Richard Clark wrote:

Hi Jim,

This is what I mean by no argument being put forth to dispute what has
been offered. In fact every computation offered flows from the math
offered by ANY academic text. I even name the math used, and then use
it. In fact, I have lead the way by offering every cogent formula
needed to discuss this matter.

Well, to be blunt I believe you may perhaps be overestimating the
significance of your contributions on this subject, Richard.

I see no dispute in the assignment of indices of reflection. I see no
dispute in the computation of reflections. I see no dispute in the
balance of energy at each interface. And I am speaking of
quantitative results, not presumptions.

I've seen dispute of your numbers. Cecil had them right. Cecil is very
good at getting the numbers right. I even agree with the solutions to
his irradiance equations. He and I disagree only on certain details of
the physical mechanism (though he seems to want to disagree with just
about anything I have to say).

But if by all that you mean to say that it's not possible to make a
perfect anything, then I think that ordinarily goes without saying.
There is no such thing as a lossless medium.


This is a non-sequitur injected for no apparent reason. Why so?

Start with a presumption that it is not a non sequitur and see where
that leads. I've reassembled my original statement above for your review.

I think you can assume that's about the degree of
accuracy we're using for most of our discussions.


For "Total cancellation?" If you accept that, you've spent four
years arguing for... what have you been arguing about? Have you
allowed this slack you accept in our behalf for your own positions?

The relevance of the "non sequitur" stated above thereby makes itself
apparent. There are several reasons why it is difficult to achieve
total cancellation of reflected light at an optical surface. First -
the obvious one. A quarter wave layer is only a quarter wavelength
thick at one wavelength. Second - dielectric films can be lossy. Third
- anti-reflection is only 100% effective at normal incidence. Fourth -
it's next to impossible to make a film that has a refractive index which
is the perfect geometric mean of the indices of the media at its
boundaries.

A thorough treatment of all the reflections at both boundaries, whereby
all in-phase reflections in a given direction are summed, provides that
absent the imperfections described above, total cancellation is indeed a
fact. Another fact is that it's much easier to accomplish in a
transmission line with monochromatic RF at HF.

However, I am used to the "debate" that proceeds along these lines
where "Totality" has been proven, accepted and it leads to nonsensical
theories like waves reflecting waves.

If I were to characterize most of the discussion I've had here, I would
say most of it has been spent addressing misunderstandings related to
the fundamental behavior of nature.

73, Jim AC6XG