Gene Fuller wrote:
As usual, you have taken something generally accepted as true, and then
you have added your own special spin. You might have noticed that Ramo &
Whinnery did not go into all of the "net" baloney, and neither did HP in
AN-95. That stuff is only in your imagination.

Translation: I don't have the balls to argue with
Ramo & Whinnery and HP over issues that are more than
obvious to any casual initiated observer.

The last I heard, energy is a scalar quantity. In the cases we are
considering, energy is only positive or zero, not negative.

As you well know, the convention is to apply a negative
sign to positive energy flowing in the opposite direction
from the "forward" energy which is arbitrarily assigned
a plus sign. When Ramo & Whinnery say, using Poynting
vectors, that Pz(net) = Pz+ - Pz-, they are not implying
negative power. They are just using the Poynting vector
convention of direction of energy flow in a transmission
line. We are saying the same thing when we say:

P(load) = P(forward) - P(reflected) = P(net)

Transmission lines have the advantage of having only two
directions so '+' can be assigned to one direction and
'-' assigned to the other. It is completely arbitrary -
the signs can be swapped and the results remain the same.

I agree that the concepts included in R&W and in AN-95 are widely used.
However, they were never intended to be distorted into your dream world.

See "Translation" above.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com