K7ITM wrote:
I have yet to see Cecil, or anyone else, post an example of how waves
can become perfectly collinear, except at an interface: a
discontinuity in a transmission line, a partially-reflecting surface
in an interferometer, ... -- a physical interface of some sort.

Please stop the unfair innuendo. You have yet to see me say that
waves can become perfectly collinear, except at an impedance
discontinuity. I have gone out of my way to say reflections
happen only at a physical impedance discontinuity. Waves become
perfectly collinear because of reflections at a physical
impedance discontinuity. I don't know how you can possibly
be confused regarding what I said.

I have yet to see Cecil, or anyone else, post an example of perfectly
collinear waves that perfectly cancel over some small finite volume
which do not also cancel perfectly at all points up to their point of
origin: a physical interface.

Please stop the unfair innuendo. You have yet to see me say that
waves do not cancel immediately at the point of reflection. That's
because they are canceled immediately, like delta-t, after the
reflection. They exist for such a short time that they cannot even
be seen on an o'scope. There existence can only be deduced because
if they didn't exist, nothing would happen at a physical impedance
discontinuity.

I have yet to see Cecil, or anyone else, post an example wherein the
behaviour of a uniform, linear TEM transmission line is not adequately
explained by the propagation constant of the line, the concept that Vf/
If=-Vr/Ir=Zo, Vtotal=Vf+Vr, and Itotal=If+Ir, and the boundary
conditions at any transitions or interfaces.

Not sure what you are getting at. All those waves are associated
with joules/second. I am not trying to replace anything. I am
merely adding an energy analysis to the voltage analysis. The
voltage analysis remains exactly the same as it has always been.

In an S-parameter analysis, if you square any of the normalized
voltage terms, you get joules/sec (power). If you square any
of the voltage reflection or transmission coefficients, you
get the power reflection coefficient. The S-Parameter analysis
seems to have been designed with power in mind. The HP Ap Note
says, "The previous four equations show that s-parameters are
simply related to power gain and mismatch loss, quantities
which ARE OFTEN OF MORE INTEREST than the corresponding
voltage functions." What do you suppose HP meant by, "ARE
OFTEN OF MORE INTEREST" regarding the power components?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com