On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:03:52 -0700
Roger Sparks wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 07:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Keith Dysart wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:18 pm, Roger Sparks wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:45:48 -0700 (PDT)

Keith Dysart wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:06 am, Roger Sparks wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Roger Sparks wrote:
You need to take a look at the spreadsheets.
clip
http://www.fairpoint.net/~rsparks/Sm...Reflection.pdf
clip


I doubt that this will satisfy your power location concerns because the spread sheet shows more power being delivered to the resistor than is present in the voltage. This is because the impedance of the power equation has changed due to the contribution of the current component. Consider that for columns B and C, the same current flows whether the voltage in B is applied or the voltage in C is applied. This can only happen if the impedance seen by each respective voltage is different. This is interference at work
--
73, Roger, W7WKB

After posting previosly, I got to thinking that interference here is wrecking the analysis of Column D. The traveling wave analysis is correct (Column H). Only one current is flowing through Rs, and the current is not enough to supply the power suggested in column D. While it is logical to add the voltages from Column B and Column C, the two voltages are often in opposition so they are not "seen" by Rs. As a result, we must have a reflection from Rs that I am not taking into account.
--
73, Roger, W7WKB