Walter Maxwell wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
"How" is not explained in any of the physics references.

Cecil, I explained the 'how', both in Reflections and in QEX.

Yes, I know you did, Walt. By "physics references" above, I meant
books like college physics textbooks, e.g. _Optics_, by Hecht.

What is really perplexing to me is that several posters on this subject said
that Steve's 3-parter is the best and most illuminating article they ever read
on the subject. How can they have missed some of the most egregious errors
appearing in that paper is unbelievable!

Not recognizing his power equations as classical EM physics interference
terms was a pretty huge mistake in Part 3. But alleged gurus on this
newsgroup have done the same thing. Apparently, power is simply ignored
in present-day transmission line theory.

Cecil, if s11(a1) is equal in magnitude but in opposite phase with s12(a2) this
constitutes a short circuit.

I agree it constitutes a "short circuit" for superposed rearward-
traveling voltages. But exactly the same thing happens to the current
as happens to the voltage. And an "open circuit" is what causes the
rearward-traveling currents to superpose to zero.

The two rearward-traveling superposing voltages might be:
(100v at zero degrees) superposed with (100v at 180 degrees)
The superposed sum of the two rearward-traveling voltages is zero.
This indeed acts like a short where voltages go to zero.

The two corresponding rearward-traveling superposing currents might be:
(2a at 180 degrees) superposed with (2a at zero degrees)
The superposed sum of the two rearward-traveling currents is zero.
This acts like an open where currents go to zero.

Or if you prefer, both the E-fields and the H-fields cancel to
zero when complete destructive interference occurs. In a transmission
line, it causes a surge of constructive interference energy in the
opposite direction, something you have called "re-reflection from a
virtual short".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp