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