Keith Dysart wrote:
There was an 'if' there, wasn't there? Do you think
the 'if' is satisfied? Or not? The rest is useless
without knowing.

Under the laws of physics governing transmission lines
inserting an ideal 1WL line does not change the steady-
state conditions. If you think it does, you have invented
some new laws of physics.

You still have to explain where this destructive energy is stored
for those 90 degrees. Please identify the element and its energy
flow as a function of time.

Your request is beyond the scope of my Part 1 article.
If interference exists at the source resistor, the energy
associated with the interference flows to/from the source
and/or to/from the load. That condition is NOT covered in
my Part 1 article. Please stand by for Part 2 which will
explain destructive interference and Part 3 which will
explain constructive interference.

One advantage of moving the source voltage one wavelength
away from the source resistor is that it is impossible for
the source to respond instantaneously

You have previously claimed that the steady-state conditions
are the same (which I agree),

Glad you agree so there is nothing stopping you from an
analysis of the following example:

source---1WL 50 ohm---Rs---1WL 50 ohm---+j50
Pfor1-- Pfor2--
--Pref1 --Pref2

Make Rs a 4-terminal network and a standard s-parameter
analysis is possible.

but now you have moved to discussing
transients, for which the behaviour is quite different.

Nope, you are confused. I am saying absolutely nothing about
transients. Why do you think an instantaneous power analysis
during steady-state is not possible?

If you want to claim similarity, then you need to allow the
circuit to settle to steady state after any change. Instantaneous
response is not required if the analysis is only steady-state.

Are you saying that an analysis of instantaneous power
does not apply during steady-state? If that is true,
then all of your earlier analysis involving transmission
lines is bogus.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com