Cecil Moore wrote:

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

Hi Cecil -

Yes, I'm very familiar with that article. You've already posted a
link to it dozens of times on this newsgroup. It very clearly
illustrates exactly those thing which I may have somewhat more
'colorfully' restated above, and more. It includes equations with
variables for forward and reflected power all throughout, a reference
to a supposed "4th mechanism of reflection" (that's the magical way in
which waves of power and energy change direction), and illustrations
with arrows named Pref showing how power is reflected at impedance
discontinuities.

Back when our corresponence was more cordial, I advised you not to
write those things. And now you'd like to deny having done it; all
the while portraying me as a liar. You're beautiful, man.

73, ac6xg