On Jun 25, 4:00*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
That's the time domain. Variation in the instantaneous energy flow.

What you seem to be missing is that the *energy content* of power
(total joules) must be conserved but the instantaneous power (joules/
second) does not have to be conserved as you have argued numerous
times in numerous examples. The only question that needs to be
answered is: In a system designed to eliminate reflections and
interference, does all the reflected energy eventually get dissipated
in the source resistor. The answer is yes because there is nowhere
else for it to go. There is no conservation of power principle and
that includes instantaneous power. So it is irrelevant what/where
instantaneous power might do/go during a single cycle.

Now I understand that instantaneous power dictates some physical
design considerations as in waveguides. But since instantaneous power
does not fall under the conservation of energy principle, it is simply
irrelevant to the present discussion. What happens over a complete
cycle is what is relevant. However, in any and every case, it is
energy that is conserved, not power. How many joules are in that dt
sliver of time when the instantaneous power is 100 watts? It's those
joules that must be conserved, not the instantaneous power.

You didn't answer my previous question. If you measure 100 watts of
instantaneous power at 100 places within an inch of each other, does
that mean there is 10000 watts of instantaneous power in that one inch
of wire? That is the only logical conclusion based on your argument
and assertions. Any argument based on the conservation of power is
doomed to fail. Please get real.

Not quite
'as useless as tits on a boar hog, or as Hecht said, putting it
mildly: "of limited utility"'.

One could argue that tits on a boar hog are not completely useless
and, therefore, instantaneous energy is exactly as useless (or exactly
as useful) as tits on a boar hog. (Hint: Without the existence of the
tit gene in the male, female hogs would probably not have tits.)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jun 26, 9:05*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 25, 4:00*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

That's the time domain. Variation in the instantaneous energy flow.

What you seem to be missing is that the *energy content* of power
(total joules) must be conserved but the instantaneous power (joules/
second) does not have to be conserved as you have argued numerous
times in numerous examples.

In any region, the energy flowing in (i.e. power) to the region minus
the energy flowing out (i.e. power) is equal to the additional energy
per unit time (i.e. power) being stored in the region. While not
called the "conservation of power law" it is an obvious corollary
to "conservation of energy".

The only question that needs to be
answered is: In a system designed to eliminate reflections and
interference, does all the reflected energy eventually get dissipated
in the source resistor. The answer is yes because there is nowhere
else for it to go.

The obvious alternative is that the computed energy in the reflected
wave is sometimes just a figment. Or is something else happening with
the step function example?

Not to mention that in your 1/8 wavelength example (http://
www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm)
you do not explain where the energy is stored so that it can be
returned at a different time.

There is no conservation of power principle and
that includes instantaneous power. So it is irrelevant what/where
instantaneous power might do/go during a single cycle.

Such declarations do permit an easy out, despite not aligning with
reality.

Now I understand that instantaneous power dictates some physical
design considerations as in waveguides. But since instantaneous power
does not fall under the conservation of energy principle, it is simply
irrelevant to the present discussion. What happens over a complete
cycle is what is relevant.

If that is the case, the whole concept of reflected energy seems
somewhat bogus. Over a whole cycle, the power delivered by the
generator is passed on towards the load. If that is all you want
to know, then there is no need at all for "reflected power".

However, in any and every case, it is energy that is conserved,
not power.

Yes. But see the related corollary above.

How many joules are in that dt
sliver of time when the instantaneous power is 100 watts? It's those
joules that must be conserved, not the instantaneous power.

Still having problems with mapping the concepts from calculus to the
real world, I see.

You didn't answer my previous question. If you measure 100 watts of
instantaneous power at 100 places within an inch of each other, does
that mean there is 10000 watts of instantaneous power in that one inch
of wire? That is the only logical conclusion based on your argument
and assertions.

No more than "If you measure 100 watts of *average* power at 100
places
within an inch of each other, does that mean there is 10000 watts of
*average* power in that one inch of wire?"

But it is a way of thinking that you like to use to distract
yourself from the really interesting results.

Any argument based on the conservation of power is
doomed to fail. Please get real.

Please study the corollary above.

Not quite
'as useless as tits on a boar hog, or as Hecht said, putting it
mildly: "of limited utility"'.

One could argue that tits on a boar hog are not completely useless
and, therefore, instantaneous energy is exactly as useless (or exactly
as useful) as tits on a boar hog. (Hint: Without the existence of the
tit gene in the male, female hogs would probably not have tits.)

So which is it? Is instantaneous energy flow a useful concept? Or is
it
not? You previously suggested an understanding of the value (when I
mentioned "real power folk"), but seem to continue to want to argue
its complete lack of usefulness.

And to stop besmirching Hecht, it seems most probable that his
comment was in the context of optics. After all, the book had that
title.

....Keith

On Jun 27, 1:38*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
In any region, the energy flowing in (i.e. power) to the region minus
the energy flowing out (i.e. power) is equal to the additional energy
per unit time (i.e. power) being stored in the region. While not
called the "conservation of power law" it is an obvious corollary
to "conservation of energy".

I'm sorry, that is simply not true for power. The energy content of a
1us pulse containing one joule and the energy content of a one sec
pulse containing one joule are equal and that one joule is all that
must be conserved. The 1us pulse containing 1,000,000 watts can be
converted to a one second pulse containing 1 watt. Where did the other
999,999 watts go??? Energy has been conserved but the power changed
from 1,000,000 watts to 1 watt using exactly the same energy. Perhaps
this characteristic of power is what you are missing. Also, all the
energy can be conserved in reactance while power falls to absolute
zero. This often happens during a fraction of a cycle. That is what is
wrong with you trying to track instataneous power - it doesn't work
unless one standardizes to at least one cycle. Within each fraction of
a cycle, any principle of conservation of power will surely be
violated. If it appears that power is ever conserved, it is only by
accident. Such is the case with many megacycles/second where the
result of a fraction of a cycle will have a negligible effect on the
joules/sec.

The obvious alternative is that the computed energy in the reflected
wave is sometimes just a figment.

And God created the heavens and earth in six days and rested on the
seventh. I'm glad you are happy with your faith-based physics. In the
field of real-world physics, EM waves cannot exist without ExH energy.
The only way to win this argument is to prove to everyone that they
are not really detecting reflected waves containing energy when they
look at themselves in the mirror. Good luck on that one.

Question: How were the first three days measured before the creation
of the sun on the 4th day?

Not to mention that in your 1/8 wavelength example (http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm)
you do not explain where the energy is stored so that it can be
returned at a different time.

Energy is stored in the transmission line and delivered as needed to
satisfy the conservaton of energy principle. Years ago, I showed how
energy can flow *into the source* (negative power) during a fractional
part of a cycle in a conjugately matched system.

Such declarations do permit an easy out, despite not aligning with
reality.

If you can take one joule per microsecond (1 megawatt) and conserve
that one megawatt of power over a century, you can get rich selling
it. Let us know when you get your patent on conservation of power. :-)
Good Grief!

If that is the case, the whole concept of reflected energy seems
somewhat bogus. Over a whole cycle, the power delivered by the
generator is passed on towards the load. If that is all you want
to know, then there is no need at all for "reflected power".

But, as you can grok from the subject of this thread, that is not all
that is needed to know. The last gasp of the loser is that it didn't
matter anyhow. Reflected energy has always mattered to optical
physicists who know it obeys the laws of physics. Now it seems to
matter to some hams. If it doesn't matter to you, why do you continue
posting?

And to stop besmirching Hecht, it seems most probable that his
comment was in the context of optics. After all, the book had that
title.

Hint: RF waves are covered in every physics book whose title is
"Light". There is absolutely no difference, from a physics standpoint,
between a coherent light wave and a coherent RF wave except for
frequency. The both obey exactly the same laws of physics which you
seem to concede for visible light but not for light at RF frequencies.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jun 27, 4:01*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 27, 1:38*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

In any region, the energy flowing in (i.e. power) to the region minus
the energy flowing out (i.e. power) is equal to the additional energy
per unit time (i.e. power) being stored in the region. While not
called the "conservation of power law" it is an obvious corollary
to "conservation of energy".

I'm sorry, that is simply not true for power. The energy content of a
1us pulse containing one joule and the energy content of a one sec
pulse containing one joule are equal and that one joule is all that
must be conserved. The 1us pulse containing 1,000,000 watts can be
converted to a one second pulse containing 1 watt.

Perhaps some of your difficulty is revealed in your phraseology. A
pulse does not 'contain' power. It can deliver energy at some rate.
If the pulse is rectangular, the rate will be constant for the
duration of the pulse. With some other profile, the rate will
vary over the duration of the pulse.

Perhaps a simple analogy would help. Near my house is a 50 m water
tower with a bunch of pipes connected to the bottom. The rate at
which water is added to the tower is always equal to the sum
of the rates flowing in on all the pipes (assume positive flow
raises the level in the tank, while negative flow reduces it).

Rephrased, for greater certainty: At any instant in time, the
rate at which water is being added to the tower is always equal
to the sum of the rates flowing in on all the pipes.

At any instant in time, all the water (and flows) can be
accounted for.

Same for energy (and energy flow).

snip

The obvious alternative is that the computed energy in the reflected
wave is sometimes just a figment.

And God created the heavens and earth in six days and rested on the
seventh.

Some do say, but this appears to be rather a non-sequitor.

I'm glad you are happy with your faith-based physics. In the
field of real-world physics, EM waves cannot exist without ExH energy.

Perhaps, then, you are simply arguing that these are not EM waves
since they do not have ExH energy?

The only way to win this argument is to prove to everyone that they
are not really detecting reflected waves containing energy when they
look at themselves in the mirror. Good luck on that one.

Question: How were the first three days measured before the creation
of the sun on the 4th day?

Continuing with non-sequitors?

Not to mention that in your 1/8 wavelength example (http://www.w5dxp.com/nointfr.htm)
you do not explain where the energy is stored so that it can be
returned at a different time.

Energy is stored in the transmission line and delivered as needed to
satisfy the conservaton of energy principle.

Nope. That also failed to account for the energy when observed in the
time domain. See http://sites.google.com/site/keithdysart/radio6.

Years ago, I showed how
energy can flow *into the source* (negative power) during a fractional
part of a cycle in a conjugately matched system.

Such declarations do permit an easy out, despite not aligning with
reality.

If you can take one joule per microsecond (1 megawatt) and conserve
that one megawatt of power over a century, you can get rich selling
it. Let us know when you get your patent on conservation of power. :-)
Good Grief!

If that is the case, the whole concept of reflected energy seems
somewhat bogus. Over a whole cycle, the power delivered by the
generator is passed on towards the load. If that is all you want
to know, then there is no need at all for "reflected power".

But, as you can grok from the subject of this thread, that is not all
that is needed to know. The last gasp of the loser is that it didn't
matter anyhow. Reflected energy has always mattered to optical
physicists who know it obeys the laws of physics. Now it seems to
matter to some hams. If it doesn't matter to you, why do you continue
posting?

Did I miss something? Was it not you who said "What happens over a
complete cycle is what is relevant."?

And to stop besmirching Hecht, it seems most probable that his
comment was in the context of optics. After all, the book had that
title.

Hint: RF waves are covered in every physics book whose title is
"Light". There is absolutely no difference, from a physics standpoint,
between a coherent light wave and a coherent RF wave except for
frequency. The both obey exactly the same laws of physics which you
seem to concede for visible light but not for light at RF frequencies.

Several differences:
- Transmission lines work down to DC
- At lower RF, it is possible to independantly measure voltage and
current

This allows a better understanding of the behaviour, not constrained
by the capabilities of the mearsuring instruments.

....Keith