Jim Kelley wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:
Problem is that it conflicts with the predictions made by the power
propagation model. (The politically correct name is the Joules/sec
propagation model.) That model shows that only a single reflection
of power is needed to explain the whole thing. Of course in some
cases the wave of power has to figure out how to turn around and go
back the other direction after it's been cancelled in order to
conserve energy. (A problem it wouldn't have to solve had it not
violated it in the first place.) Admittedly, some of the details
have yet to be worked out. :-)

Wow Jim, you need to repeat Fields and Waves 310. :-)
You have misunderstood virtually every principle
of the wave reflection model.

I wouldn't presume to take credit for any of the above. I learned it on
r.r.a.a. from someone who I think needs to take Fields and Waves 1. :-)

If you are talking about me, you have either misunderstood
what I said or you enjoy bearing false witness. Here's a quote
from my 2005 magazine article at:

http://www.w5dxp.com/energy.htm

"The author has endeavored to satisfy the purists in this
series of articles. The term "power flow" has been avoided
in favor of "energy flow". Power is a measure of that energy
flow per unit time through a plane. Likewise, the EM fields
in the waves do the interfering. Powers, treated as scalars,
are incapable of interference. Any sign associated with a power
in this paper is the sign of the cosine of the phase angle
between two voltage phasors."

Also, here is an EXCEL spreadsheet version of what happens
during the transient buildup to steady-state.

http://www.w5dxp.com/1secsgat.gif

Do you really consider 30 iterations to be only a single
reflection?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com