On Mar 26, 9:51*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
In other posts, you have suggested that this would be
a constructive interference energy and that there would
be an equal destructive interference energy to provide
it. If you still claim this, where is this destructive
interference happening?

I have said a source can match any destructive interference
by supplying less power and match any constructive interference
by supplying more power. If you have to falsify what I have
said to try to win the argument, you have already lost.
Since you have ample sources available in your example, my
assertion about interference far removed from any source
doesn't apply - but you know that.

I had not realized that you had these alternate sources for
the interference energies, not having seen that in your papers.

But it is one way to sidestep the issue; different rules for
the expectations of superposition and interference in different
scenarios.

I am surprised then, for the example of Fig 1-1 with 12.5 ohms,
that you don't just say "There is a source nearby, that *must*
be where the unaccounted energy comes from", and leave it at
that.

...Keith