On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:54:51 -0400, wrote:

Consider again, Assertion A, in more detail this time:
1) Consider a shorted ideal transmission line excited by a single
frequency sinusoidal signal which has reached steady state
2) At quarter wave points along this line, voltages and currents
which are always 0 can be observed -- the standing wave
3) Power is the rate at which energy flows
4) The power (rate of energy flowing) at time t can be computed
using p(t) = v(t) * i(t)
5) Substituting a voltage or current which is always 0 into the
expression above will result in a power which is also always 0
6) From 2) and 5), the power (rate of energy flowing) at quarter
wave points will be 0
7) From 6), the energy crossing quarter wave points is 0
8) From 7), energy can not be flowing down and up the line
crossing quarter wave points

Assume for the moment that all this optical talk has convinced me
that conclusion 8) from Assertion A is false. For Assertion A
to be false, one of the steps in Assertion A must be false.
All the steps in Assertion A seem correct to me.
Can you help me find the false step which makes Assertion A false?

Hi Keith,

One obvious and glaring mistake that you share with everyone is found
in your step (2).

To observe these variables necessarily involves extracting energy and
consuming power. Hence the Assertion is rendered false in its own
confirmation.

So what now? Step back and retract (2)? Then where's your proof?
Offer that the "assumption" that replaces the reality of this step
renders the reality unnecessary?

These issues are then argument in faith between those who have none.
This is because other methods that do employ reality exist to offer
"proof" in equal measure, and yet no one seems prepared to go there,
or show any awareness of those paths.

You need only recite the virtues of the TR/ATR tube in RADAR systems
to offer Richard, KB5WZI, a model he can accept, and one that is
solidly based in reality. You could posit the complete solution to
the interference model so expounded upon by Cecil, except he seems to
have a patent on its application to his uniquely crafted solutions.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC