Yep, I restricted my definition of "forward power" fP to the same one
you've always used -- the average power calculated from the forward V
and I. And the "reverse power" rP to the same one you've always used
-- the average power calculated from the reverse V and I. (It's what
you've been calling the "power in the forward wave" and "power in the
reverse wave" respectively.) And then, using those definitions of yours,
I showed in the analysis that the "forward power" can be less than the
"reverse power", while still delivering net power to the load. Cool, huh?

Fact is, I'm not having any trouble at all resolving this. But then I
don't have any investment in the notion of waves of average power
bouncing around on a line.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

So, I'll let you play with whatever mysterious equations you use to
predict those two quantitites, whatever they are and whatever they
mean to you, and I'll settle for just knowing all the voltages,
currents, impedances, and powers.


Point was that your fP didn't represent the total forward power
and resulted in the false conclusion that reflected power was greater
than forward power. If the total average Poynting vector points toward
the load, it is impossible for the total reflected power to be greater
than the total forward power.
--
73, Cecil, W5DXP