On Mar 31, 8:43*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
But the meaning of the disclaimer is not clear to the
reader. You really need to restate your hypothesis to
remove the possibility of misleading the reader.

What is it about "Please note that any power referred to
in this paper is an AVERAGE POWER. Instantaneous power
is irrelevant to the following discussion." that you
do not understand?

After many posts and back and forth, I understand. But the
poor first reader will miss the implications: that the
imputed energy in the reflected wave is not dissipated
in the source resistor.

Why not save the reader the challenge and just state it
clearly?

I would suggest ...

I would suggest that you write your own article.
Mine stands as written in the *stated context*
of zero interference and average powers. I am
not interested in attempting a unified theory
of everything.

Except that you have now indicated that there is
interference in the circuit of Fig 1-1.

I personally don't think
that anyone else cares about instantaneous powers.

I am sure some do not. But anyone interested in a full
understanding does.

Anyone interested in a *full* understanding would
take the discussion down to the quantum level which,
interestingly enough, you have chosen to ignore.

Yes. I have stopped at the level that disproves that the
imputed energy in the reflected wave is dissipated in
the source resistor. That is sufficient for me.

I do not think that deeper analysis will show this to
be wrong, but you are invited to do so.

On the other hand, average analysis can be shown to
produce misleading results by applying instantaneous
analysis. You should be interested because it disproves
that the imputed energy in the reflected wave is
dissipated in the source resistor.

It is convenient when you just ignore the analysis
that disproves your hypothesis. But it does not make
the hypothesis more correct.

If you think your unethical innuendo, out-of-context
quotes, and straw man arguments disprove anything,
I feel sorry for you.

Once again, the context of my Part 1 assertions is
*ZERO INTERFERENCE* and *AVERAGE POWERS*. You have
disproved nothing so far. You were even taken aback
when it was true at the instantaneous level in the
context of zero instantaneous interference.

I was? If so, I have now moved beyond. Especially since
you now assert that the circuit does exhibit interference,
the hypothesis becomes moot.

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
After many posts and back and forth, I understand.

Do you understand that you need to go out and buy
some ethics?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Keith Dysart wrote:
After many posts and back and forth, I understand. But the
poor first reader will miss the implications: that the
imputed energy in the reflected wave is not dissipated
in the source resistor.

You have yet to provide an example of zero interference
where the reflected power is not dissipated in the source
resistor. Until you do that, you are just waving your hands.

Examples containing interference will be covered in Parts
2 & 3 but the poor first reader will not get to read them
until you cease your present unethical behavior.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Apr 1, 12:39*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Keith Dysart wrote:
After many posts and back and forth, I understand. But the
poor first reader will miss the implications: that the
imputed energy in the reflected wave is not dissipated
in the source resistor.

You have yet to provide an example of zero interference
where the reflected power is not dissipated in the source
resistor. Until you do that, you are just waving your hands.

You misunderstand. I am not attempting to do that. Though
somewhat bizzarre, I have, for the purposes of this
discussion, accepted your definition of interference.

And using your definition, that there is no interference
when (V1**2 + V2**2) = (V1+V2)**2, it can be seen that
for the circuit at hand, your Fig 1-1, there is zero
interference in the terms you wish to add, four times
in each cycle. From this one might conclude that the
imputed reflected power is dissipated in the source
resistor at four instances during the cycle. For the
remainder of the cycle, again using your definition of
interference, there is interference and hence the
imputed reflected power is not all dissipated in the
source resistor.

Thus any unqualified assertion that the imputed reflected
power is dissipated in the source resistor is somewhat
disingenuous.

Examples containing interference will be covered in Parts
2 & 3 but the poor first reader will not get to read them
until you cease your present unethical behavior.

But you have been claiming that the circuit of Part 1 already
exhibits interference.

...Keith

Keith Dysart wrote:
And using your definition, that there is no interference
when (V1**2 + V2**2) = (V1+V2)**2, it can be seen that
for the circuit at hand, your Fig 1-1, there is zero
interference in the terms you wish to add, four times
in each cycle.

Correction for omitted word above: And using my
definition, that there is no *average* interference
when (V1**2 + V2**2) = (V1+V2)**2,"
Those are average (RMS) values of voltage.

The test for zero *instantaneous* interference is:
[V1(t)^2 + V2(t)^2] NOT= [V1(t)^2+V2(t)^2]
Those are instantaneous values of voltage.

Please correct your confusion about what I have said.
It is also clear that you don't understand when
interference exists and when it doesn't.

The instantaneous destructive interference equals
the instantaneous constructive interference 90
degrees later. That's why the interference averages
out to zero.

I believe, although I have not taken the time to
prove it, that the instantaneous interference is
zero only at the zero-crossings of the source
voltage and reflected voltage.

Again, the existence and magnitude of the
instantaneous interference is irrelevant to
the assertions in my Part 1 article. It is
obvious that the interference averages out
to zero over each cycle for the example
presented.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com