On Apr 13, 6:13 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
It is impossible for a "partially reflective surface"
to reflect 100% of the intensity.

But that's wrong. If it was right, then a partially reflective surface
couldn't be used to prevent reflections either.

That's faulty logic born out of ignorance.

Partially reflective surfaces can (and are) in fact used to prevent
reflections, just as they are used to 100% re-reflect partial
reflections from a load.

The magnitude of a1 reflected by that
impedance discontinuity *DOES NOT CHANGE* from the very
first incidence of a1.

That was the main point of my post, Cecil. The reflective coefficient
DOES NOT CHANGE. You're the one who claims that it does.

What happens to the energy in the canceled waves?

There is no energy "in" cancelled waves. Your ideas in that regard are
faulty. Energy only exists where fields aren't cancelled. That
should be obvious even to someone with propensities such as yours.

ac6xg