I have consolidated three replies below...

On Mar 20, 12:29*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
I then restated your claim as applying only at those particular
times and not at other points in the cycle, but you were
unhappy with that limitation.

There are no limitations. If zero interference exists,
then 100% of the reflected energy is dissipated in
the source resistor.

Sentence one says "no limitations". Sentence two specifies a
limitation. But your paper did provide that limitation and
indicated that circuit (Fig 1-1) with a 45 degree line was
an example which satisfied that limitation.

But in subsequent discussion you have waffled about whether,
for the circuit in Fig 1-1, "100% of the reflected energy is
dissipated in the source resistor" is applicable for all
time or only for those instances when the source voltage is
equal to 0.

Could you clarify whether your claim for the circuit of
Fig 1-1 applies to all time, or just to those instances
when the source voltage is 0.

On Mar 20, 12:34 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
If you wish to have your equalities apply at only selected
points within the cycle, that works for me.

Not only at selected points within the cycle but
also for average values. If zero average interference
exists then 100% of the average reflected energy is
dissipated in the source resistor which is the subject
of my Part 1 article. If the instantaneous interference
is zero, 100% of the instantaneous reflected power is
dissipated in the source resistor.

Perhaps this has clarified. So you are only claiming that
reflected energy is dissipated in the source resistor at
those instances when the source voltage is zero. Good.

Now as to averages: Averaging is a mathematical operation
applied to the signal which reduces information. I do agree
that the increase in the average dissipation in the source
resistor is numerically equal to the average value of the
reflected power. But this is just numerical equivalency.
It does not prove that the energy in the reflected wave
is dissipated in the source resistor. To prove the latter,
one must show that the energy in the reflected wave, on
an instance by instance basis is dissipated in the source
resistor because conservation of energy applies at the
instantaneous level.

And I have shown in an evaluation of the instantaneous
energy flows that the energy dissipated in the source
resistor is not the energy from the reflected wave.

I repeat: When zero interference exists, 100% of the
reflected energy is dissipated in the source resistor.

But only at those instances where the source voltage is
zero.

On Mar 20, 12:50 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
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?

Mostly to prove that my analysis has an error.

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.

But if there is no error in my analysis (and you have not
found one), then perhaps you should examine whether the
clause "When there exists zero interference, 100% of the
reflected energy is dissipated in the source resistor"
is in error. Sometimes one has to re-examine one's deeply
held beliefs in the light of new evidence. It is the only
rational thing to do.

...Keith