On Mar 19, 11:47*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
My claim is that "the energy in the reflected wave can not usually be
accounted for in the source resistor dissipation, and that this is
especially so for the example you have offerred".

The instantaneous example to which you are referring does
not meet my special case requirement of *ZERO INTERFERENCE*
so your above statement is just another straw man and is
thus irrelevant to my claim. But you already know that.

I agree with you that "the energy in the reflected wave can
not usually be accounted for in the source resistor dissipation."
I have stated over and over that the reflected energy
dissipation in the source resistor can range from 0% to 100%.

My claim is that when the special case of *ZERO INTERFERENCE*
exists between the two voltages superposed at the source resistor,
then 100% of the reflected energy is dissipated in the source
resistor. You have not provided a single example which proves
my claim false.

The test for *ZERO INTERFERENCE* is when, given the two
voltages, V1 and V2, superposed at the source resistor,

(V1^2 + V2^2) = (V1 + V2)^2

None of your examples have satisfied that special case
condition. My average reflected power example does NOT
satisfy that condition for instantaneous power!

Here's the procedure for proving my claim to be false.
Write the equations for V1(t) and V2(t), the two instantaneous
voltages superposed at the source resistor. Find the time
when [V1(t)^2 + V2(t)^2] = [V1(t) + V2(t)]^2. Calculate
the instantaneous powers *at that time*. You will find that,
just as I have asserted, 100% of the instantaneous reflected
energy is dissipated in the source resistor.

Until you satisfy my previously stated special case condition
of *ZERO INTERFERENCE*, you cannot prove my assertions to be
false.
--
73, Cecil *http://www.w5dxp.com

In a previous iteration, I had accepted that your claim only
applied when there was zero interference. I converted that to
the particular values of wt for which your claim aaplied,
e.g. 90 degrees.

I then restated your claim as applying only at those particular
times and not at other points in the cycle, but you were
unhappy with that limitation.

So you have to choose...
Does it only apply at those particular points in the cycle
where wt is equal to 90 degrees or appropriate multiples?
(A restatement of only applying when there is no interference.)
or
Does it apply at all times in the cycle?

...Keith