Keith Dysart wrote:
And averages can not change instantly.

Now there is an assertion that should make you
famous. :-)

I have just had an operation on my eyes. My
prescription will be changing for a couple
of weeks and until then, I will be without
glasses. I have my newsreader characters set
to about 1/2 inch in height so I can see them.
I will be quite handicapped for a couple of
weeks.

This does not satisfy conservation
of energy, which should be sufficient to kill the
hypothesis.

What hypothesis? The scope of my hypothesis is
limited to average power. You have not presented even
one example where my average power hypothesis is
incorrect. I have no hypothesis about instantaneous
power. Any failed hypothesis about instantaneous
power must have been presented by someone else -
it sure wasn't presented by me. I say my GMC
pickup is white. You say it is not white because
the tires are black. Your diversionary argument
is obviously a straw man because you cannot win
the main argument.

Instantaneous power, as Hecht says, is "of limited
utility". IMO, it is irrelevant and certainly far
beyond the scope of my Part 1 article. Please feel
free to write your own article and publish it. Such
an article would, IMO, be a waste of time.

To recap, it is when a total flow is
broken into multiple non-zero constituent flows
that energy flow imputed to the constituents
is a dubious concept.

Since you have not offered a single average power
example that disagrees with my average power
hypothesis, I guess we will just have to agree to
disagree about that.

You have completely ignored the fact that instantaneous
destructive interference energy is stored for part of
the cycle and then released back into the network as
constructive interference energy 90 degrees later.

I will save your posting and digest it better when
I get my eyesight back along with new glasses.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com