@deludedaudiophile
Thanks for the response.
Your comments are on par with things I have read since 2010 on the subject matter.
I read nothing in your post that differed from what the Late Ralph Morrison, Herman (agon member), the Late almarg (agon member), William J Beaty ( Misconceptions Spread By K-6 Textbooks: "Electricity"), Ian M. Sefton (School of Physics, The University of Sydney, Australia), and countless others I consider authorities on the subject matter.
I knew better when I said the load consumes energy. It really doesn’t. Energy is not consumed... I like your term the energy is transferred.
Question:
Is the Law of Physics considered theory? If yes then why not Ohms Law considered theory? I don’t think the Late Ralph Morrison considered it theory.
His words:
Storing or moving energy.
There is a common misconception that signals are carried in conductors. Somehow this association crosses over to the idea that conductors carry both signals and energy. A few simple calculations can show that this is a false idea. Consider a 50-ohm transmission line carrying a 5-volt logic signal. The initial current at switch closure is 500 mA. A typical trace is a a gram-mole of copper that has 6 x 1023 copper atoms (Avogadro’s number). Each atom can contribute one electron to current flow. Knowing the charge on an electron makes it easy to show that the average electron velocity for 500 mA is a few centimeters per second. What is even more interesting is that only a trillion electrons are involved in this current flow. This means that only one electron in a trillion carries the current. This also says that the magnetic field that moves energy is not located in the conductors. The only explanation that makes sense is that energy in the magnetic field must be located in the space between two conductors.Conductors end up directing energy flow - not carrying the energy.
The electric field in the conductor that causes current flow presents a similar picture. For a transmission line trace 5 mils above a ground plane, the electric field strength in the space under the trace is about 49,000 V/m. The electric field inside the conductor might be 0.1 V per meter. Energy in an electric field is proportional to field strength squared. The ratio of the square of field strengths in and near a conductor is about 2.4 x 1011. It is safe to say that there is very little electric or magnetic field energy in a trace or conducting plane. Since the energy is present and it is not in the conductors it must be in the space between the conductors. This is true for sine waves or square waves at all frequencies including dc. This one idea is not often discussed in circuit theory. This one idea solves most interference problems. This one idea is at the heart of a good circuit board layout. If the energy that represents information is carried in spaces it makes sense that we must keep these spaces free from interfering fields. The path should also control the characteristic impedance so there are controlled reflections. What we really need to do is supply a smooth path for logic energy flow.
The math part is over my head... Do you disagree with what Morrison said? Where would you differ?
Can we say as a matter of fact the signal does not travel in the conductor but rather outside the conductor in the space between the conductors?
Would you agree the signal voltage creates the EM wave? If not how would define, explain, it.
Also am I wrong in saying there are multitudes of varying signal EM waves in a typical analog recording? Vocal(s), musical instruments.. I would say it is quite complex to say the least. Am I wrong?
Best regards,
Jim