Keith Dysart wrote:
So I accept the circuit theory result of
Prs.circuit(t) = 68 + 68 cos(2wt -61.92 degrees)
and conclude that, since the results using Cecil's hypothesis are
different, Cecil's hypothesis must be incorrect.

Keith, please stop using innuendo to try to discredit
me. My hypothesis does NOT apply to instantaneous values,
never has applied to instantaneous values, and never will
apply to instantaneous values. Please cease and desist
with your unethical innuendos.

If you have to stoop to lying about what I have said,
you will only discredit yourself.

My hypothesis is correct for average values of powers
and *applies only to average values of powers* just as
the irradiance equation from optical physics applies
only to average power densities. To the best of my
knowledge, there is no such thing as instantaneous
irradiance.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com