Gene Fuller wrote:
Q: Where are the missing joules?

A: They are associated with the large standing wave supported by the
mismatched terminations of your transmission line.

The "large standing wave" is associated with a an EM forward wave
traveling at the speed of light superposed with an EM reflected
wave traveling at the speed of light. Please give us an example
of an EM standing wave that is not composed of superposed EM waves
traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light.

What you seem to be saying is that two similar vehicles traveling
in opposite directions at the same speed don't possess any net
energy. Try standing between them when they crash and get back
to us.

As I have pointed out previously, standing waves are not inert. The
shape of the wave does not travel down the line, but the fields are
changing, and the charges are moving. Within each loop of the standing
wave the stored energy simply oscillates between magnetic energy when
the current is high and electrostatic energy when the voltage is high.
Very basic stuff.

Very magic stuff. EM waves simply cannot slosh around side-to-side
in a transmission line. EM waves must move at the speed of light or
else the theory of relativity is wrong. You are mentally lumping
things together in your mind when they are not lumpable together in
reality, i.e. your thoughts don't match reality.

The only time two EM waves traveling in opposite directions interact
is at an impedance discontinuity. All other interaction exists only
in your mind, not in reality. In a constant Z0 environment, EM waves
traveling in different directions pass like ships in the night.

The problem in your analysis is the initial axiom that RF waves always
move. This is simply incorrect, and it leads to the dilemma you face.

Please give me an example of just one photon that doesn't move at
the speed of light. You will have proven the theory of relativity to
be incorrect.

And as many people have pointed out, always add the voltages and
currents first and only consider power at the very end of the analysis.

Please don't pass yourself off as an expert on a subject where your
only recommendation is not to think about the subject. It reminds me
of the priests who put Galileo under house arrest.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

Fine.

My method solves the problem. Your method leads to endless threads on RRAA.

Have it your way.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:

Q: Where are the missing joules?

A: They are associated with the large standing wave supported by the
mismatched terminations of your transmission line.


The "large standing wave" is associated with a an EM forward wave
traveling at the speed of light superposed with an EM reflected
wave traveling at the speed of light. Please give us an example
of an EM standing wave that is not composed of superposed EM waves
traveling in opposite directions at the speed of light.

What you seem to be saying is that two similar vehicles traveling
in opposite directions at the same speed don't possess any net
energy. Try standing between them when they crash and get back
to us.

As I have pointed out previously, standing waves are not inert. The
shape of the wave does not travel down the line, but the fields are
changing, and the charges are moving. Within each loop of the standing
wave the stored energy simply oscillates between magnetic energy when
the current is high and electrostatic energy when the voltage is high.
Very basic stuff.


Very magic stuff. EM waves simply cannot slosh around side-to-side
in a transmission line. EM waves must move at the speed of light or
else the theory of relativity is wrong. You are mentally lumping
things together in your mind when they are not lumpable together in
reality, i.e. your thoughts don't match reality.

The only time two EM waves traveling in opposite directions interact
is at an impedance discontinuity. All other interaction exists only
in your mind, not in reality. In a constant Z0 environment, EM waves
traveling in different directions pass like ships in the night.

The problem in your analysis is the initial axiom that RF waves always
move. This is simply incorrect, and it leads to the dilemma you face.


Please give me an example of just one photon that doesn't move at
the speed of light. You will have proven the theory of relativity to
be incorrect.

And as many people have pointed out, always add the voltages and
currents first and only consider power at the very end of the analysis.


Please don't pass yourself off as an expert on a subject where your
only recommendation is not to think about the subject. It reminds me
of the priests who put Galileo under house arrest.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Jim Kelley wrote:
The crux of
the phenomenological problem is that power does not flow or move, nor is
it something that is reflected.

But energy does flow and move and is something that can be reflected.
You can easily see the energy packets using a TDR. Without energy,
those pulses wouldn't exist. The energy is obviously in the pulse,
where the voltage and current are.

And joules of energy flowing past a point is joules/sec, i.e. power,
by IEEE definition.

Incidentally, how do you explain the Poynting Vector and the Power
Flow Vector?

The argument that fields "have" or "contain" energy is misdirected and
misapplied.

A lot of people will be surprised to discover that their electromagnetic
ExH and ExB values are "misdirected and misapplied".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Gene Fuller wrote:
The Poynting vector, generally described as ExH, is the energy flow
density. It has units of energy/area/time.

Rate of energy flow through an area? Sure sounds like joules/sec
(power) to me. The IEEE Dictionary agrees.

In practical terms the Poynting vector ExH and the Poynting theorem have
little utility for radio amateurs.

I particularly like Johnson's treatment where the forward power
and reflected power have separate Poynting Vectors. :-)

A quote from Ramo & Whinnery's, _Fields_and_Waves_:

"... it is often convenient to think of the Poynting Vector as
the vector giving direction and magnitude of energy flow at any
point in space."
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:25:32 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

A circulator, being in general a three (or four) port directional
device, might have some trouble buying into that logic. ;-) The crux of
the phenomenological problem is that power does not flow or move, nor is
it something that is reflected.

Hi Jim,

I merely responded in like metaphors.

To this point, the meditation of the difference between Bob's results
and the ARRL table speculates that the ARRL used an unknown Intel 100W
circulating Signal Generator driving 1 second's worth of transmission
line where Poynters Theorem proves that the dB loss is - well, we
never get to the end, do we?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:25:32 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:


A circulator, being in general a three (or four) port directional
device, might have some trouble buying into that logic. ;-) The crux of
the phenomenological problem is that power does not flow or move, nor is
it something that is reflected.


Hi Jim,

I merely responded in like metaphors.

I had a hunch about that. But I can't always parse your sentences into
the form of a concrete idea. Usually an interesting read though. ;-)

To this point, the meditation of the difference between Bob's results
and the ARRL table speculates that the ARRL used an unknown Intel 100W
circulating Signal Generator driving 1 second's worth of transmission
line where Poynters Theorem proves that the dB loss is - well, we
never get to the end, do we?

That's absolutely right. Not all of us do. When some of us have a
question about something, we respond by flinging poison tipped daggers
at those who, in the persuit of a common interest, try to help us
achieve a more cogent understanding.

73, Jim AC6XG

Gene Fuller wrote:
My method solves the problem. Your method leads to endless threads on RRAA.

Your method doesn't begin to solve the problem of tracking
the energy through the system. In fact, it specifically avoids
tracking the energy. My method has made a certain amount of
progress in the direction of understanding energy flow. The key
seems to be that for every case of constructive interference,
there must exist an equal magnitude of destructive interference,
as asserted by Hecht, in _Optics_.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:46:34 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
...energy/area/time.
sounds like joules/sec (power) to me. The IEEE Dictionary agrees.
If so, then a strange dictionary indeed (or strange reader),
Gene's term reduces to energy·time·area^-1 not energy·time^-1

What kind of sound was that anyway?

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:10:18 -0800, Jim Kelley
wrote:

When some of us have a
question about something, we respond by flinging poison tipped daggers
at those who, in the persuit of a common interest, try to help us
achieve a more cogent understanding.

Hi Jim,

Talk about parsing. Which way are the daggers flying today?

I hope explaining doesn't require the theory of optics or someone's
eye will be put out. ;-(

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:46:34 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Gene Fuller wrote:

...energy/area/time.

sounds like joules/sec (power) to me. The IEEE Dictionary agrees.

If so, then a strange dictionary indeed (or strange reader),
Gene's term reduces to energy·time·area^-1 not energy·time^-1

Every thorough discussion of the Poynting Theorem stresses the caveat
that Gene poynted out.

Born and Wolf does observe that the Poynting vector is adequately
defined as the "density of the energy flow", "the amount of energy which
crosses a boundary surface per second a unit area normal to the
directions of E and H." They add however:
"It should be noted that the interpretation of S as energy flow (more
precisely as the density of the flow) is an abstraction which introduces
a certain degree of arbitrariness. For the quantity which is physically
significant is, according to (41) [an expression for the rate of change
of energy within a volume], not S itself, but the integral of S . n
taken over a _closed_ surface." Emphasis on 'closed' is mine.

They also point out that the integral of the Poynting vector over an
arbitrary volume which contains no radiator or absorber of energy, or
where no mechanical work is done, is equal to zero. They cite
conservation of energy as the directive.

73, Jim AC6XG