Cecil,

Who said anything about distinguishing net waves or component waves? I
was talking about a complete solution.

If you read what I wrote you will note that I said any purported waves
traveling in the reverse direction have zero amplitude. In other words
they do not exist.

If you choose to create any number of fictitious components that all
cancel, go right ahead. No professional does it that way.

You appear to misunderstand that it is essentially impossible to do
anything with all of your interfering component waves except wave your
hands and flap your gums about them. If you really want to get
quantitative answers then it is conventional to use ordinary
electromagnetic theory starting with Maxwell's equations. No fictitious
canceling component waves are needed as input, nor do they arise as
output from a correct analytical treatment.

Really, this is standard textbook stuff. If you would like exact
references by title and page I will be happy to provide them.


73,
Gene
W4SZ

Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:

I don't have to "prove" anything. Just set up the standard wave
equations with the standard boundary conditions and the problem
practically solves itself. The non-zero remaining waves are all moving
in the same direction. I forgot to ask them if they realize that Cecil
doesn't approve of such behavior.


You should have warned us that you were talking about NET waves and
NET energy transfer. I'm not discussing that at all. I am talking about
component waves and component energy transfer without which standing
waves cannot exist. Or maybe you can offer an example of standing waves
in the absence of at least two waves traveling in opposite directions.
If you can do that, I will admit defeat.

I suppose this is an prime example of being seduced by "math models",
but I believe that is a lesser fault than being seduced by Cecil's
imaginary models.


It is indeed an example of being seduced by the NET math model. Please
transfer over to the component math model and rejoin the discussion.
Lots of interesting things are happening below the threshold of the
NET math model. The NET math model doesn't explain anything except
the NET results. If your bank account balance doesn't change from one
month to another, do you also assume that you have written no checks
and have no income for that month? Literally speaking, please get real!