what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 6, 12:20*am, Keith Dysart wrote:
Is there a problem providing an answer?

I don't know how to measure the exact answer. How many photons does it
take to cause a measurable EM field at one cycle per two years? If the
EM field is too low to measure, how do you know it is there at all?
Blind faith in a math model?

Does either one of these views assist you with deciding whether
there are EM waves present during the one year intervals where
the signal value does not change?

No they don't. The problem is random/natural/man-made EM noise. When
the EM wave level drops far below the EM noise, how can you measure
the EM wave level? If you cannot measure it, you are back to angels on
the head of a pin.

If the square wave frequency was 1 MHz, would you have the same
difficulty deciding? Why not?

Because I could measure those EM waves.

So are now saying there may indeed be an EM wave
present with DC? Even with DC, the electrons are not moving with
constant velocity but hop from atom to atom. Seems like
acceleration and deceleration to me.

No, EM waves do not exist at DC steady-state. Those are free electrons
which do not change orbital levels. The only force acting on an
electron during DC steady-state is a constant force.

Maybe you should just start with Kirchoff's current law and
understand what it says before following my suggestion to
compare it with the conservation of energy law.

You have two phasor currents flowing into a junction. One current is
one amp at zero degrees. The other is one amp at 180 degrees. What is
the total current flowing out of the junction? Hint: There is no such
thing as a conservation of current principle. If the quantity can be
completely destroyed to zero at any time, it cannot be conserved.

You seem to have forgotten what you almost certainly once
knew.

And you seem to have invented an impossible metaphysics. So do you
really know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 6, 2:00*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:20*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

Is there a problem providing an answer?

I don't know how to measure the exact answer. How many photons does it
take to cause a measurable EM field at one cycle per two years? If the
EM field is too low to measure, how do you know it is there at all?
Blind faith in a math model?

beware cecil... remember, there are electric fields, and there are
magnetic fields, there is NOT an Electro-Magnetic 'Field'! there are
Electro-Magnetic WAVES but NOT a 'Field'! he is trying to draw you
in! remember DC is forever, any direct current creates a Magnetic
FIELD... and any net charge imbalance would create an Electric FIELD
(though DC does not require a charge imbalance, only a moving charge
at a constant velocity). But in any case if it is a stream of charged
particles moving at constant velocity forever they create an Electric
FIELD... BUT there is no Electro-Magnetic WAVE produced by those
static fields.

note, if you google 'electromagnetic field' you will indeed find may
misuses of the term, including wikipedia that inappropriately
abreviates it EMF, which we all know means Electro-Motive Force. The
term 'electromagnetic fields', little f, and plural, is commonly used
to refer to collections of electric and magnetic fields. This is seen
quite often when talking about relativistic transformations where the
electric and magnetic fields are linked by the frame transformation.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 6, 10:00*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 6, 12:20*am, Keith Dysart wrote:

Is there a problem providing an answer?

I don't know how to measure the exact answer. How many photons does it
take to cause a measurable EM field at one cycle per two years?

Excellent attempt at diversion.

If the
EM field is too low to measure, how do you know it is there at all?

Plenty of joules are being moved per second. There is no reason to
expect the field to be small.

Blind faith in a math model?

Does either one of these views assist you with deciding whether
there are EM waves present during the one year intervals where
the signal value does not change?

No they don't. The problem is random/natural/man-made EM noise. When
the EM wave level drops far below the EM noise, how can you measure
the EM wave level? If you cannot measure it, you are back to angels on
the head of a pin.

The signal is well above the noise.

What if the signal was a sinusoid instead of square wave?

Is it then 'obviously' an EM wave?

If the square wave frequency was 1 MHz, would you have the same
difficulty deciding? Why not?

Because I could measure those EM waves.

Same joules per second. Lots of energy to detect. My 'diversion'
detector is still firing.

So are now saying there may indeed be an EM wave
present with DC? Even with DC, the electrons are not moving with
constant velocity but hop from atom to atom. Seems like
acceleration and deceleration to me.

No, EM waves do not exist at DC steady-state. Those are free electrons
which do not change orbital levels. The only force acting on an
electron during DC steady-state is a constant force.

Maybe you should just start with Kirchoff's current law and
understand what it says before following my suggestion to
compare it with the conservation of energy law.

You have two phasor currents flowing into a junction. One current is
one amp at zero degrees. The other is one amp at 180 degrees. What is
the total current flowing out of the junction? Hint: There is no such
thing as a conservation of current principle. If the quantity can be
completely destroyed to zero at any time, it cannot be conserved.

I suppose that is an obtuse hint that you understand Kirchoff's
current law, but why not just come out and say it.

Assuming that you have grasped it, study how it is derived from
and relates to the 'conservation of charge' law. Remember that
current is the rate of flow of charge.

Then contrast those two laws with the previously discussed
power (rate of flow of energy) and 'conservation of energy'
law.

You should be able to discern the similarities.

....Keith

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 6, 7:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Then contrast those two laws with the previously discussed
power (rate of flow of energy) and 'conservation of energy'
law. You should be able to discern the similarities.

Of course, the similarities are so obvious I don't even need to state
them. Why are they not obvious to you?

There is a principle of conservation of energy. There is no principle
of conservation of energy flow (power). All you have to do to destroy
power is stop the flow of energy. All you have to do to create power
is to start the flow of energy.

There is a principle of conservation of charge. There is no principle
of conservation of charge flow (current). All you have to do to
destroy current is stop the flow of charges. All you have to do to
create current is to start the flow of charges.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 6, 5:18*pm, K1TTT wrote:
beware cecil... remember, there are electric fields, and there are
magnetic fields, there is NOT an Electro-Magnetic 'Field'!

I would normally have used "photons" instead of "EM fields" but there
were objections.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 6, 7:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:
Excellent attempt at diversion.

Sorry, "I don't know", is NOT a diversion.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

On Jul 6, 10:59*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jul 6, 7:27*pm, Keith Dysart wrote:

Then contrast those two laws with the previously discussed
power (rate of flow of energy) and 'conservation of energy'
law. You should be able to discern the similarities.

Of course, the similarities are so obvious I don't even need to state
them.

Good. You have made some progress then...

There is a principle of conservation of energy. There is no principle
of conservation of energy flow (power). All you have to do to destroy
power is stop the flow of energy. All you have to do to create power
is to start the flow of energy.

There is a principle of conservation of charge. There is no principle
of conservation of charge flow (current). All you have to do to
destroy current is stop the flow of charges. All you have to do to
create current is to start the flow of charges.

and partially contrasted the two. But you did not show how Kirchoff's
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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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?

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

"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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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.

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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

what happens to reflected energy ?
 

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