Keith Dysart wrote:
You should consider that perhaps your inability to
identify the element and its energy function really
calls into question your concept of "interference
energy" being stored and returned later.

I have previously multiple times identified the element
as the network reactance and pointed you to a reference.

If you were asking me to teach you the English
language on r.r.a.a, you would get the same response.

I suppose, if you want to rename superposition as interference.
But none of my basic circuit theory books use the word
interference when discussing superposition.

I'm not renaming superposition. I'm using the
definition of "interference" provided by Hecht
in "Optics". Superposition can occur with or
without interference. The present discussion is
about superposition with interference present.
Interference is just a word which identifies
the special case of superposition that is
under discussion.

If the powers imputed to the constituent voltages of
superposition did represent actual energy flows, then
you would be able to simply add them to get the total
flow, since energy can not be created or destroyed.

There you go again, confusing power and energy.
There is *NO* conservation of power principle.
Until you give up on superposing powers, you
are doomed to failure. There is absolutely nothing
wrong with storing energy and turning it into
power later in time. Do you think that backup
storage batteries are a violation of the
conservation of energy principle?

The fact that a correction needs to be applied when
adding them is proof that they can not be actual energy
flows.

There is *NO CORRECTION TO THE ENERGY COMPONENTS*. There
is only a correction to the power components to account
for the time the energy is being stored before it is
dissipated. You really need to learn the difference
between energy and power.

You should take this as a reason to
call into question the whole idea that this "interference
energy" is an actual energy flow.

Your argument is not with me - it is with experts
like Eugene Hecht. Please read his *57 page* Chapter
9 on "Interference" and then get back to us. With 57
pages devoted to the subject, Hecht doesn't seem to
share your problems with it.

If *your* "wave reflection model" includes the idea that
Pref always represents an actual energy flow, then *your*
"wave reflection model" is wrong.

When you can prove that reflected traveling waves contain
zero energy, i.e. that ExH=0, I will accept your assertion
but not before. Exactly how does a TDR detect zero energy?

In fact, the thing you need to do is forget the transmission
line and deal with light waves encountering boundaries with
different indexes of refraction. The problem is identical,
but dealing with light out in the open prohibits you from
pushing your mashed-potatoes energy religion.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com