Owen Duffy wrote:
Considering the steady state...

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

"Roy Lewallen" wrote
...

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

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

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

On Jul 1, 1:25*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the microwave oven the all energy is transfered into heat.

If that is true, then why is there a pacemaker warning posted around
many microwave ovens in public places? Doesn't that warning imply that
not all energy is transfered into heat?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jul 1, 1:25 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
In the microwave oven the all energy is transfered into heat.

If that is true, then why is there a pacemaker warning posted around
many microwave ovens in public places? Doesn't that warning imply that
not all energy is transfered into heat?

Mirrors are not perfect.
S*

On Jul 1, 11:20*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Mirrors are not perfect.

Moral: One should never use the word "all" when describing
imperfection.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jun 30, 7:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
I think this is the genesis of Cecil's view that energy waves
somehow bounce off the standing wave node.

I'm sorry, Roy, but I never said anything of the sort. Keith
apparently believes that energy waves somehow bounce off a standing
wave node. I am on the opposite side of that argument. I believe that
the forward wave and reflected wave flow right through a standing wave
node. I am on record as saying the only time a reflection occurs is at
a physical impedance discontinuity.

Misdirection is also accusing someone of saying something that they
never said, is a low blow, and is not an ethical act.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On 1 jul, 11:43, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 30, 7:03*pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:

I think this is the genesis of Cecil's view that energy waves
somehow bounce off the standing wave node.

I'm sorry, Roy, but I never said anything of the sort. Keith
apparently believes that energy waves somehow bounce off a standing
wave node. I am on the opposite side of that argument. I believe that
the forward wave and reflected wave flow right through a standing wave
node. I am on record as saying the only time a reflection occurs is at
a physical impedance discontinuity.

Misdirection is also accusing someone of saying something that they
never said, is a low blow, and is not an ethical act.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I swear I never read Cecill say such things!, Cecil's sin is conspire
to arrange a coup d'état to overthrow collegiate government of
physical duality to place photons at the imperial power :)

On Jul 1, 3:58*pm, lu6etj wrote:
I swear I never read Cecill say such things!,

If the perpetuator of that unethical false inuendo can present any
posting where I said EM waves can bounce off of current or voltage
nodes, I will personally write him a check for $1000. Of course, if he
cannot produce proof of what he asserts, he should post a public
apology.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com