It is well known that there are two usual methods in impedance matching: if we have a network consisting of a source with impedance \$Z_S\$ and load with impedance \$Z_L\$ then we have two options to match the the source to the load:

1. If we want to minimize the power loss, then we do maximum power transfer. This requires the condition \$Z_S= Z^*_L\$

2. If we want to minimize the wave reflection from the load we should realize the condition \$Z_S= Z_L\$

Question: I'm confused since my intuition leaves me here in the stick. Doesn't the reflected waves contribute to the amount of power loss? What is precisely the difference between two effects? Can the difference between them be demonstrated on a prefereably as simple as possible analogy?

Seemingly here fails the standard analogy for absorbed and reflected signals/waves given by sea waves and sandy beach. There, the energy transfered by the waves can be only absorbed by the sandy ground or reflected - we obtain reflected waves. There are no other ways the system can lose the energy. So in this simple analogy the non absorbed energy is exactly the reflected energy.

This analogy seemingy can be used to explain the case when we dealing with network having only resistant components. Then there is to reactance that condition 1 is equivalent to condition 2). Lost power= power reflected by the load

What about the case when our network has nonzero reactance components. Obviously 1) and 2) are not the same as the mathematical conditions tell us. I would like to understand this difference more intuitively. Is there a way to visualize the difference of 1) and 2) on an understandable analogy?

It is well known that there are two usual methods in impedance matching: if we have a network consisting of a source with impedance \$Z_S\$ and load with impedance \$Z_L\$ then we have two options to match the the source to the load:

1. If we want to minimize the power loss, then we do maximum power transfer. This requires the condition \$Z_S= Z^*_L\$

2. If we want to minimize the wave reflection from the load we should realize the condition \$Z_S= Z_L\$

Question: I'm confused since my intuition leaves me here in the stick. Doesn't the reflected waves contribute to the amount of power loss? What is precisely the difference between two effects? Can the difference between them be demonstrated on a prefereably as simple as possible analogy?

Seemingly here fails the standard analogy for absorbed and reflected signals/waves given by sea waves and sandy beach. There, the energy transfered by the waves can be only absorbed by the sandy ground or reflected - we obtain reflected waves. There are no other ways the system can lose the energy. So in this simple analogy the non absorbed energy is exactly the reflected energy.

This analogy seemingy can be used to explain the case when we are dealing with network having only resistant components. Then there is to reactance that condition 1 is equivalent to condition 2). Lost power= power reflected by the load

What about the case when our network has nonzero reactance components. Obviously 1) and 2) are not the same as the mathematical conditions tell us. I would like to understand this difference more intuitively. Is there a way to visualize the difference of 1) and 2) on an understandable analogy?

It is well known that there are two usual methods in impedance matching: if we have a network consisting of a source with impedance $Z_S$ and load with impedance $Z_L$ then we have two options to match the the source to the load:

1. If we want to minimize the power loss, then we do maximum power transfer. This requires the condition $Z_S= Z^*_L$

2. If we want to minimize the wave reflection from the load we should realize the condition $Z_S= Z_L$

Question: I'm confused since my intuition leaves me here in the stick. Doesn't the reflected waves contribute to the amount of power loss? What is precisely the difference between two effects? Can the difference between them be demonstrated on a prefereably as simple as possible analogy?

Seemingly here fails the standard analogy for absorbed and reflected signals/waves given by sea waves and sandy beach. There, the energy transfered by the waves can be only absorbed by the sandy ground or reflected - we obtain reflected waves. There are no other ways the system can lose the energy. So in this simple analogy the non absorbed energy is exactly the reflected energy.

This analogy seemingy can be used to explain the case when we dealing with network having only resistant components. Then there is to reactance that condition 1 is equivalent to condition 2). Lost power= power reflected by the load

What about the case when our network has nonzero reactance components. Obviously 1) and 2) are not the same as the mathematical conditions tell us. I would like to understand this difference more intuitively. Is there a way to visualize the difference of 1) and 2) on an understandable analogy?

It is well known that there are two usual methods in impedance matching: if we have a network consisting of a source with impedance \$Z_S\$ and load with impedance \$Z_L\$ then we have two options to match the the source to the load:

1. If we want to minimize the power loss, then we do maximum power transfer. This requires the condition \$Z_S= Z^*_L\$

2. If we want to minimize the wave reflection from the load we should realize the condition \$Z_S= Z_L\$

Question: I'm confused since my intuition leaves me here in the stick. Doesn't the reflected waves contribute to the amount of power loss? What is precisely the difference between two effects? Can the difference between them be demonstrated on a prefereably as simple as possible analogy?

Seemingly here fails the standard analogy for absorbed and reflected signals/waves given by sea waves and sandy beach. There, the energy transfered by the waves can be only absorbed by the sandy ground or reflected - we obtain reflected waves. There are no other ways the system can lose the energy. So in this simple analogy the non absorbed energy is exactly the reflected energy.

This analogy seemingy can be used to explain the case when we dealing with network having only resistant components. Then there is to reactance that condition 1 is equivalent to condition 2). Lost power= power reflected by the load

What about the case when our network has nonzero reactance components. Obviously 1) and 2) are not the same as the mathematical conditions tell us. I would like to understand this difference more intuitively. Is there a way to visualize the difference of 1) and 2) on an understandable analogy?