out of any point at any time. Your more
detailed description explicitly includes stored and dissipated energy,
which as we've both said, makes it possible for energy flow into and out
of a point to be unequal at times, while obeying conservation of energy
by being equal on the average (when dissipated energy is accounted for
as removed from the system). The more detailed detailed description
should help alleviate misunderstandings some readers might have had.

. . .

From Wikipedia, I have just learned that the concept I am attempting
to describe is known as a "Continuity equation".

I can't recall ever having come across that term, but then I'm not a
physicist.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 5 jul, 14:20, lu6etj wrote:
On 5 jul, 10:16, Cecil Moore wrote:





On Jul 4, 8:26*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

Your infinitely long open-circuited transmission line example
certainly takes infinitely long to reach steady-state so the leading-
edge EM wave continues forever with zero reflected EM waves and your
argument involving reflected waves falls apart.

Your finite open-circuited transmission line example reaches DC steady-
state where EM waves cease to exist so your argument involving forward
and reflected waves falls apart.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Hi Richard, good day:

Again you give me another rethoric answer... Please, tell us how to
measure to distinguish Osc. A *from *Osc. B, having Osc. A 4*10^28
quanta and Osc. B 4*10^28 +1 quanta, having each 80 m quantum 2.3 *
10^-19 J.

Your answers are making me remember = "It was the only explicit
answer you will ever get" or "Superman's cataracts with his xray
vision. *This is probably going to be your only direct
answer." (Please do not go upsetting, I am joking).

You dislike my examples, you dislike R & H & K classic and obviously
really good peer reviewed book reference (and examples), you dislike
university notes, you dislike analogies, you dislike Sagan... Today I
know all things you dislike, what I do not know is how measure A and B
oscillator to distinguish each other... :D
Remember, you are rebutting things stated in standard university
physics book, does not reverse the burden of proof.
Please be a good boy, be plain and do not resort to old tricks such as
posting esoteric rocket science hiper-specialized incomprehensible
answers :)

73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ- Ocultar texto de la cita -

- Mostrar texto de la cita -

SRI, I ommited to say the example of the University of New Mexico link
it is similar to the one given in "Physics for scientists and
engineers" (Serway & Beichner, my copy is in spanish). They say the
same about it.

Humoroues note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for
analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :)

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 5:14*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Jul 5, 4:41 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



You probably have heard about the sulimation of matter and photoemission
of
electrons,
It means that in the space is the saturated vapour (todays plasma). It is
the medium for your radio waves.
It is known from Ludwig Lorenz.

Todays authors are conjecturing about the possibility of the transverse
waves. Is it not funny?
What waves are in your transmissing line?
S*
i still want to see how you polarize longitudinal waves.

Richard has learn me that the dipoles are polarized not waves.
Monopoles do not need the directional orientation.
Directional patterns are the result of interference.

Is is trouble with understanding that the all scientists work on plasma?
Only students are in the solid aether. But they simply do not know that the
famous equations describes such.
Vectors describes the motions of something. Students should not be told what
it is. Because the goal is math (field method) teaching.
S*
S*

its too hot for this, i'm going for a swim... maybe some nice
longitudinal waves in the water will make me feel better.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 6:19*am, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 5, 1:26*am, Keith Dysart wrote:





On Jul 1, 8:53*am, K1TTT wrote:

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.

The same question for you...

With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function,
is there an EM wave propagating down the line?

If not, what is it that is propagating down the line? Especially at
the leading edge?

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

You have used similar phrases before. Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

...Keith

'it depends'... in the special case you have concocted where the

'Concocted has such perjorative ring to it. Much better would be
'appropriately selected to illustrate a point'!

signal source has no reflections it only takes one round trip. *

Excellent. Some agreement.

this
case is very misleading if you try to extend it to cover other cases.
in general it takes infinitely long and you must account for the
infinite series of reflections. *

Of course. But this illustrates one of the benefits of "appropriately
selecting" examples. One can choose examples that do not take forever
to settle and therefore can be analyzed in finite time.

that is why the approximations

To which approximations do you refer?

used
to come up with the sinusoidal steady state solution is so useful, and
exactly why it can not be applied to steps and square waves and other
non sinusoidal constant sources.

Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to use the reflection
coefficient computed at an impedance discontinuity to predict the
behaviour of a transmission line excited with a 'step, square wave or
other non sinusoidal constant sources"?

and in your infinite line example it never reaches steady state so the
step wave propagates forever

So is this 'step wave' an EM wave, according to your definition of an
EM wave? If not, what would you call it?

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 6:28*am, K1TTT wrote:
On Jul 5, 1:58*am, Keith Dysart wrote:





On Jul 1, 10:20*am, Cecil Moore wrote:

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.

One example you should be familiar with is Kirchoffs Current Law;
it tells you that sum of the FLOWs must equal 0 based on the
Conservation of Charge law. Recall that current is charge per
unit time.

For a more general treatment look up 'Continuity equation' in
Wikidedia where you will find "A continuity equation in physics is a
differential equation that describes the transport of some kind of
conserved quantity. Since mass, energy, momentum, electric charge
and other natural quantities are conserved, a vast variety of
physics may be described with continuity equations.".

Welcome to a new tool for analysis.

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.

See above, though it seems the common term is Continuity equation.

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?

Inside the box are some elements whose stored energy is increasing
at the same rate.

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.

Expand your thinking a bit. Energy is being stored in the capacitor.
You do need to account for this. It is just another flow to track.

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.

See above.

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.

See above.

...Keith

'normally' black boxes are just that, opaque elements that you can not
measure an internal state with. *when you specify a box or something
generic with a couple of ports any good engineer will assume that you
know NOTHING about what is inside the box, and that you don't care.
those type of simplifications are common in engineering methods in
order to simplify problems down to the things that you are really
interested in... normally BY DEFINITION you don't know and don't care
about what is inside 'the box'. *so your statement that you know the
energy stored in the box is a function of instantaneous flows in and
out is non-sequitar, we engineers just don't care and would never try
to do a balance like that. *if you want to study the energy flow in
and out of a box AND the storage of it in the box then provide the
circuit for the box and study it properly.

Well, it was Cecil's question and I answered it in the context of the
limited information that he provided.

But I agree, we would learn much more if the experiment included some
internals of the box.

for instance, take your infinitely long transmission line. *as an
engineer my first action is to reduce that line to a resistor that has
a value equal to the characteristic impedance of the line. *i can use
that equivalent resistor for all calculations for EVERYTHING ELSE in
the circuit, but NOT for the internal state of the replacement box....
for obviously if you look in the box and find a resistor dissipating
all the power you put into it as heat that will be much different from
looking in the box and seeing an infinite transmission line with all
that energy propagating forever as an em wave

Yes, indeed. Though black boxes still have their uses as an aid to
learning. Or to simplify analysis when some aspect is simply not
of concern.

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 8:33*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:08*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

The system I have in mind has ports through which energy can flow in
or out of the system and components inside the system which can
store energy. For such a system, the energy flowing in to ports
of the system minus the energy flowing out of ports *must
equal the increase in energy being stored in the system.

This must be true at all times, or energy is being created or
destroyed; a bit of a no-no.

But you are not tracking energy - you are tracking power. As Roy has
said, there is no requirement that instantaneous power must balance.
Where are the stored energy terms in any of your instantaneous power
equations? How do you handle the difference in dimensions between
energy and power? The only condition for which NET power must balance
is during a time interval in which there is zero NET stored power,
e.g. during one cycle.

I have rev'ed my zero interference article to include the following
statement:

"Over a time period of many cycles, e.g. one second at MHz
frequencies, the net average energy and the net average power are
related by joules/second. Thus, if certain conditions are met, net
average power can be used to track the net average energy flow based
on the conservation of energy principle. However, at time intervals of
less than one cycle, as exists for instantaneous power, power cannot
be used to track energy because energy is often stored in a reactance,
is not moving at that instant, and is therefore technically not power.
In fact, unlike energy, power often appears and disappears. There are
special cases where average power in joules/second can be used to
track average energy in joules but instantaneous power is not one of
those special cases."
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Well, you are digging your hole deeper and deeper. You really should
take a pause and try to understand the significance of "Continuity
equations". Do seriously consider Kerchoff's current law as an
example.

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On 5 jul, 06:31, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 18:51:19 -0700 (PDT), lu6etj
wrote:

I apologize for my insistence dear Richard, I do not want to be
stubborn but I remember Carl Sagan telling: "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence"

Hi Miguel,

Sagan never impressed me, and this quote even less. *It relies on
mystical explanations when ordinary works quite well.

and my posting about the very large
quantum number of the 3.5 MHz Xmtrs play here the "conservative"
role :)

The link leads to a lot of tedious and pedantic writing.

Your new analogy fails as quickly as the rest, so by extension I must
presume that the work revealed at your link fails too. *That is the
usual fate of tying two things together when one is a rhetorical
anchor.

When I speak of S+N/N, this is to mean that extraneous detail (fables
of mosquitoes, large cars and even larger blimps) only adds noise.

Skip the "extraordinary," stop the fables, and simply state your case.
When you remove all this noise, you may discover you are not writing
about a quantum system at all, but numbers without meaning. *A simple
test: what changes its quantum state at 3.5MHz? *Is it sub-atomic,
atomic, or molecular?

Richard: *Why a "white board"? has a special meaning? - You are
saying *Cecil it is as Dr. House? - Really nice car your RX-7, I envy
you! - My London friend is "missing2 I owe you some answers :(

Dr. House refuses to let students write on his white board.

I've driven RXs for 28 years: a 1978 and a 1990 GTU.

London is a nice place to be missing in. *I've spent time near
Vauxhall bridge in Westminster.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Sorry, I posted my answer in another branch of the thread (I hope not
to have bothered our friends...)

Hi Richard, good day:

Again you give me another rethoric answer... Please, tell us how to
measure to distinguish Osc. A from Osc. B, having Osc. A 4*10^28
quanta and Osc. B 4*10^28 +1 quanta, having each 80 m quantum 2.3 *
10^-19 J.

Your answers are making me remember = "It was the only explicit
answer you will ever get" or "Superman's cataracts with his xray
vision. This is probably going to be your only direct
answer." (Please do not go upsetting, I am joking).

You dislike my examples, you dislike R & H & K classic and obviously
really good peer reviewed book reference (and examples), you dislike
university notes, you dislike analogies, you dislike Sagan... Today I
know all things you dislike, what I do not know is how measure A and
B
oscillator to distinguish each other... :D
Remember, you are rebutting things stated in standard university
physics book, does not reverse the burden of proof.
Please be a good boy, be plain and do not resort to old tricks such
as
posting esoteric rocket science hiper-specialized incomprehensible
answers :)
......
I ommited to say the example of the University of New Mexico link
it is similar to the one given in "Physics for scientists and
engineers" (Serway & Beichner, my copy is in spanish). They say the
same about it.

Humorous note: Richard Feynman do not share your dislike for
analogies he compare corks in water with charged objects fields :)

73 Miguel Ghezzi - LU6ETJ

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 9:07*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:24*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

From Wikipedia, I have just learned that the concept I am
attempting to describe is known as a "Continuity equation".

In all your previous equations, you have presented only the first term
and completely ignored the second (delta-dot-v) term of the equation
which is required for balance. When you add the proper term, i.e. you
track and account for all of the energy, your energy equation will
balance - as I told you days ago.

So you now are in agreement that flows must balance if charge (or
energy)
is to be conserved. Excellent.

So how do you characterize a slow square wave? Say one that is 0V for
one year, then 10V for a year, then 0, then...

The same way I characterize, "How many angels can dance on the head of
a pin?" The length of time makes absolutely no difference to the
concept involved. The above conditions do not match the DC steady-
state conditions of your earlier example.

With an infinitely long transmission line excited by a step function,
is there an EM wave propagating down the line?

Yes, there is an EM wave at the leading edge.

For greater certainty, I paraphrase: "Only the leading edge has an EM
wave".

What is follows just after the leading edge since it is not an EM
wave?
What is it? What do you call it?


Now back to the square wave with a two year period...

After the rising edge goes by, which I assume you will still call an
EM wave, what follows until the falling edge occurs a year later?
Is it an EM wave?

If so, how is it different than what follows the rising edge of the
step wave? They both look like DC for a year.

If not, why is it not an EM wave?

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 9:16*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:26*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Are you suggesting that an
open circuited transmission line excited with a step function takes
infinitely long to read steady state?

Your infinitely long open-circuited transmission line example
certainly takes infinitely long to reach steady-state so the leading-
edge EM wave continues forever with zero reflected EM waves and your
argument involving reflected waves falls apart.

No reflections here, so little impact on any argument.

Your finite open-circuited transmission line example reaches DC steady-
state where EM waves cease to exist so your argument involving forward
and reflected waves falls apart.

When, exactly, does the EM wave cease to exist?
Just after the edge passes? Or only when the edge makes it all the way
back to the source?

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 9:29*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:58*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Expand your thinking a bit. Energy is being stored in the capacitor.
You do need to account for this. It is just another flow to track.

I don't need to track it. I am not the one who is arguing that
instantaneous power is conserved. I have said all along that your
instantaneous power equations were not tracking all the energy. It is
*you* who have not been tracking the energy stored in the capacitor.
When you do that in a valid way, you will discover that the energy
does balance but the instantaneous power still does NOT balance, nor
is it required to balance. IT IS ENERGY THAT IS CONSERVED, NOT POWER!
Please note that the 'Continuity equation' discussion does *NOT* list
power as one of the conserved quantities.

Do study Kirchoff's current law and its relation to conservation of
charge.
Recall that current is charge per time.

Map this to conservation of energy...
Current is to power as charge is to energy.

The relationship and utility is the same.

Or you could do mass flow in a pipe junction; mass must be conserved.
Mass flow is to power(energy flow) as mass is to energy.

Or, pick any number of conservation laws to use as examples.

But back to Kirchoff...

I am sure you have made extensive use of Kirchoff's current law and
will
find "Keith's" power law equally useful, once you understand how it
works.

They are quite analogous.

....Keith

PS: Since the power law is apparently unnamed, and this is holding you
back, I make the somewhat presumptuous suggestion of naming it after
myself. But if you would prefer to call it Cecil's law, that would
work for me, as long as it has a name and you no longer feel that it
can not exist because it is unnamed.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 7:26*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
You really should
take a pause and try to understand the significance of "Continuity
equations".

So you finally admit I was right all along, adopt my original
position, and claim it was yours all the while. Old trick - won't
work. I studied similar equations half a century ago when I studied
the conservation of energy principle. I told you long ago that your
P(t) = V(t)*I(t) equation did not contain all the energy in the
system.

I have never posted anything that disagrees with the continuity
equations. You are the one who chose to ignore the delta-dot-v terms
and have reversed your original position by introducing the continuity
equation. All you had in your equation previously was the de/dt term.

Do you still believe in the conservation of instantaneous power
principle?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 7:41*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
So you now are in agreement that flows must balance if charge (or
energy) is to be conserved.

No, you remain confused and mistaken. Energy flows (de/dt) do NOT have
to balance. That's what I have been saying all along. Energy must
balance whether it is flowing and/or not flowing. I told you weeks ago
that the sum of your instantaneous energy flows do NOT include all the
energy, i.e. there is no such thing as conservation of instantaneous
power (energy flow). If you don't correct that basic misconception,
you will never get it.

The continuity equation aids my side of the argument, not yours. It
proves that you have been wrong all along when you did not include all
the energy in your instantaneous power equation.

Back to the LC oscillator. At the instant when all of the energy is
stored in the capacitor, energy flow has been completely destroyed,
i.e. de/dt=0, yet there is plenty of energy in the capacitor. Your
P(t)=V(t)*I(t) =0 equation completely ignores the energy in the
capacitor when I(t)=0 and I have told you all this many times before.
The continuity equation only highlights your error of ignoring the
stored energy.

After the rising edge goes by, which I assume you will still call an
EM wave, what follows until the falling edge occurs a year later?
Is it an EM wave?

If electrons (carriers) are not being accelerated and/or decelerated,
i.e. if DC steady-state exists, then there are no EM waves.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 7:44*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
When, exactly, does the EM wave cease to exist?

I don't know exactly but it will be when DC steady-state has been
achieved, i.e. when electrons are no longer being accelerated or
decelerated.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 5, 8:01*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Map this to conservation of energy...
Current is to power as charge is to energy.
The relationship and utility is the same.

So now you are pushing a conservation of current principle as well as
a conservation of power principle? You can *destroy* the current and
power with the flip of a switch. Can you destroy charge and energy?
Good Grief!
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com