Cecil,

If you know anything about physics, you must know that energy is at the
core of almost all physical analysis.

Sorry that my message was too opaque for you.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:


... I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I never
would have imagined such a thing!


That's a really strange thing to admit, Gene, since a very large percentage
of the physics community is dedicated to understanding where the energy
was, is, and will be - down to an almost infinitessimally small amount.
You definitely seem to be cast in the mold of the priests who put Galileo
under house arrest. Are you comfortable with that position?

Gene Fuller wrote:
If you know anything about physics, you must know that energy is at the
core of almost all physical analysis.

I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly the topic from which you tried
to divert attention in your posting. Here's what you said:

"I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I
never would have imagined such a thing!"

If you don't worry about energy, you have nothing to add to the discussion.
If you do worry about energy, please read my "WorldRadio" article which
tells you more than you (and others) ever wanted to know about energy in an
RF transmission line.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

Sorry, I should have written,

"I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I
never would have imagined such a thing!" 8-) 8-) 8-)
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)


I thought my intention was obvious, but it seems I failed to communicate.

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

If you know anything about physics, you must know that energy is at
the core of almost all physical analysis.


I couldn't agree more, but that's exactly the topic from which you tried
to divert attention in your posting. Here's what you said:

"I guess I still need to seek out some "real-world physicists" to
figure out that energy is indeed something to "worry about". I
never would have imagined such a thing!"

If you don't worry about energy, you have nothing to add to the discussion.
If you do worry about energy, please read my "WorldRadio" article which
tells you more than you (and others) ever wanted to know about energy in an
RF transmission line.

Gene Fuller wrote:
I thought my intention was obvious, but it seems I failed to communicate.

Others on this newsgroup have admonished me for worrying about
energy and refused to discuss the subject. I thought you were
doing the same. Sorry. But do you actually have any references
that contradict "Optics", by Hecht?

In Dr. Best's article, he superposes V1 with V2 such that constructive
interference energy is needed to complete the superposition. On this
newsgroup, I asked Dr. Best where that necessary constructive interference
energy comes from and he didn't know. That's when I went searching for
references and found them in the field of optics.

Constructive interference energy can be supplied by local sources
as occurs in W7EL's "Food for Thought #1" with its DC example. Or
constructive interference energy can be supplied at a point away
from the source(s) by destructive interference, e.g. wave cancellation
at the non-reflection surface of a layer of thin-film on glass or
at a match point in a transmission line.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

I do not have a copy of Hecht, but I doubt that he has made any serious
mistakes. Certainly he should have no mistakes in an area that is as
well understand and widely discussed as plane wave interactions with
discontinuities in the medium.

The classic treatment of this problem, found in virtually every
college-level textbook on E&M or optics, is to set up the appropriate
wave equations, add the boundary conditions, and crank out the answer.

Then there is typically some sort of analysis and discussion that says,
"The reflected intensity plus the transmitted intensity is equal to the
incident intensity. Energy is conserved." I suspect Hecht provides
exactly that sort of description. I know that all of the relevant
textbooks I have do so.

I believe you are reading too much into something Hecht is saying,
perhaps in an effort to somehow reconcile conservation of energy.

The beauty of the laws of E&M, as expressed by Maxwell's equations and
other fundamental properties, is that conservation of energy is
automatic, at least in ordinary circumstances. If one correctly solves
for the field equations, the energy conservation will come along for free.

Conversely, it is customary to use energy considerations as the primary
vehicle for addressing many physical problems in advanced mechanics,
quantum mechanics, solid state physics, and other branches of science.

The bottom line is that there are a number of tools available to develop
correct solutions to physical problems. Steve Best chose one path, and
you choose another. You both come up with the same answer in terms of
what can be measured. The mathematical constructs underlying the
solution may be different, but those constructs are not directly measurable.

Don't limit your toolbox. Sometimes a screwdriver is easier to use than
a monkey wrench.

73,
Gene
W4SZ



Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I thought my intention was obvious, but it seems I failed to communicate.


Others on this newsgroup have admonished me for worrying about
energy and refused to discuss the subject. I thought you were
doing the same. Sorry. But do you actually have any references
that contradict "Optics", by Hecht?

In Dr. Best's article, he superposes V1 with V2 such that constructive
interference energy is needed to complete the superposition. On this
newsgroup, I asked Dr. Best where that necessary constructive interference
energy comes from and he didn't know. That's when I went searching for
references and found them in the field of optics.

Constructive interference energy can be supplied by local sources
as occurs in W7EL's "Food for Thought #1" with its DC example. Or
constructive interference energy can be supplied at a point away
from the source(s) by destructive interference, e.g. wave cancellation
at the non-reflection surface of a layer of thin-film on glass or
at a match point in a transmission line.

Gene Fuller wrote:
I do not have a copy of Hecht, but I doubt that he has made any serious
mistakes.

It would be worth your while to visit a local university and
check out Hecht's chapters on superposition and interference.

"The reflected intensity plus the transmitted intensity is equal to the
incident intensity. Energy is conserved." I suspect Hecht provides
exactly that sort of description.

Much more than that. As you know, irradiance is power/unit-area
and Hecht spends many pages on irradiance and energy.

I believe you are reading too much into something Hecht is saying,
perhaps in an effort to somehow reconcile conservation of energy.

Spoken by someone who hasn't even read Hecht? I suspect if you
read Hecht, you would perceive the same information as I. Hecht
is big on conservation of energy and spends many pages discussing
such things involving EM waves.

The beauty of the laws of E&M, as expressed by Maxwell's equations and
other fundamental properties, is that conservation of energy is
automatic, at least in ordinary circumstances.

There is still an underlying Q&A about what happens to the energy
in those waves. The energy concept is in addition to what's already
there, not any kind of replacement for it.

The bottom line is that there are a number of tools available to develop
correct solutions to physical problems. Steve Best chose one path, and
you choose another.

Nope, we chose the same path. Steve just fell off the path and
down the cliff about 2/3 of the way through his articles. Steve
gave us a very good picture of what happens to the energy toward
the load but he gave us a distorted view of what happens to the
energy toward the source. Instead of Steve's one-sided approach,
I presented both sides thus merely expanding what Steve had
already done.

Don't limit your toolbox.

Funny, just above you seemed to recommend limiting the toolbox
to Maxwell's equations and tried to discourage me from thinking
about energy.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil,

The waves you are so worried about are merely convenient, but
fictitious, adjuncts to your mathematical model.

You need worry only about the energy of real, measurable waves, not
those adjuncts that simplify the math.

The use of such adjuncts is done frequently in solving real problems.
Just don't confuse the internals of the model with physical reality.

73,
Gene,
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
There is still an underlying Q&A about what happens to the energy
in those waves. The energy concept is in addition to what's already
there, not any kind of replacement for it.