On Mar 30, 8:43*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Perhaps you should complete part one so that it fully
accounts for the energy flows before progressing to
writing part two. Average is not a full accounting.

Average is the only accounting that I consider to
be important and the only accounting that I am going
to do. I have added a disclaimer about instantaneous
power to my Part 1 article.

But the meaning of the disclaimer is not clear to the
reader. You really need to restate your hypothesis to
remove the possibility of misleading the reader.

I would suggest something along the lines of "My
hypothesis is that the average energy in the reflected
wave is *numerically* equal to the increase in dissipation
of the source resistor. It should be noted that this
says nothing about whether the energy in the reflected
wave is actually dissipated in the source resistor."
That would be completely accurate and very unlikely to
be misconstrued by the reader.

I personally don't think
that anyone else cares about instantaneous powers.

I am sure some do not. But anyone interested in a full
understanding does.

If you need an instantaneous power article written,
please feel free to write it yourself. I wish you luck
but I personally consider it to be a waste of time.

It is convenient when you just ignore the analysis
that disproves your hypothesis. But it does not make
the hypothesis more correct.

...Keith