Jim Kelley wrote:

W5DXP wrote:
But nobody cares about your *NET* energy quotations.

Nobody said anything about *NET* energy in the quotation.

But it is obvious that they are referring to *NET* energy. Please
stop trying to sneak *NET* energy stuff into the argument.

The forward wave *DOES* give up (Pfwd*|rho|^2) energy to the reflected wave
at a mismatched load. I'm sorry to pull an argumentum ad populum on you
but everybody on this newsgroup knows that except you.

At a single boundary, yes.

If it exists at a single boundary, then it exists.

Which leads you to believe that P1+P2 P1+P2?

I don't believe that.

If you believe that all the power comes from P1 and P2 in the following
equation, then yes, you do believe that.

P1 + P2 + 2*Sqrt(P1*P2) = Pfwd2

Hint: the 2*Sqrt(P1*P2) power does NOT come from P1 and P2. If it did
you would be violating the conservation of energy principle and creating
free energy. That term is the *INTERFERENCE TERM* which is supplied from
the destructive interference going on on the other side of the impedance
discontinuity. Why do you have such a problem with the concept of
conservation of energy?

The destructive
interference equals the total of P3+P4 *because* those waves were
destroyed.
Wave(3) and Wave(4) give up their combined energy components
as destructive interference energy.

There exists no mechanism for them to "give up" their energy in the way
you describe.

The mechanism is conservation of energy involving destructive interference
feeding energy to the constructive interference event. The guys over on
sci.physics.electromag can explain it to you.
--
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 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----