Yes, Magid explains it thoroughly and well. His analysis includes
traveling waves from the beginning to the end. It's basically the same
analysis I've done myself.

What he *didn't* do was to throw the time-dependent information out the
window at the very beginning of the analysis, as you've done in all your
analyses involving only average power. That allows him to actually show
where the energy is at every instant of time. It looks to me like his
analysis is valid, so if your method leads to a different conclusion, I
feel there's good reason to doubt its validity.

Y'know, if every author seems to have it wrong, considering how many
really, really intelligent and learned people there are out there, and
how many times their work has been carefully reviewed, have you
considered for just a moment the possibility that maybe, just maybe,
they have it right and you have it wrong? But if you're absolutely
convinced you've discovered something that all those other folks are
mistaken about, why not write your own textbook? Or at least a paper or
two for the professional publications. The world will thank you for
straightening them out.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

W5DXP wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

You've now heard of Magid, ...


Unfortunately, every author and guru that I have ever encountered,
at some point, confuses cause and effect. I'm sorry I can't get over
to the Texas A&M library right now but Magid seems to believe that
standing waves can be sustained without a forward wave and a reflected
wave. Does he explain how that is possible? In all honesty, it is an easy
mistake to make. Even Ramo, Whinnery, and Van Duzer make the same
mistake. Not exactly a quote but: The reflection coefficient is caused
by the ratio of the reflected power to the forward power. Therefore,
the ratio of the reflected power to the forward power is caused by
the reflection coefficient. "Logic" like this seems to abound in
the field of transmission lines.