Jim Kelley wrote:

Tam/WB2TT wrote:
Seems to me that once you
have put all the energy into the TL that it can store, you don't have to
supply any more energy (?)

BINGO!! No more _energy_ flows - until or unless something changes.
(TV signals are of course always changing.)

You can prove your point only by demonstrating an RF storage
battery in which RF energy stands still.

Got news for you, Jim. RF energy *always* flows because it *cannot*
stand still. It flows in one direction in a transmission line, at the
speed of light, until it encounters a physical impedance discontinuity
at which point reflections occur and some or all of the energy changes
directions, but always moving at the speed of light. ExH is the power.

Of course, you are talking about *NET* energy above. Forward
and reflected energy continue to flow unabated. RF component
energy has no choice except to flow at the speed of light. If
there doesn't exist a match point to turn the reflected energy
around, it *will* flow into the source. That you subtract the
reflected energy from the forward energy at the source output
to obtain the "generated energy", is just a math shortcut and
bears no resemblance to reality. It is a definition created by
man for the purpose of avoiding a very complicated problem.

It is akin to the problem of absolute motion in space-time.

It follows that when you have the same bank balance at the beginning
of the month and the end of the month, you tell everyone that you
had no debits or credits during that month. Again, you forgot to use
the word "NET".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Tam/WB2TT wrote:
Seems to me that once you
have put all the energy into the TL that it can store, you don't have to
supply any more energy (?)

BINGO!! No more _energy_ flows - until or unless something changes.
(TV signals are of course always changing.)

Of course, you are talking about *NET* energy above.

Right. There isn't another kind.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Of course, you are talking about *NET* energy above.

Right. There isn't another kind.

That goofy assertion doesn't even merit a response.

Following your logic, two people shooting at each
other with identical bullets can do no harm because
the net energy is zero. Care to prove your theory?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Of course, you are talking about *NET* energy above.

Right. There isn't another kind.

That goofy assertion doesn't even merit a response.



Following your logic, two people shooting at each
other with identical bullets can do no harm because
the net energy is zero. Care to prove your theory?

How many sources ya got in that example, Cecil? Is that the same to
you? If it is, then I can see why you don't understand.

73, Jim AC6XG
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Following your logic, two people shooting at each
other with identical bullets can do no harm because
the net energy is zero. Care to prove your theory?

How many sources ya got in that example, Cecil? Is that the same to
you? If it is, then I can see why you don't understand.

Couldn't possibly be that you don't understant, huh?

Someone has shot a bullet into an iron wash pot. It ran around
the rim of the pot and changed directions by 180 degrees. Just
as it was changing directions, another bullet was fired from
the same gun. The returning bullet has less energy than the
second bullet. Therefore, the net energy is away from the gun.
Want to stick your head in front of the ricochet bullet
to prove that component energy doesn't matter?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:


Cecil Moore wrote:
Following your logic, two people shooting at each
other with identical bullets can do no harm because
the net energy is zero. Care to prove your theory?

How many sources ya got in that example, Cecil? Is that the same to
you? If it is, then I can see why you don't understand.

Couldn't possibly be that you don't understant, huh?

Bullets and radio waves? No. Matter behaves differently than do
electromagnetic waves. I'm quite confident about that.

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
Bullets and radio waves? No. Matter behaves differently than do
electromagnetic waves. I'm quite confident about that.

So what? Some matter behaves differently from other matter. Hint: Jim,
here's a heads-up for you. You must be omnipotent in order to prove that
you are omniscient. I hope you are up to that task.

My challenge still stands. Please provide a standing wave without a
forward-traveling wave and a rearward-traveling wave. If you can't,
at least send me a joint of whatever you are smokin'.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----