W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

Waves that propagate to a dissipative load transfer energy to that
dissipative load.


How does the wave about to be dissipated differ from the wave that is
about to be canceled? Hint: they are identical.


The waves themselves are indeed identical, i.e. you can't measure a
difference between them on a transmission line. But one might indeed be
transferring energy while the other is not. For example, take a length
of 50 ohm transmission line with a short at one end. Think about this
circuit with and without a circulator at the source. With the
circulator in circit, energy is transferred from the source to the
circulator load. Without the circulator, the source transfers no energy
to a load. If there are no re-reflections from the source, is there a
measureable difference?

How does the wave know ahead of time whether it is going to encounter a
dissipative load or not? It obviously cannot know ahead of time so all
waves with the same V and I in phase carry the same amount of energy.

This is a misconception on your part. I don't claim anything has to
know anything. That is your claim, and I don't agree. I think it's silly.

A wave about to encounter a dissipative load or the same wave about to be
canceled carry the same amount of energy.

They have the same potential to transfer energy. The do not necessarily
transfer that energy. That depends on boundary conditions.

The wave gives up that energy in
both cases. In the first case it gives up its energy as heat. In the second
case, it gives its energy to the constructive interference.

I understand that is your theory. I even like the sound of your theory.
But you need to understand that it is only your theory. It is an
unproven, and unsupported theory. I've tried to come up with support
for it, but find none. Yes, the energy which would have been reflected
does appear in the transmitted direction. We know this from
conservation of energy - energy incident equals energy transmitted plus
energy reflected. What does not appear to happen is all the bouncing
around you describe.

It can be shown that at the first boundary, two reflected waves
destructively interfere, producing zero reflected energy. It can also
be seen at that boundary that the two waves traveling in the forward
direction yield all of the forward energy due to their constructive
interference.

I understand that if you take the interference term and change its sign
you get the same number, and its not just a coincidence. Yes, you can
say the amount cancelled in the reflected direction equals the amount of
enhancement in the forward direction. But that doesn't mean energy had
to turn around in order to accomplish that. That would only be true if
energy were indeed traveling in the reverse direction to begin with.
When we realize it's not, there's nothing left to account for Cecil.
There's no conservation of energy problem to solve. It's all there,
just as it says in the physics books, and enegineering books as well.
If you want to believe that energy bounces all over the place like, so
be it. Just don't expect to be able to sell paraphysical phenomena as
science.

But as I've tried to tell you many times before, when you can show that
Poynting vector solution changing direction solely as a result of
destructive interference, you'll have a case - and my vote. Until
then, it looks like a non-starter.

73, ac6xg