Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
I did, Jim. Hint: One must assume either component energies or
*NET* energy.

It's a distinction without a difference.

The fact that transmission lines with high SWRs suffer more
losses than transmission lines with low SWRs proves your
statement to be incorrect.

"Net energy" is still the only energy involved. There are no other
choices. The 'other one' you refer to is ficticious, hypothetical,
rhetorical, useful to illustrate a point perhaps.

RF energy cannot stand still.

Time and tide wait for no man.

In a transmission line, there are only two possible directions
for energy to travel.

One plus one is two, therefore.....

There is simply more energy flowing back
and forth in a line with a high SWR than in a flat line.

The truth is even simpler: there is more energy flowing from the source
to the losses.

Until
you admit that fact of physics, this discussion cannot progress.

If it were a fact of physics we wouldn't be having the discussion. I
guess I'll rephrase the question: When the IEEE defines power as energy
per unit time, do you think they're talking about a vector quantity?

73, Jim AC6XG