Keith Dysart wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:46 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
I already did - Bruene's early 1990's QST article.

Sorry. Not a good enough description for any kind of analysis.

Ignore it if you choose. That's when the present hoopla
began, at least in the amateur radio community. You can
follow the thread from that point to the present to see
what is happening in the present.

Nothing to sweep under the rug, I am afraid. It is key that the
dissipation depends on the design of the generator. Some
times those 'reverse watts' cause the dissipation to drop
to 0, sometimes they cause it to increase by a factor of 4,
sometimes they cause it to increase by the numerical value
of the 'reverse watts'. Pretty much hard to argue that those
'reverse watts' are real when their heating effect is so
variable.

Not at all. The heating effect depends upon how much of
the reverse joules/sec are re-reflected. If the dissipation
drops to 0, that is prima facie evidence that all the
reflected joules/sec have been re-reflected. If the
dissipation increases by a factor of 4, that is prima facie
evidence that all of the reflected joules/sec are being
dissipated in the source along with all of the joules/sec
available from the source into a matched load. Anything
else would violate the conservation of energy principle.

I'd suggest you think of power as a quantity not a situation.
Superposition works for linear, time invariant circuits with
multiple sources. Check any text book. The generators and
lines under discussion meet these requirements.

But superposition obviously doesn't work at the source
*point*. One possible technical conclusion may be that
the dynamic active source is constant, fixed, and refuses
to be superposed (for any constant, fixed load). If that
is true, it would certainly stop the present raging debate
in its tracks.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com