On Mar 30, 8:28*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, average power is
insufficient to account for energy which might be in
the reflected wave. An average power analysis agrees
with your hypothesis, while a more detailed instaneous
analysis disproves it.

One more time: My hypothesis doesn't apply to instantaneous
powers at all so there is nothing to disprove. Please
leave me out of any discussion of instantaneous powers.

You state that your hypothesis is that for this specific
circuit, "the energy in the reflected wave is dissipated in
the source resistor". This claim is amenable to analysis
using instantaneous energy flows. When so analyzed, the
hypothesis fails.

I can see why you want to limit the kinds of analysis
applied to your hypothesis, but that is not how science
works.

If you wish to narrow your hypothesis to "the average energy
in the reflected wave is simply numerically equal to the
increase in the average dissipation in the source
resistor" I will not object since that hypothesis would
be completely accurate and not misleading.

As long as you wish to claim that there is actual energy
in the reflected wave, and that this energy is dissipated
in the source resistor, you must be prepared to offer a
full accounting.

If it was just a 'suspicion' you could probably let
go of the idea long enough to learn what is really
happening and why it is not inconsistent with the
idea that reflected wave energy is a dubious concept.

One look in a mirror should convince you otherwise.

You *have* found it hard to the do the math;

Nope, I just think that instantaneous power math is a
waste of my time. Seems to also be a waste of your
time.

Not at all. I've learned a new (at least to me) technique
for analyzing where the energy goes. I've increased my skills
with complex numbers in Excel. I have a firmer grasp about
power computations. I've explored the tautology of
Ptotal = Pforward - Preflected. I've learned a bit about
macros in Excel. I've tried Calc and found it wanting.
I've looked at energy flows in circulators. I've explored
active and passive circulators. And I've proved your
hypothesis to be false.

Not a waste at all.

Your explanation is not complete until you can identify
the element that stores and returns the energy and its
energy transfer function.

I simply don't have anything at all to say about
instantaneous powers. In my opinion, such is
a waste of my time.

A higly convenient opinion since it allows you to continue
to believe your hypothesis.

You might as well be demanding
that I produce the math for how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin.

No. Instantaneous flows *can* be computed. Angels on a pin
are a little more problematic.

Energy can not be destroyed.

Yet, you are trying your best to destroy the energy
in the reflected wave.

Since you start with an unshakeable belief in the
existance of energy in the reflected wave, this would be
your natural conclusion.

Those of us whose beliefs are not so fixed, evaluate
the proofs and come to the conclusion that energy in
the reflected wave is a dubious concept.

Since you cannot destroy
reflected energy at the average power level, you
are trying to destroy it at the instantaneous
level.

"Average" is just a data reduction from "instantaneous".
An agreement of averages is not a proof of anything
except that the "averages are numerically equal".

...Keith