On Apr 27, 7:28 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Okay, so you can't find anything to point at that is wrong
with the model.

What is wrong with the model is that it doesn't work
in reality.

Hmmm. Having a complete inability to articulate any issues
with the model, you are, none-the-less, convinced that it does
not work in 'reality'. Hmmm.

Of course I claimed no such thing; you do need to read
more carefully. And you have conveniently neglected the
other example which was presented right beside for
which 4 times the "reflected power" was dissipated by
the source. These two completely different results
call into question the nature of "reflected power".

No, they call into question the validity of the model.
The reflected energy is there and can be dissipated
by a circulator load.

The fact that zero energy is dissipated in a source
is prima facie evidence of destructive interference
and a "redistribution of energy in a direction that
allows constructive interference".

But then what is the fact that 4 times the energy is
dissipated in the source prime facie evidence of?

Good explanations explain all the observations, not
just the supporting ones.

....Keith