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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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