Keith Dysart wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:05 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
My claim is what it has always been which is:
An amateur radio antenna system obeys the conservation
of energy principle and abides by the principles of
superposition (including interference) and the wave
reflection model.

Well who could argue with that.

Well, of course, you do when you argue with me. For
instance, you believe that reflections can occur when
the reflections see a reflection coefficient of 0.0,
i.e. a source resistance equal to the characteristic
impedance of the transmission line. This obviously
flies in the face of the wave reflection model. When
you cannot balance the energy equations, you are
arguing with the conservation of energy principle.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Mar 19, 3:16*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
On Mar 17, 10:05 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
My claim is what it has always been which is:
An amateur radio antenna system obeys the conservation
of energy principle and abides by the principles of
superposition (including interference) and the wave
reflection model.

Well who could argue with that.

Well, of course, you do when you argue with me.

Now there is an ego. Anyone arguing with you is
definitely against conservation of energy. Amusing.

For
instance, you believe that reflections can occur when
the reflections see a reflection coefficient of 0.0,
i.e. a source resistance equal to the characteristic
impedance of the transmission line.

You won't find anywhere that I said that. In fact, I
was quite pleased that I had helped you relearn this
tidbit from your early education which previous posts
made clear you had forgotten. Did you eventually look up "reflection",
"lattice" or "bounce diagram"?

This obviously
flies in the face of the wave reflection model. When
you cannot balance the energy equations, you are
arguing with the conservation of energy principle.

But I notice that you have not yet indicated which
energy equation I may have written that was unbalanced.
You do have a nack with unfounded assertions, don't
you?

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
But I notice that you have not yet indicated which
energy equation I may have written that was unbalanced.

Why should I waste my time finding your conservation of
energy violations?

I repeat: When there exists zero interference, 100%
of the reflected energy is dissipated in the source
resistor. Since you think you provided an example where
that statement is not true, your example violates the
conservation of energy principle.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com