On Mar 27, 11:37 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
I had not realized that you had these alternate sources for
the interference energies, not having seen that in your papers.

I only posted it three times here and you chose to
ignore all of those postings. I have published only
one paper with three more to go. The special case
Part 1 contains zero average interference so there
is no alternate source for average interference and
indeed, none is needed for Part 1.

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

That's why I have four parts only one of which has
been published. The rules are not different but the
conditions within the examples are different. Part 2
will be an example with the condition of average
destructive interference existing at the source
resistor. Although there are no ordinary reflections
because the reflection coefficient is 0.0, there will
exist something that looks a lot like a reflection
caused by superposition/interference. The FSU web page
calls it a "redistribution", not a "reflection".
I am satisfied with FSU's word "redistribution" for
the results of coherent wave interaction.

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.

Since my special case example contains zero average
interference, the average power output of the source
is constant and unaffected by zero interference.
There is zero average energy unaccounted for.

Part 2 will illustrate the source adjusting its power
output to compensate for destructive interference.

Perhaps you should complete part one so that it fully
accounts for the energy flows before progressing to
writing part two. Average is not a full accounting.

....Keith