Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
*** 1 ***
If reflected energy is not dissipated, it undergoes destructive
interference and is redirected back toward the load as constructive
interference instead of being incident upon the source. Why
are you having difficulty with that concept from page 388
of "Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition?

*** 2 ***
Again, reflected power doesn't flow so it doesn't go anywhere.
Until you understand that simple fact of physics, further
discussion is unlikely to yield valid results. "Reflected power
that goes" is only one of your many conceptual flaws. So your
first logical step would be proving that reflected power actually
flows. After you do that, we can continue to your other conceptual
flaws.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 appear to declare exactly the opposite behavior for
energy (power).

Paragraph 1 is about energy and doesn't mention power at all.
Paragraph 2 is about power and doesn't mention energy at all.

Energy is as different from power as length is different from
velocity. Do you also get length and velocity confused?

Is there some subtle re-definition going on to allow "redirected back
toward the load" and "it doesn't go anywhere" in the same message?

Here's a quote from my web page:

"The term "power flow" has been avoided in favor of "energy flow".
Power is a measure of that energy flow per unit time through a plane."

The dimensions of power flow would be watts/sec. I'm not sure
what quantity watts/sec would represent or where it would go.


Cecil,

I understand the physics quite well, thank you.

What I neglected to fully pick up was the silly semantic game you were
playing. We all know that "power flow" is a bit of an oxymoron, but it
still is widely used as an equivalent to "energy flow". I was just
trying to understand the phase of the moon in Texas for this particular
thread.

73,
Gene
W4SZ