On Jun 18, 5:39 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Jun 18, 11:48 am, K1TTT wrote:

NOW ITS MY TURN TO YELL! I NEVER SAID THAT REFLECTION WAS THE SAME AS
SUPERPOSITION, I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT YOUR 'WAVE CANCELLATION' AND
'INTERFERENCE' ARE SUPERPOSITION! JUST WHAT YOU ADMIT BELOW:

When I said reflection is the first mechanism and superposition is the
second mechanism, you said: "... but that [referring to superposition]
is NOT a "second' mechanism." The implication seemed clear to me.

Good grief, everyone is free to review what I said and what you said
in disagreement. I said reflection is the first mechanism and
superposition is the second mechanism. You said superposition is NOT a
second mechanism, clearly implying that superposition is the same as
the first mechanism which was already defined by me as reflection.
Your implication was clearly that reflection and superposition are the
same mechanism.

Do you agree that wave reflection can cause a redistribution of wave
energy?

no. wave reflection causes current and voltage waves to change
direction, magnitude, and phase.


Do you agree that superposition can cause a redistribution of wave
energy?

your observed 'redistribution of wave energy' is a results of
superposition of current and voltage waves and then another
calculation to convert the sum to power and another calculation to
integrate the energy.


Do you agree that wave reflection and wave superposition are two
different mechanisms?

of course, i've never said otherwise.


If so, you agree with everything I have previously said and are now
just blowing smoke. If you misspoke, just admit it. If you
misunderstood what I said, just admit it. If you have changed your
mind, just admit it. If you still disagree with any of those three
statements, please continue the argument that you started in response
to my assertion that there exists two mechanisms that can redistribute
energy in a transmission line, (1) reflection and (2) superposition.
--