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