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