Keith Dysart wrote:
For the example under discussion, the signals start with
'constructive interference'.

If the source is local and capable of supplying energy,
all is well and good as I have said many times before.
But constructive interference in the absence of any
source of energy is impossible.

That is exactly why you need to perform your calculations
with the source removed from the source resistor by one
wavelength of ideal 50 ohm transmission line. If you come
up with a violation of the conservation of energy principle,
something is wrong with your math.

If two coherent signals need constructive interference and
energy is not available, the two signals react as if they
were not coherent, i.e. Ptot = P1 + P2. Physics 201.

Exactly. This is the problem with your model. The extra
energy (i.e. the energy greater than that in the sum of
the spectral components) is present, but your model does
not have somewhere for this energy to come from.

Yes it does - as I have explained about 5 times now. If a
*local source* is present, constructive interference energy
can and often does come from the source. Why do you find
that fact so hard to comprehend? Sources supply energy -
that's what sources do. An ideal local source can react
instantaneously to any energy requirement.

There are no new laws of physics.

On the contrary - there are no existing laws of physics
that allow EM waves to bounce off each other yet that's
what you are proposing. You are inventing new laws of
physics to support your (magical) thinking. So please
produce the theory and proof that EM waves can bounce
off of each other.

That was someone elses suggestion, not mine.

Copout alert! How can *your* reflections at a passive
node occur without EM waves reflecting off of other EM
waves?

These are a duality. You use one
or the other, but not bits from each at the same time.

Keith, you have been willy-nilly mixing bits of the
distributed network model with bits of the lumped circuit
model ensuring that your energy equations will not balance.
You are the absolute worst offender of your own advice.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com