Roy Lewallen wrote:
People who believe
that "reflected power" ends up heating up the transmitter should take a
careful look at this, and see if they can explain it.

I have taken a careful look and have explained it using the
principles of destructive vs constructive interference between
EM waves adopted from the field of optical physics. Power density
in any EM wave is proportional to ExB and that includes reflected
waves in a transmission line. Your attempt to ignore the technical
facts about the necessity for energy content in reflected waves is
pretty obvious.

But they can never come up with a coherent reason for
the results shown in the essay table, or equations which will predict
just how much "reflected power" a transmitter will absorb and when. And
the reason is just as Ian said.

It is untrue that those coherent reasons do not exist. I have
pointed out those "reasons and results from the field of optical
physics and you have simply chosen to sweep them under a rug.

Unfortunately, some people, when presented clear evidence that the
concept is wrong, cling desperately to it nonetheless.

Unfortunately, some people, when presented with clear evidence
that everything is explained perfectly by interference phenomena
and the conservation of energy principle, cling desperately to
"sloshing" EM waves and reflected EM waves devoid of any energy
content - something to do with motes and beams.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com