Jim Kelley wrote:
I don't criticize everyone else's explanations, Cecil.

You criticized Walter Maxwell's explanation and my
explanation without offering any explanation of your
own. Exactly what completely reverses the momentum
of the reflected wave from the load when the power
reflection coefficient is only 0.5?

In considering the transmission line matching transformer scenario (or
the antireflection coating), when we sum up all of the partial
reflections at each interface during the transient period, the sum
ultimately reaches and establishes the steady state conditions. The sum
of the reflections at each iteration show exactly how energy makes its
way from source to load.

The reflection model works just fine for the transient
state *and* for the steady-state. The principles of
superposition tell us that it doesn't matter how the
steady-state signals are divided up. Their sum is
always the same.

You divide it up into transient reflections. It can
just as easily be divided into ten equal parts and
the result will be identical.

I can devise an example using two sources with circulators
with no reflections where steady-state is immediate. The
results are exactly the same as a single source with
reflections.

If you want to see how
energy moves, then power should be calculated after a proper voltage
analysis, not in lieu of one.

Please do a voltage analysis for an anti-reflective coating
tuned for laser light and get back to us. Optical physicists
have been doing irradiance analysis for centuries, Jim. If
you can prove them wrong, have at it. All I am doing is an
irradiance analysis inside a transmission line based on
centuries old techniques from the field of optics. Since
you reject an irradiance analysis, your argument is not
with me but with the physicists who invented the irradiance
analysis and equation.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com