W5DXP wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:
These waves never propagate.

Of course not and I NEVER said they did. That's just another strawman
of yours. The wavefronts originate in and are canceled in a 'dt' of
time.

The same 'dt' of time. The waves would cancel for any t and any x.
What a ridiculous argument to be having.

Cancellation can occur between zero waves?

No. Zero waves occur because of cancellation.

The energy in the waves CANNOT be destroyed.

Zero waves=zero energy.

Zero waves
occur in one direction.

That's what I just got done saying and you called it "bafflegab" or some
such thing.

The energy in the canceled waves flows in the
opposite direction.

The energy definitely flows in the opposite direction - from source to
load. You keep claiming it's flowing toward the source. That's what the
argument is about. Remember?


The waves which impinge upon the boundary certainly exist. But V3 and
V4 do not exist because their existance is prevented.

Without their existence, wave cancellation is impossible.

They don't exist, and there's nothing besides cancellation to explain
their absence.

Yet you have
agreed that wave cancellation exists. Which is it? Does wave cancellation
exist? If yes, then V3 and V4 exist.

Wave cancellation exists, and as a result V3 and V4 do not. Very
simple.

(Your spelling of "existance" sic, is
driving me crazy. Please correct it.)

Short drive, methinks.

What you are missing is that your solution is only for one direction.

There is only one solution to that equation - and it is for one
direction only. The forward moving energy is expressed by a different
equation, obviously with a different solution.

The other direction contains the reflected energy as proven by a Bird
directional wattmeter.

Yes, the wattmeter says 133.33 in one direction and 33.33 in the other
direction.


Are you claiming that a wave
in a transmission line can move in more than one direction at a time?

No, I am claiming that the energy in waves can reverse direction in
a 'dt' of time. Do you disagree?

A wave going in a different direction is kind of a different wave, to my
way of thinking. Maybe you could ask your dog what he thinks about
that, and let us know.

The conservation of energy
principle says that energy in equals energy out minus losses.

Bafflegab!

So are you saying that energy is not conserved when energy in equals
energy out, minus losses? Or are you saying that energy is conserved
when energy in does not equal energy out, minus losses?

Does your boss know that your are teaching bafflegab?

Actually, he says that I'm conversing with a nutcase.