On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:34:34 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

it is possible
for there to be a plus power differential from the sum of the source powers
at any given segment as long as there is equal power subtracted at another
location.

Talking about taking Cecil's sucker bait. The string of conditionals
above should convince any rational mind that something in the
underlying premise is broken. - I explained this in another part of
the thread.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
Hiding behind authority again, Cecil? Using a few carefully edited
quotes from Hecht doesn't prove anything. Ian hit the nail on the
head: Vague philosophical arguments using second and third order
abstractions that you can't prove to have any connection to reality
aren't going to convince anyone.

The void technical content of your objection is noted, Tom.
Why don't you present some theory and math that prove me
wrong instead of just waving your hands and uttering ad
hominem attacks?

Because I don't have to prove you wrong, Cecil, you have to prove
yourself right. So far, you've given us nothing but a few
untestable assumptions and little else. A series of declarative
sentences and obscure analogies does not a theory make. When you can
work out 1. A logical framework, using vector calculus, in order to show
us, logically, why we should pay attention to you, and 2. A series of
easily replicated experiments that you've performed, and we can perform
in turn, to see how well your ideas are supported by reality, then,
maybe we should give you a hearing, but a series of unsupported
statements followed by a barrage of objection stoppers just isn't good
enough. This may be fun for you, but, for anyone dealing with you, it's
just a waste of time.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Dave wrote:
Dave wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

So in the limit, as the number of radiators is increased to infinity,
the amount of power it would take to produce the measured sum would
go to zero. Nice logic.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH


Mathematica 6.0 for Sun Solaris SPARC (64-bit)
Copyright 1988-2007 Wolfram Research, Inc.

In[1]:= 0 Infinity

Infinity::indet: Indeterminate expression 0 Infinity encountered.

Out[1]= Indeterminate
0 Infinity
is interpreted as zero times infinity


That's the rule all right. Notice, however, that I said, "in the limit."
Does Mathematica teach you about taking limits and such?
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Dave wrote:

You can do the same with DC - you don't need to use AC at all. Put a 50 V
battery in series with the pure 50 Ohm load and it supplies 50 W. Put it in
series with another load, consisting of a 50 Ohm voltage source in
consisting of a 50 volt voltage source, not a 50 Ohm voltage source!
series with a 50 Ohm load, and it is no surprise it delivers a different
power. Depending on what way you connect the two batteries, the current would
be 0 A or 4 A, and so the power 0 or 200W.
As I said before, 0 or 2A, which gives 0 or 200 W.

Your example, though correct, has little to do with the case being discussed.

In your example it is true that power varies depending on what way you connect
the two batteries, but in all cases the total power dissipated in the loads
remains equal to the total power delivered by the sources.

In the case being discussed instead the power dissipated in the load varies with
NO CHANGE in total power delivered by the sources.

73

Tony I0JX

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:05:57 +0100, "Antonio Vernucci"
wrote:

In the case being discussed instead the power dissipated in the load varies with
NO CHANGE in total power delivered by the sources.

Hi Tony,

Buying into a blighted argument (what Cecil presented) leads to some
very strange contortions such as you describe above. That, or there
are some strained language problems here.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Antonio Vernucci wrote:
Dave wrote:

You can do the same with DC - you don't need to use AC at all. Put a
50 V battery in series with the pure 50 Ohm load and it supplies 50
W. Put it in series with another load, consisting of a 50 Ohm voltage
source in
consisting of a 50 volt voltage source, not a 50 Ohm voltage source!
series with a 50 Ohm load, and it is no surprise it delivers a
different power. Depending on what way you connect the two batteries,
the current would be 0 A or 4 A, and so the power 0 or 200W.
As I said before, 0 or 2A, which gives 0 or 200 W.

Your example, though correct, has little to do with the case being
discussed.

In your example it is true that power varies depending on what way you
connect the two batteries, but in all cases the total power dissipated
in the loads remains equal to the total power delivered by the sources.

yes

In the case being discussed instead the power dissipated in the load
varies with NO CHANGE in total power delivered by the sources.

no way. Prove there is no change in the power delivered by the sources.

Tam/WB2TT wrote:

You can come up with a lot simpler example that at first might look like a
paradox. Consider two DC current sources of 1 amp each. Each current source
will deliver 50 W to a 50 Ohm resistor. Now connect the two current sources
in parallel, and the resultant 2 amps will deliver 200W to the same 50 Ohm
resistor. There is nothing wrong here.

I see Cecil is still superposing his waves of average power.

I have an example that's more fun yet.

Take a 10 volt source and connect it through a 10 ohm resistor to
another 10 volt source. The positive terminals of the sources are
connected to the ends of the resistor, and the negative terminals are
connected together -- "grounded", if you prefer. Turn on one source,
leaving the other off. (An "off" voltage source is a short circuit.)
Result: 10 watts of dissipation in the resistor. Turn off the first
source and turn on the second. Result: 10 watts of dissipation in the
resistor. Now turn both sources on. Result: An exercise for the reader.

This is a linear circuit for which superposition holds.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:20:15 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:34:34 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe"
wrote:

it is possible
for there to be a plus power differential from the sum of the source
powers
at any given segment as long as there is equal power subtracted at another
location.

Talking about taking Cecil's sucker bait. The string of conditionals
above should convince any rational mind that something in the
underlying premise is broken. - I explained this in another part of
the thread.

Hello Richard, with all due respect to your background on this, which is
much much greater than mine, I do have fundamental concepts that were
modeled in my mind many years ago at the University and even to some extent
in high school. No need to try to align me with other posters who I may
agree with, as you would political parties. Nobody is running for office
here. I tend to see no violations of physical laws provided they are held
true for the system as a whole, *provided you have defined a closed system*,
and he has. That is the way laws of science behave.

A largely rambling response. It describes, but doesn't actually
answer how
"a plus power differential from the sum of
the source powers at any given segment"
is so overly elaborate to be a fundamental concept supporting an
erroneous speculation Cecil is offering.

If you in fact think that the issue of accepting a broken argument is
on par with High School homecoming elections, that is not the race I
am competing in. If you want to stick with a technical issue in a
technical forum, then strict language and solid logic is still a
requirement.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

K7ITM wrote:

In typical Cecil fashion, you trimmed out the only part I really cared
about having you answer: "Assuming the two "waves" existed
independently at some points in space, you'll have to first tell us
_exactly_ what was done to combine them into one wave." Depending on
how _I_ do that, I can get various answers, since some power goes
elsewhere in some of the methods, but I _never_ get more power out of
a steady-state system than I put in. Barring stupid math mistakes,
anyway.

*No matter how* you combine two waves in space or a transmission line in
such a way that they add, the process will result in other regions in
which they cancel, and vice-versa. The result is the correct net power
in the *whole system*. Long ago I issued a challenge for someone to
describe a system for which this isn't true, and re-issued it recently.
No takers.

Attempting to apply the law of conservation of energy, or anything else,
to one region while ignoring the others is certain to lead to bogus
conclusions, as we've seen over and over.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I believe in the case at
hand (a transmission line far removed from the source) that it is possible
for there to be a plus power differential from the sum of the source powers
at any given segment as long as there is equal power subtracted at another
location.

Yes, at least someone understands. The "plus power" is
needed by constructive interference. The "power subtracted"
is given up by destructive interference somewhere else.
Apparently, none of the gurus on this newsgroup have ever
considered where the "plus power" comes from while
belittling anyone who wonders where it comes from.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com