On Mar 31, 8:04*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
You state that your hypothesis is that for this specific
circuit, "the energy in the reflected wave is dissipated in
the source resistor".

First, let's correct your out-of-context quotation.
Here is what you should have quoted: "When zero
interference exists at the source resistor, the
energy in the reflected wave is dissipated in the
source resistor."

This is actually a fact for both average powers
and instantaneous powers. Since all of your examples
are associated with a non-zero level of interference,
they are irrelevant to the stated conditions.

Since my example is *your* example (q.v. your Fig 1-1), your
example has non-zero interference (as you state above), so
you have just said that your example violates the stated
conditions.

Or are you going to say that the circuit exhibits interference
when an instantaneous analysis is performed, but knows that
it should refrain from doing so when only an average analysis
is done?

Here is a quote from that article:
"Please note that any power referred to in this paper is an AVERAGE
POWER. Instantaneous power is irrelevant to the following discussion."
The word "average" is implied in every statement I make.

Yes, "implied" is the word. Why not clearly state that, while the
average energy appears to be dissipated in the source resistor, the
actual energy is not.

Or *is* the intent to deceive?

This claim is amenable to analysis
using instantaneous energy flows. When so analyzed, the
hypothesis fails.

No, it doesn't fail. You have simply failed to satisfy
the zero interference precondition.

If the precondition fails for the circuit, then it fails for
the circuit.

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.

That is, in fact, the only hypothesis presented in
my Part 1 article. Since my hypothesis never applied
to instantaneous power, I don't have to narrow the
hypothesis. My article stands as written. Please
cease and desist with the unfair innuendo.

You insist that the narrowing is "implied", but then
refuse to explicitly state such to make it clear to
the reader. Why?

Not a waste at all.

Obviously, your opinion differs from mine. To the best
of my knowledge, you are the first person to spend any
mental effort on instantaneous power. If that's what
you want to do, be my guest. I consider it to be little
more than mental masturbation, "of limited utility" as
Hecht said.

Yes. It does not support your hypothesis, so it is wise
to ignore it.

In fact, I proved my assertion was true even at the
instantaneous power level when the "zero interference"
precondition is met.

Ah, yes. X**2 + Y**2 = (X+Y)**2 only when X or Y equals 0,
which for the example at hand applies at exactly 4 instances
per cycle.

The rest of the time the circuit exhibits interference.

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

Since you are incapable of producing an EM wave devoid
of energy (or an angel dancing on the head of a pin) both
concepts are unrelated to reality IMO.

Your challenge is the same as it has always been. Just
produce an EM wave containing zero energy and get it
over with.

Tis a problem isn't it. You won't let go of energy in the
reflected wave long enough to even explore the circuit to
discover the inconsistencies that result from the belief.

You can not find a reason why instantaneous analysis should
not work, but the conclusions are uncomfortable, so you
decide that Hecht has told you not to bother, and you stop.
Without knowing why.

...Keith