On Dec 31, 12:36*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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.

Of course. That is writing with precision, as I said.

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

I proved that energy is flowing through the '+' points
before the line is cut.

Unfortunately, this has not being proved as yet, but
merely assumed.

Superposition proves that there
is energy flowing through those points.

I thought that you had previously agreed that it was
not appropriate to superpose power. This can be
revisited if you have changed your mind.

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. I was merely offering an alternate term tht you might
use when claiming that they reflect, since reflect causes
you such grief.

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.

Back to superposing power.

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.

That argument was more about whether the output impedance
of an amateur transmitter was well defined. In my encounters
with the arguments I don't recall any claim that if it
was well defined and equal to the line impedance, then
there would be a reflection. If this claim was made,
then someone needed to revisit the books.

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.

Exactly. You refused to check your textbooks. You refused to
review the web references. You refused to examine the
spice models. Instead you ask me to measure something and
expect me to believe that some measurement I make will
convince you. Just another way to delay.

If the issue
had ever been resolved, it would be common knowledge and
we wouldn't be arguing about it.

There is only one place that this is being argued. If you
would review your textbooks, if you would look at the web
references, or if you would examine the spice models, you
would learn that the argument was settled long ago.
(Actually, there probably never was an argument, except
on r.r.a.a.)

...Keith