Roger Sparks wrote:
I offered the examples of two real sources that will absorb
power when the returning voltage exceeds the output voltage
(a battery and a generator turned into a motor). I think that
we must allow our voltage source to have that same real property.

A battery converts electrical energy to chemical energy, i.e.
it transforms the electrical energy. A motor converts electrical
energy into physical work, i.e. it transforms the electrical
energy. An ideal source does not dissipate power and there is
no mechanism for storing energy. It seems what you are objecting
to is the artificial separation of Vs and Rs.

I do understand that when we allow the source to receive
power, then we need to address source impedance.

The series source impedance is zero. It acts like a short
circuit to reflections, i.e. there are no reflections.
However, there seem to be 100% reflection from the GND on
the other side of the source.

Does the idea of source receiving power run counter to what
you were planning to write in Parts 2 and 3?

The source will be shown to adjust its output until an
energy balance is achieved. It will throttle back when
destructive interference occurs at the source resistor
and will gear up when constructive interference requires
more energy.

I am trying to
understand why you have such great reluctance to accept that
the source could receive power for part of a cycle, especially
when it could easily bring the instantaneous power and energy
calculations into balance.

There is no known mechanism that would allow an ideal
source to dissipate or store energy. Consider that the
energy you see flowing back into the source is reflected
back through the source by the ground on the other side
and becomes part of the forward wave out of the source.
That would satisfy the distributed network model and
explain why interference exists in the source.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com