On Apr 5, 9:05*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Please expand on what it tells us "about what is wrong
with the analysis so far".

You have not been able to tell where the instantaneous
reflected energy goes. This new example should help
you solve your problem.

It is not really my problem. It is only a problem for
those who expect the imputed power of a partial contributor
to superposition to represent a real energy flow.

If your steady-state equations
for the new example are not identical to the steady-
state equations for the previous example, then something
is wrong with your previous analysis.

I would fully expect the same results.

IMO, something
is obviously wrong with your previous analysis since
it requires reflected waves to contain something other
than ExH joules/sec, a violation of the laws of EM
wave physics.

Not at all a violation. Just as one does not expect the
partial values of volts and currents during superposition
to produce a power value that represents a real energy
flow, one should not expect it from Es and Hs which are
the partial values being superposed.

* * * * * feedline1 * * * * feedline2
source---1WL 50 ohm---Rs---1WL 50 ohm---+j50

The beauty of this example is that conditions at
the source resistor, Rs, are isolated from any
source of energy other than the ExH forward wave
energy in feedline1 and the ExH reflected wave
energy in feedline2. That's all the energy there
is available at Rs and that energy cannot be denied.

I suppose we shall see when you complete the arithmetic.

...Keith