Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

What you might also notice in AN 95-1 is that there is no mention of
incident and reflected ...

Sorry Gene, I'm tired of wasting my time proving that you
are lying. Anyone who wants to prove how unethical you are
can do so by accessing:

http://www.ecs.umass.edu/ece/labs/an...parameters.pdf

and searching for "incident" and "reflected".
Lots of unethical BS deleted after that.

I guess I must be hitting close to target. You always get nasty when I
create problems for your pet theories.

Thanks for the reference to AN 95-1, even though I have several copies
already. Your directed search terms prove my point exactly. I suppose
puncturing your balloon is "unethical", but that is your problem, not mine.

I challenged you to find any case in AN 95-1 that supports your claim of
counter-traveling waves in a transmission line, with each wave carrying
its own energy that somehow nets out to zero. You came up with exactly
nothing, which is not surprising.

Ranting and raving does not have any impact on the correct physical
reality.

Oh, by the way, my full comment was, ". . . there is no mention of
incident and reflected waves on a transmission line, each carrying
energy (or power or whatever you prefer), and passing like ships in the
night."

Your careful trimming is noted.

73,
Gene
W4SZ