Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

W5DXP wrote:

http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/s....html#standing

Another web page which correctly uses superposition only for amplitude;
not power.

Nobody is using superposition for power.

It may have been my misinterpretation, but I understood you were
claiming that the net power distribution on the line should be
computed by summing Pf and Pr. If you weren't saying this,
then the other way to compute power is to use p(t) = v(t) * i(t) (NET)
which leads to no energy crossing the voltage and current zeroes.

Do you deny the fact that two 100W light bulbs put out more
irradiance (power) than one?

It is my policy never to deny facts. I leave that for others.

You argue that there must be reflections at a voltage node.

No. Merely that if there were, the picture would be no different.

The above web page indicates such doesn't exist.

Visualize the picture if there were reflections at the minima
and maxima. The plots would look exactly the same.
Curiousity -- why are you so sure there aren't? The picture
would be the same!

Those forward and reflected waves flow smoothly right through
each other.

Another way of viewing the picture and as long as you stick to
voltages and currents; no problem.

It is only with the claim that energy flows past a point with
a constant voltage of 0 that I have a problem.

Take another look.

In the simulation they show voltage waves. No problem.

....Keith