Keith Dysart wrote:
The junk science is often presented with very rational sounding
arguments and it can be difficult to detect the flaws. This example
was a case for me and you expose the flaw nicely.

Hint to omniscient gurus: One cannot use ignorance
for exposing flaws. Roy says in his Food for Thought
article:

I personally don't have a compulsion to understand where this power "goes".

Seemingly, that feeling of his is supposed to be enough
incentive to discourage the rest of us to give up on our
quest for tracking the energy through the system.

Roy has ploinked me for disagreeing with him. What
does that say about his inability to technically
defend his concepts?

The S-Parameter equations completely debunk what Roy
posted.

b1 = s11(a1) + s12(a2) = 0

|b1|^2, the reflected power, equals zero because
of wave cancellation involving those components
of a1 (forward normalized voltage) and a2 (reflected
normalized voltage).

If s11, a1, s12, and a2 are all non-zero, then wave
cancellation has occurred between s11(a1) and s12(a2)
proving Roy's statements to be false. The above wave
cancellation happens every time a ham adjusts his
antenna tuner for zero reflected power.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com