On Jul 7, 6:14*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
As i pointed out, the energy levels are well above the noise.

You have certainly not proved that to be true. The current is
essentially DC for most of the year. Therefore, you cannot assume the
proof to the question of whether the photons, which may or may not
exist, are above the noise level. (Hint: assuming the proof is one of
the most well known logical diversions.)

What I said was that one photon at 0.5 cycles/year is NOT above the
noise. You are free to try to prove that I was wrong. If you window
your signal for 1/2 of a year, I believe you will find it to be DC
steady-state. I do not believe it is far enough removed from DC to
generate any detectable photons.

I will be away from my computer for a few days. In the meanwhile, I
suggest that you prove that a conservation of power principle exists
and a conservation of current principle exists. Until you do that, you
are just blowing smoke. But it you succeed, you will no doubt receive
a Nobel Prize.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

"Cecil Moore" wrote
...
On Jul 7, 6:04 am, Keith Dysart wrote:
At a junction, where charge can not be stored, this reduces to

Sorry, your examples are irrelevant to the technical fact that there
is no conservation of current principle because charge can be stored.

In EM current is incompressible. EM is older then electrons.
"charge can be stored" apply to electrons. It is impossible to marry EM and
electrons.

Until you can prove a conservation of current principle, you are
wasting my time.

"According to theory" a conservation of current principle (continuity
equation) is the assumption.

In EM is the displacement current in solid insulators (also in vacuum). It
is always incompressible because the motions of the particles are
synchronized (charges can not be gathered).

EM is beautiful but useles in techniques. It is useful to teach the math.
S*
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jul 7, 8:05*am, joe wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

current law derives from conservation of charge.







Still, you have made some progress, so I will try again with showing
the derivation, though this time with charge and current.

Conservation of charge requires that:
* the charge added to a region
* - the charge removed from a region
* equals
* the charge originally in the region
* + the increase of charge stored in the region

When the charge can be described with functions of time, we can write:

* Qin(t) - Qout(t) = Qoriginal + Qstored(t)

Differentiating we obtain

* *Qin(t)/dt - Qout(t)/dt = 0 + Qstored(t)/dt

At a junction, where charge can not be stored, this reduces to

* *Qin(t)/dt - Qout(t)/dt = 0

Alternatively

* *Qin(t)/dt = Qout(t)/dt

Recognizing that Q(t)/dt is charge flow per unit time or current
we obtain Kirchoff's current law, colloquially: the current flowing
in to a junction equals the current flowing out of a junction.

I leave it to you to do the similar derivation for energy, based
on conservation of energy. The result will be

* *EnergyIn(t)/dt = EnergyOut(t)/dt

And similar to Kirchoff, this applies at a juncion, a place where
energy can not be stored.

Of course Energy(t)/dt is just a mathematical expression of energy
flow or power, so we obtain

* *PowerIn(t) = PowerOut(t) * *(at a junction)

But don't beleive me. Do the derivation yourself. You can pattern
your derivation on the one above for Kirchoff.

I'd go on to show how my analysis of your circuit carefully
picked junctions that could not store energy, but I have found
it better to educate one step at a time. So we can do that
later.

...Keith

How do you define energy of a node without reference to another node.
How is it measured

I am sorry, I do not understand the question. Can you provide a bit
more context, or perhaps a representative example?

....Keith

On Jul 7, 12:57*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:04*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

At a junction, where charge can not be stored, this reduces to

Sorry, your examples are irrelevant to the technical fact that there
is no conservation of current principle because charge can be stored.
Until you can prove a conservation of current principle, you are
wasting my time.

This is toooooo amusing.

You refuse to start to examine the proof because it has not yet been
proved ... which can not happen until you examine the proof.

You are truly amazing at developing mind stopping techniques that
inhibit your ability to learn.

....Keith

On Jul 7, 1:12*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:14*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

As i pointed out, the energy levels are well above the noise.

You have certainly not proved that to be true. The current is
essentially DC for most of the year. Therefore, you cannot assume the
proof to the question of whether the photons, which may or may not
exist, are above the noise level. (Hint: assuming the proof is one of
the most well known logical diversions.)

What I said was that one photon at 0.5 cycles/year is NOT above the
noise.

Of course, there are many photons in the 50W signal previously
mentioned. That is the only way to get to 50W.

You are free to try to prove that I was wrong. If you window
your signal for 1/2 of a year, I believe you will find it to be DC
steady-state. I do not believe it is far enough removed from DC to
generate any detectable photons.

I will be away from my computer for a few days. In the meanwhile, I
suggest that you prove that a conservation of power principle exists
and a conservation of current principle exists. Until you do that, you
are just blowing smoke. But it you succeed, you will no doubt receive
a Nobel Prize.

Ahhm, so you are proposing a new concept: a lower frequency limit
where
a sinusoid stops being an EM wave and becomes what? Slowly varying DC?

I have never seen such a concept mentioned previously. Perhaps it will
be you who deserves the Nobel prize.

At what frequency, approximately, is this limit?

Or, if that is not yet known, what is the lowest frequency that you
are currently convinced would be an EM wave, such that the cutoff
must be less than this frequency?

Ballpark is good:
1 MHz
10 kHz
1 kHz
100 Hz
10 Hz
1 Hz
0.1 Hz
0.01 Hz
0.001 Hz
1 uHz
1 nHz

Just to the nearest order of magnitude, from the above list, which
frequency are you sure is still an EM wave rather than slowly
varying DC?

I am pretty sure that you would accept 10 kHz as been EM. Omega
used to be around 10 kHz.
How about 60 Hz? This is standard AC power in some jurisdictions.
25 Hz used to be common as AC power.
10 Hz? Is the audio on its way to the woofer an EM wave?
1 Hz?

Just an order of magnitude frequency that you are sure your EM
cutoff frequency will be below.

And how much above the noise does a photon have to be for
you to consider it to be a photon? Perhaps this will help you
choose your cutoff frequency, though it seems to me you will
have some difficulty when there are lots and lots of photons
at this low frequency. Will this not be adequate for detection?

By the way, is it possible to detect a single photon at 10 kHz,
a frequency which I am pretty sure you would consider to be
an EM wave.

....Keith

On Jul 7, 6:08*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
You refuse to start to examine the proof because it has not yet been
proved ... which can not happen until you examine the proof.

Again, you are completely confused and mistaken - I simply refuse to
allow you to interfere with my vacation. Have fun while I'm gone.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:05 am, joe wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

current law derives from conservation of charge.







Still, you have made some progress, so I will try again with showing
the derivation, though this time with charge and current.
Conservation of charge requires that:
the charge added to a region
- the charge removed from a region
equals
the charge originally in the region
+ the increase of charge stored in the region
When the charge can be described with functions of time, we can write:
Qin(t) - Qout(t) = Qoriginal + Qstored(t)
Differentiating we obtain
Qin(t)/dt - Qout(t)/dt = 0 + Qstored(t)/dt
At a junction, where charge can not be stored, this reduces to
Qin(t)/dt - Qout(t)/dt = 0
Alternatively
Qin(t)/dt = Qout(t)/dt
Recognizing that Q(t)/dt is charge flow per unit time or current
we obtain Kirchoff's current law, colloquially: the current flowing
in to a junction equals the current flowing out of a junction.
I leave it to you to do the similar derivation for energy, based
on conservation of energy. The result will be
EnergyIn(t)/dt = EnergyOut(t)/dt
And similar to Kirchoff, this applies at a juncion, a place where
energy can not be stored.
Of course Energy(t)/dt is just a mathematical expression of energy
flow or power, so we obtain
PowerIn(t) = PowerOut(t) (at a junction)
But don't beleive me. Do the derivation yourself. You can pattern
your derivation on the one above for Kirchoff.
I'd go on to show how my analysis of your circuit carefully
picked junctions that could not store energy, but I have found
it better to educate one step at a time. So we can do that
later.
...Keith
How do you define energy of a node without reference to another node.
How is it measured

I am sorry, I do not understand the question. Can you provide a bit
more context, or perhaps a representative example?

...Keith


Sure. You described charge flow in and out of an isolated node with no
need to reference any other node or part of the circuit. Then you say
the same thing can be defined for energy. However, how is energy defined
in terms that only refer to characteristics of the node without
involving any other part of the circuit or other nodes.

On Jul 7, 9:36*pm, joe wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:05 am, joe wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:

current law derives from conservation of charge.

Still, you have made some progress, so I will try again with showing
the derivation, though this time with charge and current.
Conservation of charge requires that:
* the charge added to a region
* - the charge removed from a region
* equals
* the charge originally in the region
* + the increase of charge stored in the region
When the charge can be described with functions of time, we can write:
* Qin(t) - Qout(t) = Qoriginal + Qstored(t)
Differentiating we obtain
* *Qin(t)/dt - Qout(t)/dt = 0 + Qstored(t)/dt
At a junction, where charge can not be stored, this reduces to
* *Qin(t)/dt - Qout(t)/dt = 0
Alternatively
* *Qin(t)/dt = Qout(t)/dt
Recognizing that Q(t)/dt is charge flow per unit time or current
we obtain Kirchoff's current law, colloquially: the current flowing
in to a junction equals the current flowing out of a junction.
I leave it to you to do the similar derivation for energy, based
on conservation of energy. The result will be
* *EnergyIn(t)/dt = EnergyOut(t)/dt
And similar to Kirchoff, this applies at a juncion, a place where
energy can not be stored.
Of course Energy(t)/dt is just a mathematical expression of energy
flow or power, so we obtain
* *PowerIn(t) = PowerOut(t) * *(at a junction)
But don't beleive me. Do the derivation yourself. You can pattern
your derivation on the one above for Kirchoff.
I'd go on to show how my analysis of your circuit carefully
picked junctions that could not store energy, but I have found
it better to educate one step at a time. So we can do that
later.
...Keith
How do you define energy of a node without reference to another node.
How is it measured

I am sorry, I do not understand the question. Can you provide a bit
more context, or perhaps a representative example?

...Keith

Sure. You described charge flow in and out of an isolated node with no
need to reference any other node or part of the circuit. Then you say
the same thing can be defined for energy. However, how is energy defined
in terms that only refer to characteristics of the node without
involving any other part of the circuit or other nodes.

Perhaps some examples will help.

Consider the output terminals of a generator to be junction. Then the
power delivered from the generator to the junction must exactly equal,
at all times, the power taken from the junction by the load, since
there is no storage in the junction.

It should be noted that the 'junctions' used for a power analysis
are not the same as the junctions used in Kirchoff's current
law. The concepts are analogous, not identical.

Another example. In the simple Thevenin generator, the power provided
by the voltage source must exactly equal, at all times, the power
taken by the resistor plus the power taken by the load. In this
example, it is difficult (impossible?) to identify a physical
'junction' where the power must balance, yet the notion is still
applicable.

....Keith

On Jul 8, 6:04*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
Consider the output terminals of a generator to be junction. Then the
power delivered from the generator to the junction must exactly equal,
at all times, the power taken from the junction by the load, since
there is no storage in the junction.

I will leave you with this parting thought. All that you are saying is
that the power at one point (special case: away from any energy
storage device) is the same as the power at another point in the same
wire (special case: an infinitesimal distance away). No rational
person would argue with you on that point. However, that is NOT a
general case and in no way proves that power is conserved in general.
It is simply a special case where there is a one-to-one correspondence
between energy and power, something I pointed out earlier.

The throw of a switch can cause power to be created or destroyed. The
throw of a switch cannot cause energy to be created or destroyed.
That's the basic conceptual difference between power and energy that
you are missing. The same thing is true for current vs charge.

In my energy articles, I took advantage of the special case of one-to-
one correspondence between average energy and average power. You
neglected to do that for your instantaneous power calculations and
proved beyond any doubt that power is not conserved. Your own
continuity equation posting indicated that you had erroneously omitted
something important from your previous calculations.
--
See y'all later, 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Keith Dysart wrote:

Perhaps some examples will help.

Consider the output terminals of a generator to be junction. Then the
power delivered from the generator to the junction must exactly equal,
at all times, the power taken from the junction by the load, since
there is no storage in the junction.

It should be noted that the 'junctions' used for a power analysis
are not the same as the junctions used in Kirchoff's current
law. The concepts are analogous, not identical.

Another example. In the simple Thevenin generator, the power provided
by the voltage source must exactly equal, at all times, the power
taken by the resistor plus the power taken by the load. In this
example, it is difficult (impossible?) to identify a physical
'junction' where the power must balance, yet the notion is still
applicable.

...Keith

It sounds like your "junction" for energy analysis is what's called a
"port" in RF analysis. If so, it would be less confusing for you to use
that term, since "junction" has a different established meaning in
circuit analysis.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL