.. . . . . "transmission-line" is "improperly terminated" at *both* ends,
that is, "*not* at its surge impedance", then "anything" "sloshing" "to and
fro" inside the "transmission-line" will be affected by whatever
"termination" "anything" "sees".

Is that a good-enough working hallucination?

73, Dave, N3HE

David J Windisch wrote:
. . . . . "transmission-line" is "improperly terminated" at *both* ends,
that is, "*not* at its surge impedance", then "anything" "sloshing" "to and
fro" inside the "transmission-line" will be affected by whatever
"termination" "anything" "sees".

Is that a good-enough working hallucination?

73, Dave, N3HE

Good enough for what?

Simplified concepts are sometimes good enough for simplified purposes.
But all too often, people try to extend them to phenomena which are
beyond the range of the simplified concept's validity. So you end up
coming to conclusions which are absurd at best and subtly wrong at
worst. (I say absurd at best because hopefully they'll at least be
obviously wrong, while the errors in subtly wrong conclusions are not so
apparent.)

But if I'm properly interpreting your quotation marks as meaning that
the enclosed terms are vague or poorly defined or that you don't have a
complete grasp of their meaning, your working concept includes at least
nine terms which are in this category. As such, I doubt that it's a good
working "hallucination" for any use.

The language of science and engineering is mathematics. Without the
ability to use mathematics to describe physical and electrical
phenomena, any "working" explanation will fail at some point. The
problem is that it's often not apparent just where this point is.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL