Keith Dysart wrote:
Sentence one says "no limitations". Sentence two specifies a
limitation.

Semantic games. There are no limitations within the
stated boundary conditions just like any number of
other concepts.

Could you clarify whether your claim for the circuit of
Fig 1-1 applies to all time, or just to those instances
when the source voltage is 0.

There are no claims regarding instantaneous power in
Fig 1-1 or anywhere else in my web article. All the
claims in my web article refer to *average* powers and
the article states exactly that. For the purpose and
subject of the web article, the subject of instantaneous
power is just an irrelevant diversion. No other author
on the subject has ever mentioned instantaneous power.
Given average values, time doesn't even appear in any
of their equations. Apparently, those authors agree
with Eugene Hecht that instantaneous power is "of
limited utility".

Here's my claim made in the article: When the *average*
interference at the source resistor is zero, the *average*
reflected power is 100% dissipated in the source resistor.
I gave enough examples to prove that claim to be true.
Since the instantaneous interference averages out to
zero, this claim about *average* power is valid.

When Tom, K7ITM, asserted that the same concepts work
for instantaneous power, I took a look and realized that
he was right. One can make the same claim about instantaneous
power although I do not make that claim in my web article.

When the instantaneous interference at the source resistor
is zero, the instantaneous reflected power is 100% dissipated
in the source resistor.

Perhaps this has clarified. So you are only claiming that
reflected energy is dissipated in the source resistor at
those instances when the source voltage is zero. Good.

I am claiming no such thing. Please cease and desist with
the mind fornication, Keith. You cannot win the argument
by being unethical.

Mostly to prove that my analysis has an error.

I have pointed out your error multiple times before, Keith,
and you simply ignore what I say. Why should I waste any
more time on someone who refuses to listen?

One more time:
Over and over, you use the equation Ptot = P1 + P2 even
though every sophomore EE student knows the equation is
(usually) invalid. The valid method for adding AC powers is:

Ptot = P1 + P2 + 2*SQRT(P1*P2)cos(A)

The last term is called the interference term which you
have completely ignored in your analysis. Therefore, your
analysis is obviously in error. When you redo your math
to include the interference term, your conceptual blunders
will disappear. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com