I've explained how I calculated how much energy is stored in the
transmission line. The movement of energy within the line is complex; in
the abbreviated analysis I've had time to do so far, it sloshes back and
forth in regions within the line. It does not travel in waves of average
power, bouncing back and forth, and believing so isn't necessary in
order comply with energy conservation. Your view of power and energy is
oversimplified, and it fails when you're pressed to explain what happens
at the interface between the line and the outside world.

Momentum is conserved in mechanical elastic collisions, but not in
inelastic ones, e.g., when energy is being extracted. I wouldn't begin
to try to apply this to a transmission line, but I see it doesn't bother
you. I understand and believe the fundamental principles of physics and
thermodynamics -- I'm just careful not to misapply them.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Cecil Moore wrote:
Roy Lewallen wrote:

Please tell me which of the numbers I posted disagree with yours, and
which numbers you got. Once again, mine a


It's not your numbers, Roy, it's your premises that violate
the conservation of momentum principle among other principles
of physics. RF waves possesss momentum and that momentum MUST
be preserved. Your premises simply violate the conservation
of momentum principle. When you assert that the reflected
waves possess no energy and it is stored in some magic place
at sub-light speeds, you are in violation of the principles
of physics.

You can resolve all of this by telling us where the energy
is stored, besides in reflected waves, when we are dealing with
light in free space and no transmission line because exactly
the same thing happens with EM light waves as happens with
EM RF waves.