Keith Dysart wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
They engaged in typical author-speak.

I think not.

You are welcome to your opinion. Authors always
couch their assertions in probabilities by
never uttering an absolute lest they be proved
wrong by one esoteric example.

Well, there is no energy flowing through the '+' points.

I proved that energy is flowing through the '+' points
before the line is cut. Superposition proves that there
is energy flowing through those points.

And I have no issue if you wish to claim that there
are reflections at these points, though I might use
'bouncing' to differentiate from reflections occuring
at points with non-zero reflection coefficients.

So bouncing is what happens at points with zero reflection
coefficients. You seem to have invented a new religion.

No energy is flowing (q.v. IEEE definition of
instantaneous power), and yet you want energy
to be flowing.

Lots of energy is flowing in both directions.
Only the *NET* energy flow is zero.

Although many have tried to prove that the output (source)
impedance is the impedance encountered by the reflected waves,
all of those numerous experiments have failed.

You, Cecil, are the only one who believes this. Any good
book on transmission lines will tell you otherwise.

I am not surprised that you are ignorant of the raging
arguments that have been going on primarily between
Bruene and Maxwell and their respective supporters.
I believe it continued to rage in the 2007 letters to
the QEX editors.

Web references and Spice models which agree that "the
output (source) impedance is the impedance encountered
by the reflected waves" have been previously provided,
but you refused to explore them.

No, I asked you to measure the reflection coefficients
and report the results. You refused to do so. If the issue
had ever been resolved, it would be common knowledge and
we wouldn't be arguing about it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com