Owen Duffy wrote:
Cecil, you have conveniently clipped the context (as you do), the
relevant context being the line-load interface and source-line interface.

Following published usenet rules, I trim the part to which
I am not replying.

Statements in some explanations (by others) like "This clearly proves
that reflected power and forward power in a transmission line are both
real power, and that no fictitious power, or reactive volt-amperes,
exists in either one." seem incompatible with the basic AC circuit theory
explanation of a reactive load which must exchange reactive energy with
the transmission line over a complete cycle (and the same effect at the
source end).

Those statements are generally about lossless lines where the
Z0 is purely resistive. In the lossless wave reflection model,
there is no reactive energy in the transmission line. The forward
voltage is in phase with the forward current and the reflected
voltage is 180 degrees out of phase with the reflected current.
Both V*I*cos(theta) terms are in watts with zero vars. Of course,
real world transmission lines have (hopefully negligible) vars.

BTW, I am not surprised at your dissertation apparently dismissing the
distributed impedance model of a line, because after all it is the
solution of that model that gives us the classic transmission line
equations that you seem to not want to use.

It is NOT the distributed impedance model to which I object. It is
the lumped circuit model which assumes the speed of light is infinite
and 75m loading coils don't occupy any space. Here's a quote from an
IEEE white paper at: http://www.ttr.com/TELSIKS2001-MASTER-1.pdf

"Consequently, lumped element circuit theory does not (and cannot)
accurately embody a world of second order partial differential
equations in space and time."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com