Keith Dysart wrote:
Feel free to substitute the word of your choice for 'remove'.

That's the first time you have used the word "remove".
Have you changed your mind about energy being "absorbed",
by the source, i.e. turned into heat?

Dissipate is not a good choice since it usually implies
conversion to heat.

Whoa there Keith, "absorb" is equally not a good choice
since it usually implies conversion to heat as in the IEEE
definitions. If the source only removes energy, then that
is a plus for my side of the argument. If the source has
the ability to remove the destructive interference and
supply it back 90 degrees later as constructive interference,
the entire mystery of where the reflected power goes is
solved. When I previously offered that as a solution, you
turned it down flat. Now you seem to be agreeing with it.

Absorb is not a good word for you, since you can find absorption
in the IEEE dictionary and it also suggests conversion to heat.

That's why I have been arguing loud and long against the
absorption of energy by the source. It would imply that
the source is heating up or has an infinite ability to
"irreversibly convert the energy of an EM wave into another
form of energy". That irreversible energy conversion is
what I have been objecting to. There is no way an impedance
of 0+j0 can cause an irreversible energy conversion.

A word that gives no hint about where this energy goes would
be best, ...

So you can sweep it under the rug and "not care where it
went"? As I said, further discussion is pointless. You
have a magic source that obeys your every whim. Why didn't
you just say that in the first place?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com