Cecil Moore wrote:
On Mar 13, 2:48 pm, Gene Fuller wrote:
No one denies the existence of reflections.

But some people deny that there is any energy in the reflections -
see below. :-)


But a big argument is about the
round-trip travel of energy in the steady-state. Some people seem to
believe that energy continues to flow back and forth from one end of a
(mismatched) transmission line to the other under steady-state
conditions, even simultaneously traveling in both directions. (Passing
like ships in the night?) Since energy is a scalar quantity, and any
given joule is not distinguishable from another, it is not clear how the
proponents keep track of the bookkeeping, but they muddle through somehow.

Again Gene, to be able to prove your point, you need to present an
example of a standing wave that exists without a forward traveling
energy wave and a reverse traveling energy wave. You keep implying
that is possible, but have presented no proof.

Au contraire, mon frere. You continue to claim that a standing wave MUST
be made up of two traveling waves, but without proof.

My contention is that this distinction is merely a matter of
mathematical preference. When standing waves occur, there is absolutely
no physical difference between the standing wave and its traveling wave
constituents. If you find some physically significant difference due to
considering traveling wave constituents rather than the standing wave,
then you have made a mistake in your calculations.

Water is also a scalar. If you had one gallon per minute flowing into
a barrel and two gallons per minute flowing out of the barrel, would
you argue that there is no water flowing into the barrel and only one
gallon of water flowing out of the barrel? Or would you say the *net*
water flow is one barrel per minute out of the barrel?

This is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Try to keep on task.

73,
Gene
W4SZ