On Mar 8, 2:30 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You are *not* claiming that the *energy* from the reflected wave
is dissipated in the source resistor, because for the *energy*
in the reflected wave to be dissipated in the source resistor,
the *energy* would have to dissipate at the same time that the
reflected wave delivered the *energy*, and the analysis of
instantaneous *energy* flows shows that this is not the case.

I clearly stated that my claim is based on a special case
zero interference condition - it's even in the title of the
article. The instantaneous energy that you (not I) introduced,
does not meet the zero interference precondition. Therefore,
anything that does not meet the zero interference precondition
that I enumerated is an irrelevant diversion. You introduced
that irrelevant straw man and tried to make hay out it. :-)

you are saying that the average reflected power is
numerically equal to the increase in the average dissipation
in the source resistor.

I can accept that as correct.

Finally, after a million words. :-)

You might consider rewriting the sentence "reflected energy
from the load is flowing through the source resistor, RS, and
is being dissipated there" since it refers to the energy in
the reflected wave and may mislead others in the same way it
mislead me.

Since "average reflected power" is dependent upon the
"reflected energy", I don't see any problem. Would
"average reflected energy" work for you? It should be
obvious that, associated with interference during each
cycle, destructive interference energy is stored during
part of the cycle and delivered back as constructive
interference energy during another part of the cycle.
The intra-cycle interference averages out to zero.

Now you have me quite confused. One moment you agree that
your claim is mere numerical eqivalency and the next you
seem to again be claiming that the energy in the reflected
wave is dissipated in the source resistor.

Can you clarify which is really your claim?

Many have objected to the term "reflected power" saying
it is not power that is reflected but instead is "reflected
energy". So I stopped talking about "reflected power" and
started talking about "reflected energy". Now you object
to the use of the term "reflected energy". Would you and
the rest of the guru attack gang please get together on
what term you would like for me to use?

I have never been particularly fussy about the terminology.
"Energy flow", "power flow": The latter is often used when,
strictly, the former is meant, but there is seldom confusion,
except for those excessive pedantics who choose to be
confused.

My issue was that you seemed, in that sentence, to be saying
that the reflected energy was dissipated in the source
resistor. But earlier you had stated that was not your claim.
See my request for clarification above.

....Keith