Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Cop out. Why am I not surprised that you, yet once again, refuse
to answer the question? Could it be because you would immediately
be proven wrong? Do you really believe that diversions are a tool
of technical knowledge?

The original 51 joule/sec reflected wave toward the source interacts
with the newly reflected wave from the load and is partially
canceled which through constructive interference, delivers more
forward power toward the load, which results in an increase in the
energy in the reflected wave from the load, which results in more
wave cancellation at '+', etc. until steady-state #2 is reached.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Totally useless drivel. Let's see some real numbers.
Then we can discuss cop out.

In the words of the biggest cop out artist I know, "You first".
I've already posted the numbers for the graphic at:
http://www.w5dxp.com/thinfilm.gif

Instead of responding, you tucked tail and ran.

You might also check your favorite reference to try to figure out what
conservation of energy really means. Then you would realize that even a
full solution to your idealized problem would demonstrate absolutely
nothing with respect to conservation of energy.

That's exactly the problem. Lots of people pay lip service to
the conservation of energy principle without realizing they
advocate violation of it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com