Jim Kelley wrote:
Interesting to note that the interference phenomenon is often described
as a redistribution, but is never described in any reference as a
reflection, or re-reflection as you have done.

That's easy to understand in the context of light which can take a
vector in any direction in 3D space. However, a transmission line
is essentially an one-dimensional world. If something happens and
it doesn't happen in one direction, there is only one other direction
available. In other words, a redistribution of energy in a transmission
line is, by definition, a reflection (or re-reflection). If things
continue on in the original direction, it is not a redistribution. If it
is a redistribution, it must change direction by 180 degrees. That's so
simple a concept even you should be able to understand :-) but you
obviously haven't admitted such so far.

It doesn't, contrary to your assertion, first go in
the reflected direction, say oooops, then turn around in mid-air and go
in the other direction.

I never said it did, Jim. That is at worst a straw man on your
part or at least an extreme lack of understanding of what I said.
Because of your semantic objection, I changed interference events
from happening on either side of the match point to happening *AT*
the dimisionless match point in my article. In my article, everything
happens *AT* the match point, NOT on either side of the match point.

The reflection is prevented. Comprende senor?

Yes, I agree 100% and always have. The reflection is prevented by
wave cancellation of two reflected waves. We have been over this
item a hundred times and you still think your straw men will work?
Instead of introducing every diversion known to man, why don't you
just discuss the technical details? We agree 100% except for the most
minute of details and you have been aware of that for months now. You
have even said that in private emails to me.

The Bird wattmeter can be misleading in this regard. It measures the
effect of a field (sometimes like the one in Born and Wolf that doesn't
have transfer of energy associated with it), and in every case assumes
energy and power. But it's simple minded so it has an excuse.

It certainly depends on your definition of power. Yours is not the same
as the IEEE Dictionary so you have an excuse. That excuse is obviously:
"Physicists are superior to engineers in every way and are allowed special
sacred cow privileges when defining words!" :-) Engineering power does NOT
require that it be dissipated, it only requires that energy be flowing.
Joules/Sec flowing past a point satisfies the definition of power as
defined by the IEEE. The Bird Wattmeter measures IEEE power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---