On Jul 7, 11:14*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 6, 11:11*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Jul 6, 7:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Excellent attempt at diversion.

Sorry, "I don't know", is NOT a diversion.

T'is when the thing you claim not to know has nothing to do with
the problem at hand.

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

And you skipped the intriguing question...

If the signal was a 50 W sinusoid at 15 nHz, would you have the
same reluctance to declare it an EM wave? It is a sinusoid.
What criteria could it possibly fail to satisfy?

At what frequency would you no longer be reluctanct?
* 1 microHz
* 1 mHz
* 0.1 Hz
* 1 Hz
* 10 Hz
* 100 Hz
* 1 kHz
* 10 kHz
* ?

Real applications run at 10 kHz so I assume you would accept,
without concern, at least this number. Where would your
trepidation begin?

...Keith

i have trepidation when it takes longer to reach steady state than i
am willing to sit and watch the experiment.

On Jul 8, 10:51*am, K1TTT wrote:
i have trepidation when it takes longer to reach steady state than i
am willing to sit and watch the experiment.

For some reason, Keith prefers living in the theoretical world rather
than the real world. His idea of reality is what his math model
subliminally tells him to believe. He doesn't seem to know that
reality is supposed to dictate math models, not vice-versa. :-)

P.S. Let's go card-counting.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

On Jul 8, 10:15*am, Roy Lewallen wrote:
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.

I prefer the term 'port' as well, but for this particular dialogue I
was
trying to emphasize the analogy between conservation of charge and
conservation of energy by continuing with the same terminology.

Unfortunately, it did not appear to help.

From now on, 'port' it is.

....Keith

On 7/7/2010 6:08 PM, Keith Dysart wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:57 pm, Cecil wrote:
On Jul 7, 6:04 am, Keith 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

Yup. Monty Python can't compete.

"My brain hurts!", "Mummy, I want more beans!", aren't even close to
these guys.

tom
K0TAR