On Mar 20, 3:43 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
I understand what happens to the direction and
momentum in the reflected wave when it encounters
an impedance discontinuity at some distance from
the source, e.g. a Z0-match.

What happens to the direction and momentum in the
reflected wave when it encounters a non-dissipative
resistance at the source?

For some years now, you have been arguing the reality of 'reverse
power'. 'Reverse power' has served you well in that it appears
to offer reasonable explanation for some phenomena:
- 'forward power' minus 'reverse power' yields transferred power
- circulators
- TV ghosting
- dissipation of pulses in generators

But there are some challenges to the premise of 'reverse power':
- where does the 'reverse power' go?
- why does the change in dissipation of a generator when 'reverse
power' changes depend more on the design of the generator than
on the magnitude of the 'reverse power'?

In an attempt to resolve these, you have apparently done extensive
studies in optics looking for an explanation based on constructive
and destructive interference but are still left with the question you
posed above and others, like the one below from another of your
posts:

All one has to do to calculate the reflected power
dissipated in the source is to understand the constructive
and destructive interference occurring at the source
output terminal. THIS IS EASIER SAID THAN DONE. [emphasis mine]

Like myself, others have encountered difficulties with the premise
of 'reverse power'. But we have taken a different path to
enlightenment than yours; we have given up on the premise that
'reverse power' represents something that is real. To do this, we
have had to find alternative explanations to all the phenomena
listed above, but once this was done, life was good.

I would suggest that you try trodding this path. Make a list of
phenomena that you think are explained by 'reverse power'. For
each phenomena, explore the possibility of alternative explanations
that do not require 'reverse power'. When you have an explanation
for each, test the explanations against each other to ensure they
are self-consistent, then take the body of non-'reverse power'
explanations and compare it the body of 'reverse power' explanations.
Which is more complete? Which violates fewer fundamentals?

You have believed in 'reverse power' for so long that you will
probably find this path difficult. Make a conscious effort when
thinking about circulators, for example, not to give up because
it does not explain ghosting. Work out the solution to ghosting
later. Similarly, when working on steady-state examples, do not
confuse yourself with transients. Do those later. And when
exploring a phenomena using a hypothetical generator, do not
simply give up because it does not accurately model a real
transmitter. Much can be learned from the simplifications of
ideal voltage and current sources.

Those who have already trodden this path are, I am quite sure,
willing to assist you in finding the solutions, if you are willing
to learn, rather than tossing distractions into the discussion.
Save the other phenomena that trouble you for a later discussion.
Keep the discussion on track.

You can not lose if you take this path. In the best ending, you
end up with a coherent explanation for all the phenomena and can
give up on your search for solutions to the troubling issues posed
by 'reverse power' and the vanishing of the energy. But even if
you do not change your view you will have a better appreciation of
the alternative explanations and should be better able to partake
in debates on their correctness.

You could start by providing a list of phenomena for which you
think the reality of 'reverse power' is the only viable explanation
and offer a willingness to learn about alternative explanations.

....Keith